Is requiring that reporters repeat invalid criticisms really "Fair and Balanced"?

Question

Last December, less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record", Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon issued a directive ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

"Critics" have also called into question claims that astronauts landed on the moon, that terrorists rather than the US government were behind 9/11, that there aren't aliens at Area 51, etc. These criticisms are just as valid as those claiming the global temperature data is invalid, so why won't Fox News report on those too?

Is requiring that reporters repeat invalid criticisms really "Fair and Balanced", as Fox News claims to be?

Answer 1

Fox is in the business of synthesising controversy where it suits them, even over matters that are universally agreed among scientists (to the extent that such a thing is ever possible), and then claiming that they need to represent both sides of the "controversy" that they themselves have helped to manufacture. They apply this technique to things like the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. I don't know if they apply it to evolution.



You may remember that when Al Franken satirically used the expression "fair and balanced", they sued him for using their trademark. So by their own admission, it is no more meaningful when they use the expression than any other trademark.



But the directive is extraordinary. Does it mean that someone referring to the ice ages would immediately have to say that our evidence for the ice ages has been called into question, even though the last person with any scientific credibility to do that was Murchison in the 1860s?

Answer 2

We all need to thank Fox News -- because they are what makes the "Daily Show" funny.



I occasionally watch Fox News at the gym. Can't avoid it. The Fox TV screen is right next to ESPN and my eyes occasionally wander. The stuff that Fox puts out is pretty hilarious even without the Daily Shows editing. Primarily it comes from the choice of stories and the editorial line on the stories. If you have a brain working at least at half-speed, you can see right through the stuff and revel in the foolishness.



So, your problem is that you don't like Fox creating imaginary controversies to stoke viewership amongst the intellectually challenged? You're worried that "some people" might think Fox is absolutely truthful and unbiased? Sadly, I think your worries are justified. But since you can't do anything about it, try to laugh. ;-)

Answer 3

Of course not. There is not a shred of evidence that goes against the fact that this decade was the warmest on record, so any questions on the application of "invalid/valid" are moot here. Every single instrumental temperature record, be it NASA's, UAH's, NCDC's, the Hadley Center's and CRU's - all of them show that this is the warmest decade on record. The criticisms of that are completely invalid.



But who is really criticizing this claim anyways? I have yet to see even anyone in the "skeptic" blogosphere try to say that this decade was not the warmest. Sure, many have claimed that the warming stopped at ~1998, but "warmest" and "warming" are two separate issues, and nobody disagrees on the first point. Up until now, at least, where apparently instead of paying attention to either what was said or what the evidence says, or even what "skeptics" say, Sammon thinks it's OK to imagine his own complaints and project them onto other "critics."



"Fair and Balanced" is indeed a very ironic catch-phrase that Fox uses.

Answer 4

Lol confident! and a few damn troll is after me, so I made my QandA inner maximum. It became into approximately Easter and Webkinz. Wooohooo! enable's record it for no damn reason and make the different guy or woman freaking lose 10 factors!!!!!!!!! massive call 4 you!

Answer 5

Let's be direct here: the problem with FoxNews is not that it is biased, it is dishonest. It purposely distorts the news to mislead it's rather dimwitted audience. It is not news. Conservatives who want Rubert Murdock's brand of conservative slant can get it in the WSJ, but anyone who believes what is presented on FoxNews is factual is seriously mislead.



People should be aware that FoxNews is a foriegn-owned entity who is purposely creating divisionisn in the U.S. The #2 shareholder directly funded Feisal Abdul Rauf, then FoxNews rattles American cages with how much Rauf is an enemy. Get it? Fund the guy, then make him an enemy to creat anger and division.



The same is going on about climate change. By pitting the uneducated Fox audience against the scienfic community, American progress in all scientific matters is retarded. American dimishes while the Australian and Arab owners succeed. FoxNews wants it's audience to be stupid and anti-science. And they will lie whenever necessary to accomplish that goal.



FoxNews viewers are seriously anti-American but are too intellectually lazy to see how badly mislead they are by it's foriegn ownership.

Answer 6

Dude



Nobody thinks Fox is fair or balanced. Its news porn. I like watching it.



What makes it "fair" is there is a liberal bend to much of the media.



What makes it "balanced" is that is on the other side of the scale.



That is why it is unfair and out of balance.



It is a entertainment network more than a news network

Answer 7

"Is requiring that reporters repeat invalid criticisms really "Fair and Balanced", as Fox News claims to be?"



Your use of the word "invalid" is this question is not fair and balanced. It's insertion into the question invites only one response and absolutely no discussion. Either you accidentally mis-sctructured this question or that was your intent.



And you seem to like that article slamming Fox News since you have something in common with them. Your idea and theirs of "fair and balanced" is to mark criticisms of climate science as invalid and thus ignore them. Of course they are not all valid yet at the same time there are plenty that are not invalid.



Your brush paints a 100% swath. Sounds like you have shut your door. If you don't mention the uncertainties, maybe they will go away.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit: Not talking about climate criticism. Okay, fair enough. Then what exactly are the "invalid criticisms" that you are referring to? And since you said they are repeated, where are they first mentioned and where are they repeated? And where are they invalidated? Thanks.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit2: By the way, I see you have no problem displaying stolen emails if they suit your purpose.

Answer 8

As Paul B points out rather exquisitely, "Fair and Balanced" is a logo and nothing more.



It's right up there with the health insurance companies who put out ads that suggest they actually care about their customers health.

Answer 9

ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, etc, do not report the news. They are an arm of the democrat party. They vote almost exclusively democrat. I am sure you have no problem whatsoever with their fair and balanced treatment of the news. I am sure ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC are instructed (or they don't have to be) to treat AGW as factual rather than theoretical. I recently watched a show about Ronald Reagan. They showed some of the so called scientists criticizing Reagan's strategic defense initiative and called it Star Wars and the criticisms were rampant on the network media. They criticized the proposal and said it was impossible. Obviously they were wrong. They put their party and politics before science in the exact same manner that alarmists do today.

Answer 10

If it bothers you, just watch another channel. It's that easy.

Answer 11

msnbc sucks