Fox News airs suicide

I'm trying to avoid becoming mired in this conversation for no other reason than it is diverting attention from the purpose of the thread. With no disrespect intended, I do not see how your work observing the police and criminals relates to the issue of a) the decision to follow this story; and b) the varied perceptions of Fox News and other media outlets.

I would also point out that at no point have I given equal credence to both a truth and an opposition lie. My point was, and remains, that if you, I or anybody else is to have a meaningful discussion on a site such as this then it cannot be done through the prism of preconceived ideas regarding Fox News or any other media organisation. Equally, that discussion cannot take place if a statement is made that offers no justification or explanation to those reading it (which is what you comment did). If anything (and again, there is no disrespect intended) in making a statement in the way that you did - with no explanation or justification - you unintentionally did what you said and/or say Fox News does: that is make assertions or statements that have little or no bearing on reality or have not been explained or justified. If we can't avoid falling into that very same trap then a discussion of whether or not it was right to broadcast the car chase is irrelevant.

Threads will go where they will. 14 years of contributing to various different forums and email lists on various subjects hvae taught me that.

As for your questions, a) no relation at all. b) Those who have spent years covering politics and trying to do it objectively, end up giving equal weight and credence to one side's lies and propoganda, and to the truth of the matter coming from the other side. That same kind of false equivalency is often applied by people, much like you did, to FOX News by saying that MSNBC is exactly the same from the other side, when in fact MSNBC does not routinely lie to it's viewers multiple times a day, which FOX News does. My time dealing with the police and criminals on a regular basis, on the criminal side, it was mostly shoplifters, led me to realise that giving equal credence to both sides, when one side is telling the truth, and the other side is lying to protect their own interests, is not good for the political system, nor is it good for any other system. FOX News often gives more credence to the lie than to the truth.



Again, why should the truth, require any justification? Why should facts require any justificiation? Opinions need justification, facts and the truth should not.



Have you actually been paying any attention to what I've actually said? I did not say that FOX News make assertions or statements that have little or no bearing on reality or have not been explained or justified. I said that FOX News lies multiuple times a day. Some of the lies are very subtle, some are pretty blatant.

It is possible to make a statement or raise a question that has little bearing, explanation or justification, if it becomes the starting point for a good, accurate story, or a discussion of differing opinions. Blatantly or not so blatantly lying to your audience is a whole other level altogether.

The reason I highlight this kind of thing, in relation to the FOX News coverage of the Arizona Suicide, is this: I find it hugely ironic, that they have gotten a lot more mainstream media stick about this, which was a technical mistake, and yet, they have had very little comeback from stuff like the "Tiller The Baby Killer" drumbeat that they deliberately amplified, and that was an editorial decision, which ended up with Dr George Tiller being killed by a right wing nut, In my view, the whole thing is backwards.

You've missed the point completely. This is an example of rampant commercialism going very wrong, just like phone hacking. Fox will tighten up it's procedures in the same way that News In are sorting themselves up. This is the point where it has to show better common sense and ethics


Rupert Murdoch has very little to do with Fox News, it's very much Roger Aile's empire: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525

Rampant commercialism going very wrong? No, not even close to rampant commercialism going very wrong. On a scale of 0 to 10, this was about a 3. Back when Glenn Beck was on FOX News, he was also employed by a company called Goldline to hawk their products, both in radio advertising and television advertising. Then on both his radio show, and his FOX News show, he criticised the Obama administration's economic policies, and basically advocated regular people to invest in precious metals like Gold. Clear conflict of interest, on the scale of 0 to 10, that was between an 8 and a 9. Yet this will do more damage to FOX News than Glenn Beck??? This was more a technical failure than rampant commercialism going wrong.



Roger Ailes is the man who has day to day control, but Rupert Murdoch is still very much steering the ship. Roger Ailes built it, basically because Rupert Murdoch wanted him to, the idea was Murdoch's baby from the get go. Murdoch was the Architect, Ailes was the Foreman charged with building it.

If you read that Rolling Stone article Inspector Sands posted it makes clear that Murdoch (who liked Obama, liked Brown, hates Cameron and generally has been shifting somewhat to the left in his later years) tolerates Ailes because he rakes in the cash however is generally of the viewpoint he's a loon.

Not that it matters though because this is possibly the most tediously argued argument ever.