Fox News censured for rant against BBC

As seen on The Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com

Fox News censured for rant at BBC
Ofcom says Murdoch station broke programme code

Matt Wells, media correspondent
Tuesday June 15, 2004
The Guardian

Fox News, the US news network owned by Rupert Murdoch, has been found in breach of British broadcasting rules for an on-air tirade that accused the BBC of "frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism".

Television regulators said the broadcaster failed to show "respect for truth" in a strongly worded opinion item, broadcast on the day the Hutton report was published, which also accused BBC executives of giving reporters a "right to lie".

Ofcom, which licenses commercial channels shown in Britain regardless of where they are based, received 24 complaints about the remarks. In a ruling published yesterday, it described the offending item as a "damning critique" but said it did not stand up to scrutiny.

It is the third ruling by British regulators against Fox News, which is available in Britain to Sky Digital customers, in the past year. It broke the rules on "undue prominence" in two previous news items which plugged beauty products and a seed manufacturer.

This is a tricky issue for Ofcom: how to regulate channels which are not produced principally for viewers in Britain. The Independent Television Commission, which preceded Ofcom, responded to complaints last year that Fox did not meet its strict "due impartiality" rules by issuing a ruling that is regarded in some quarters as a fudge to avoid a standoff with Mr Murdoch: it said "due" meant "adequate or appropriate", and Fox News could justifiably claim to have achieved a level of accuracy and impartiality that was appropriate to its audience in the US, where different rules apply.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1239094,00.html?=rss

And who are they to condemn the BBC for giving their reporters the "right to lie"? That's like Bush saying that Hitler invading Poland was an evil act.

> Fox News could justifiably claim to have achieved a level of
> accuracy and impartiality that was appropriate to its audience in
> the US, where different rules apply.

HA! That made me laugh! What rules? In the US, it's all fabricated propaganda ... all the time!

June 5 Anti-war March in LA images here:
http://ediablo.com/LAprotest6-5-04.html

Journalism is either accurate and impartial or it's not. What's really being said here is that Fox can shovel its BS in America but they're not going for it in England.

:headbang:
rocknation

Faux is a joke with 50% of US viewers also.

http://www.hypocrites.com/article10829.html

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.


===
well, imagine my surprise.....

The Fox presenter, John Gibson, said in a segment entitled My Word that the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest"; that the BBC "felt entitled to lie and, when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives"; that the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, in Baghdad during the US invasion, had "insisted on air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military"; and that "the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie - exaggerate - because, well, the BBC knew that the war was wrong, and anything they could say to underscore that point had to be right".

Ofcom said Fox had breached the programme code in three areas: failing to honour the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence".

Looks like over there Faux can't get away with with letting cretins like Gibson run their mouths with no proof.

I can't believe DUers aren't going ga-ga over this ! ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=36566

At the time I thought possibly it was one of those 'viewers have their say' programs, but obviously not.

I think scsifreak's thread title just about says it all:
"Concrete Proof Fox Commentators are High on Serious Reality-Bending Drugs".

The man outdoes Baghdad Bob. And so proud of his body-snatcher's lapel flag too.

maybe too much traffic, (perhaps being chartiable).

Well, the British apparently can.

Obly a Free World Nation would take such a step to protect the integrity of it's media structure.

Unlike Imperial Amerika, which now hasn't belonged to the Free World for quite some time...

by al quaeda.

We get attacked and lose 3000 citizens on 9/11.

But alqaeda/binLaden/Taliban, THEY'RE not the problem.
No, it's Iraq, it's the BBC, it's Natalie Maines, it's Michael Moore, it's France, it's Hugo Chavez, it's homosexuals, it's war protestors, it's digital cameras and cell phones, it's...it's...it's anybody but who IT IS.

ARGGHHH.

p.s. oops, I left one out. It's the caribou, that's who's to blame.

That lot that went loopy about Timberlake feeling a right tit - don't they have any powers over your news media?
I'm a foreigner (a Scot) but even I can discern the blatant bias of Fox News - "Fair and Balanced" is a downright lie.
Surely you have some organisation that can make them cease using that phrase?

As such, you should NEVER expect the FCC to behave even remotely as they did when Amerika was a Free Country.

But it ought to be called "Foxbrownnoser.com. The webmaster posted Gibson's rebuttal of the BBC censure today but didn't bother to post the point-by-point article which outlined the allegations against Fox and their feeble responses. You're going to love one of the Fox points of defense. They claim that if you go to Google.Com and key in the words "BBC Lied" it comes up with several thousand hits. Therefore, what John Gibson said must be true because Google has sites that link to similar claims! Hey--there are links to Fox News Lies and Bush Lies too--does that mean that they're all telling the truth and that--gosh--Fox and President Bush Lie? Faux's twisted logic at work again. Anyway, here's a link to the point-by-point case against Fox, their rebuttal and the British Government's official findings on each point:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds14717.html

And here's an expert from the report:

"We recognise how important freedom of expression is within the media. This item was part of a well-established spot, in which the presenter put forwards his own opinion in an uncompromising manner. However, such items should not make false statements by undermining facts. Fox News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American obsession. It had also incorrectly attributed quotes to the reporter Andrew Gilligan. Even taking into account that this was a ‘personal view’ item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond."

This is like something you would have read back when that country still existed...

But last time I looked, it was no where to be found. IIRC, it had something about counteracting a perceived liberal bias in the mainstream media. Which in and of itself declared Faux's bias, putting waste to their claim of "fair and balanced."

that just because Fox News is the top-rated news network (sad, but true) that therefore somehow makes them the best news network. I always try to argue back that Britney Spears sells billions of records but that hardly makes her Mozart.

I see them out west, sneaky buggers.

They travel in ones or two's.

Some times bigger groups. That's when they plot strategy I guess.

They also eat grass just like cows. So their guts also have their one weapon.
WMD ( methane gas )

As in an old comedy act

"I fart in your general direction" not really at you more at bushie :)

sorry couldn't help myself