Fox News removed from Sky

Here's why you're way off, with respect.

Equivalency depends on the view of the individual person. You are correct when you say Fox News changed the facts to suit their point of view. So does MSBNC, CNN, BBC, Breitbart, Press TV, RT, and so on.

To someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, the media is wrong to invite someone like Nigel Lawson as an interviewee. To someone who doesn't believe in it, the media is terribly biased against their opinions.

Why do BBC et al refer to North Korea's government as a "regime" or the former government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein but not the Saudi or Myanmar government? "Regime" is the term used when the British government does not trade with or support the ruling party or monarchy.

Every media outlet is biased, has an agenda, and fits the facts to fit. The trick is to expose yourself to as many of these outlets as possible and form your views.

Factually wrong, completely wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

Right wing media as a whole has a very bad habit of completely rewriting the facts to suit their own objectives and agenda. The rest of the media does not rewrite the facts. They may spin them, which is par for the course, but they do not rewrite the facts to suit their own agendas.

Even at their worst, RT and Press TV do not make up material, and change facts to suit their agendas. They simply don't report stuff that doesn't fit. There's a big difference, learn it.



So what? I have often referred to the May and Trump regimes, that's exactly the same basic idea. You are not supporting your point, you're just stating the blindly obvious, and hoping nobody notices that it doesn't actually support what you're saying.



The trick is to learn when you are being sold "London Bridge" and when you are being sold "Tower Bridge".

Even at their worst, RT and Press TV do not make up material, and change facts to suit their agendas. They simply don't report stuff that doesn't fit. There's a big difference, learn it.



I used to be a Correspondent for Press TV from 2012-13. Believe me THEY HAVE changed facts skewed facts to suit their agenda.

Do you have proof of that?

We'll have to agree to differ but this looks like a case of you choosing to believe one double glazing salesman over another because the **** on his shoes doesn't smell as much as the other guy's.

That was a bit of a disaster for her reputation, which is a shame because generally there is some great journalism coming from that programme. It's heartening that her ratings have done so well, though of course she's had a rival show end and rich pickings to work with.

Outside of national politics look at her stuff on the Flint water crisis, it's a totally different world to anything on Fox

To an extent yes, but the big difference is that the so called 'left wing' outlets and commentators will report on negative things about their own 'side'. Programmes like The Daily Show and Bill Maher too get tarred with being 'left leaning' but they were still critical of Obama and other 'liberal' politicians when necessary.


Of course it doesn't really seem like that for whole but that's because the Democrats have less going on - we've recently finished an 8 year scandal free administration and have been in the minority in their houses for most of that time. But most of all the events involving Trump are overwhelming the news and is there's only one story that any journalist worth their salt is looking into and that's Russia


You rarely get that happen on Fox though, it's getting to the stage where some of their hosts don't really have a choice. Shepherd Smith does break rank occasionally.

Just my y personal experiences from other members of staff. I certainly don't regret working there (i need experience and money)

Err http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34316047 is just one example of RT making stuff up...

Press TV didn't cover itself with glory here either http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39811870

The fact that you include the BBC (and MSNBC and CNN) in that list speaks volumes.

Although as we've seen from the ongoing omnishambles in the White House, that's seeming like quite a good policy. It's exactly the sort of false equivalency that drove media discourse during the last US election


We could be sitting waist deep in polar ice cap with nuclear weapons flying over our heads and people on the American news channels will still be saying 'well at least he didn't use a private email server... '

Listen, I love the BBC but it's as biased as everyone else. It's generally quite pro-government of the day, quite progressive in its societal attitudes, and falls within the norms of an organisation expected to serve each licence payer. It rocks the boat a hell of a lot less than it used to following its correct allegations (whitewashed of course by the Hutton Enquiry among others) about Gulf War Episode II.

MSNBC, and, to a lesser extent, CNN ply their own political agendas.

I don't understand why that's quite so hard to grasp?

Our choice of viewing and reading generally reflects our own view on the world - something called confirmation bias, I believe.

I'm not sitting here telling all of you that you are prone to confirmation bias and I am not. Far from it. I am just as susceptible as everyone else.

I like your example - found it witty - but if we were waist deep in polar ice cap with nuclear weapons flying over our heads, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Breitbart, The Canary - everybody would be covering it.

And no-one has yet answered my question about how it doesn't demonstrate BBC impartiality as a lie when it uses the word "regime" about a government of a country the Foreign Office doesn't like. Case closed, Sherlock.