Fox News removed from Sky

I didn't say they wouldn't be covering it! But you would hope the broadcasters desire for false equivalency would finally disappear


As for the BBC regime thing, I've no idea as I haven't mentioned the BBC. Their style guide is online here though and it doesn't look like it mentions it oddly http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/news-style-guide/article/art20131010112740749
K

But what you're failing to understand is that it's not just a case of 'bias'. Some outlets have better journalistic ethics than others. Yes they all have their little biases and agendas but some are just better and more reliable at doing this basic job of reporting what's going on in the world. Some news outlets have published code of ethics and style guides for everyone to see. Some are regulated and have to confirm to laws on balance.


No one would say The Daily Star is just the same as The Times or tat the New York Times is as good a journalistic source as The National Enquirer. In the same way you can say the same about TV news.


Which channel can a guest go on air and say that 'parts of Birmingham are no go areas' and not be challenged?

And for those who don't believe what we've been saying, a few examples...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/

http://www.aljazeera.com/aboutus/2006/11/2008525185733692771.html

https://www.theguardian.com/info/2015/aug/05/the-guardians-editorial-code

http://ethics.npr.org/

http://asne.org/content.asp?contentid=335 (Washington Post)

Plus a few from various trade organisations

https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.rtdna.org/content/rtdna_code_of_ethics

There are plenty of other codes and similar documents out there to be found, and those organisations that have them are, at least in my view, elevated somewhat above those that don't in terms of trust.