Fox News - Fair and Balanced

I was in the gym this morning and got stuck in front of a TV with Fox News on (I usually only watch it for laughs /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif). I found it interesting that during the show they bashed the NY Times several times for not carrying the article about the beheading on their front page.

I did find it odd that it is the lead story on the NY Times web site.

The beheading story didn't really seem like major news to me, it was sort of a "dog bites man" story. Sure, it's disgusting and barbaric, but decapitation is a part of Sharia. Remember the documentary "Death of a Princess" back in 1980 or so? Saudi Princess shot in head, her lover beheaded for having an affair. A couple of years ago three men were beheaded in Saudi Arabia for sodomy. If Islamic governments use this punishment, why is it front page news that Islamist terrorists would do the same thing? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If Islamic governments use this punishment, why is it front page news that Islamist terrorists would do the same thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are only concerned because the pictures of our mistreatment of the iraqi prisoners was considered to be front page news by the NYT. They believe that the overstating of our problems and the understating of theirs shows an agenda on the part of the NYT.

You statement above is a little troubling to me. Is something less news because it is expected? The barbarians are just being barbaric, it's nothing surprising?

This is why we're trying to establish a non-Sharia controlled government there, so that these sort of things will stop. It's big news because it so clearly illustrates the point.

[ QUOTE ]
James S said:
They are only concerned because the pictures of our mistreatment of the iraqi prisoners was considered to be front page news by the NYT. They believe that the overstating of our problems and the understating of theirs shows an agenda on the part of the NYT.

You statement above is a little troubling to me. Is something less news because it is expected? The barbarians are just being barbaric, it's nothing surprising?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think the unusual is more newsworthy than the usual? Fatal accidents don't usually get mentioned on national news. When 7 people die in one SUV, you might get a brief mention. 100-car pileup, you get more coverage.

American soldiers abusing prisoners - unusual (one would hope), so news. Islamist terrorists killing people in Iraq, Chechnya, Pakistan - news, but hardly major news unless a governor is killed or something. That is, if you believe the role of news is to inform. I wasn't surprised the NY Post and USA Today had the story on their front page, they always go after the sensationalistic (as opposed to newsworthy) stories.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why we're trying to establish a non-Sharia controlled government there, so that these sort of things will stop. It's big news because it so clearly illustrates the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so it wasn't the WMDs! OK... and I guess Saudi Arabia is next... cool...

[ QUOTE ]
they always go after the sensationalistic (as opposed to newsworthy) stories.

[/ QUOTE ] There you go /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif it's expected, therefore it's OK?

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, so it wasn't the WMDs! OK

[/ QUOTE ] No, it wasn't the WMD's, they were only 1 in a long list of reasons that were given by the president as to why we needed to do this. How short the memory is! Luckily, the presidents speech, as well as much more documentation is preserved forever on the internet for your perusal. I can provide links if you're interested.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess Saudi Arabia is next

[/ QUOTE ] Probably not. They have an actual economy and can therefore more easily support a democratic educated populace. Indeed, their people are already the best off in the region. But when they get a look at whats going to happen in Iraq, I think they may be equipped to do most of the work for us. Iraq was not in a position to reform itself.

I think we've had those discussions in great detail many times over in other threads. Perhaps we could resurrect one of them? Or just discuss it here is fine with me.


EDITED: to correct silly spelling mistakes /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
James S said:
There you go /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif it's expected, therefore it's OK?

[/ QUOTE ]
According to Fox News, that's where it belongs /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As far as sensationalist being OK... luckily we have a choice of news outlets, and people can choose which ones to peruse... Should we condemn the media for giving people what they want? That is the job of any business, satisfying the customer.

[ QUOTE ]

I think we've had those discussions in great detail many times over in other threads. Perhaps we could resurrect one of them? Or just discuss it here is fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I should have resisted the political commentary /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whoopin.gif.

I really did just want to talk about news coverage in this thread.

Just my two cents in the matter...the beheading got a large front page space in the Seattle P.I. today. A large photograph of him with five terrorists in black behind him, a smaller photograph of his father and brother consoling one another, and some text. I sat on the john this morning and unfolded the newspaper like I do every morning, and this is what greeted me.

I normally do not get into these discussions, and probably will not post further on the matter, but I will make a couple of points.

1) This man was not a criminal being punished for breaking a law/taboo, he was a civilian trying to build the telecom infrastructure. He was there HELPING to improve conditions for the Iraqi people and their new government/police/military. By the terrorist's own statement this was a revenge killing, and thus very newsworthy as it illustrates the mindset of the people that are fighting for control of that area.

2) This was not a 'proper' / formal governmental execution. They beheaded him with a knife, not a sword. This was not one swift clean 'humane' cut. They cut and sawed and pried until they managed to get his head off, then paraded it around the room impaled upon the knife blade. This is a VERY barbaric way to kill someone, making it just as newsworthy as the mutilations of the burned bodies of the 4 civilian contract workers.

Well said, Revolvergeek and James. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif

Britt

Here is a quick round-up of how this news is being reported in the Middle East (Note: Article is more balanced than the headline indicates):

Some Arab newspapers play down or ignore beheading of American

[ QUOTE ]
Wednesday May 12, 2004
By ZEINA KARAM
Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) Arab media reacted cautiously Wednesday to the videotaped beheading of an American civilian by Islamic militants in Iraq, with some newspapers conspicuously playing it down or even ignoring it.

The biggest pan-Arab satellite television channels broadcast an edited version of the gruesome video, not showing the actual killing of Nick Berg, 26, of West Chester, Pa., a Philadelphia suburb. The businessman was abducted in April.

In one of the most explicit displays, Kuwait's Al-Siyassah daily ran a photo of a masked militant holding up Berg's severed head.

The video of the execution was released on the Internet too late for some Middle East newspaper columnists to react to it. The killing, attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group, appalled many Arabs.

Some opinion-makers condemned the killing.

``This shows how base and vile those who wear the robe of Islam have become,'' said Abdullah Sahar, a Kuwait University political scientist.

Some said it surpassed the American military's abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, which has been the top story for the past 10 days in the Middle East.

``We were winning international sympathy because of what happened at Abu Ghraib, but they come and waste it all,'' said Abdullah Sahar, a Kuwait University political scientist, said of the Islamic militants responsible.

In the video, the masked militants said they were taking revenge on Berg because of the abuses at the Baghdad prison.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

-Bill

The original question wasn't whether this was newsworthy, but whether it deserved front page coverage, since the Fox News people were complaining about what it not being on the front page, or so I gathered from the broadcast.

Actually, I just went and checked the print edition front page for myself, and it turns out the story is on the front page, it is the right headline, with a picture under the story. I guess Fox thought it should have been the lead story, with the picture on top, rather than the attack on a mosque held by Sadr.

My opinion is that the attack was more newsworthy, since that is more likely to have an effect on the situation, good or bad. However, I didn't see the point of the picture the NY Times used, that could just as well have been a scene from a movie.

In summary, I'd say it's debatable as to the NY Times page layout was optimal. On the one hand, the attack was more newsworthy. On the other hand, the picture going with the attack story did not lend much to the story.

So it's a much more gray case than I had thought, when I was thinking the NY Times ran the beheading story on page 23 or something. Which makes it even odder that Fox spent airtime criticizing the NY Times.

Walter Jacobson from FOX just got nailed with a DUI... My perspective after these messages...

Fox News broke the story yesterday many hours before the other major TV news networks did. Fox was interviewing a fellow from a media watchdog group on why the other networks were ignoring it.

I think the NYT reacted to the criticism and tried to rectify it.

Wolf Blitzer didn't mention it in his report of the top stories, several hours after Fox had been running it.

Seems like the left-bent media are reluctant to let the public see news that works against the left's political agenda.

Leftists seem to have a great deal of animosity towards Fox, conservative talk show hosts, and internet news and opinion dissemination.

That's understandable and fine with me. Though, I don't see why they begrudge the little dab (comparitively) of airtime and exposure conservatives have.

[ QUOTE ]
Greymage:
I wasn't surprised the NY Post and USA Today had the story on their front page, they always go after the sensationalistic (as opposed to newsworthy) stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine.

Well I'm sure glad that the left in the Congress, the Senate and in the Press hasn't succumbed to sensationalism regarding the abuse scandal. Here's a story involving seven soldiers that the military itself has been investigating for months and you would think that the world was coming to an end by the coverage. If the same thing had happened in States, the same outraged sources would be wringing their hands and telling us to be tolerant and reminding us that they haven't had their trial yet and that they're all innocent until proven guilty. Saying that one side is sensational will always appear biased in a world where nearly all news, by definition, is sensational.

As far as the beheading goes, there is another factor at work here.

TV news lives and dies on video. Video rules. All editorial decisions come down to one of two factors: Does the story HAVE video? Do we have ENOUGH good video in this segment to run a story that DOESN'T have video? This is why TV news is uniformly worhtless.

My point here is that it doesn't matter whether the 'news' outlets can actually SHOW the video or not. This story has completely tripped their triggers. When a potentially big story with video comes into a TV news venue you might as well unskrew the tops of their heads and dump their brains out on the floor. They will be so conflicted, knowing how GREAT the video is, that even though they can't show it, it will be elevated to legendary proportions anyway, because they cannot help themselves at this point.

As far as the baiting subject line: Fox News - Fair and Balanced -- that is no more inaccurate than NPR's 'All Things Considered'. If you tried to take either of them into court for not telling the truth they would both scream that they are entertainment venues and should be regarded as such.

That would probably be the most unbiased thing that either of them have ever said. They are entertainment and they should be considered as such.

[ QUOTE ]
BC0311 said:
Fox News broke the story yesterday many hours before the other major TV news networks did. Fox was interviewing a fellow from a media watchdog group on why the other networks were ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd tend to blame slow reporting rather than bias, all the TV networks tend to jump on anything sensationalistic...

[ QUOTE ]

I think the NYT reacted to the criticism and tried to rectify it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so that's what they mean when people say Fox is pushing the mainstream channels to the right! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Wolf Blitzer didn't mention it in his report of the top stories, several hours after Fox had been running it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just say the other channels were a lot slower running the story? Maybe Wolf's "top stories" means CNN's top stories.

[ QUOTE ]

Seems like the left-bent media are reluctant to let the public see news that works against the left's political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, that's why it's all over all the news outlets now?

[ QUOTE ]

Leftists seem to have a great deal of animosity towards Fox, conservative talk show hosts, and internet news and opinion dissemination.

That's understandable and fine with me. Though, I don't see why they begrudge the little dab (comparitively) of airtime and exposure conservatives have.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious! Conservatives control the airwaves now! I mean, calling the NY Times liberal is like calling Rush Limbaugh liberal. You don't see the liberal left wing on in the media the way you see the conservative right wing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Greymage said:
I was in the gym this morning and got stuck in front of a TV with Fox News on (I usually only watch it for laughs /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif). I found it interesting that during the show they bashed the NY Times several times for not carrying the article about the beheading on their front page.

I did find it odd that it is the lead story on the NY Times web site.

The beheading story didn't really seem like major news to me, it was sort of a "dog bites man" story. Sure, it's disgusting and barbaric, but decapitation is a part of Sharia. Remember the documentary "Death of a Princess" back in 1980 or so? Saudi Princess shot in head, her lover beheaded for having an affair. A couple of years ago three men were beheaded in Saudi Arabia for sodomy. If Islamic governments use this punishment, why is it front page news that Islamist terrorists would do the same thing? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. You think, our enemy beheading an innocent American civilian helping to rebuilt Iraq doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, and is comparable to a dog bite?

[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
So let me get this straight. You think, our enemy beheading an innocent American civilian helping to rebuilt Iraq doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, and is comparable to a dog bite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it news to you that Islamist terrorists are barbaric and despicable and willing to torture and kill innocent civilians in the name of jihad?

Was the story newsworthy? Yes. Front page news? I don't think so.

As for the "dog bite" comment, what I meant, in case you hadn't heard the saying before, was that "dog bites man" is not usually a story, "man bites dog" is.

While I'm picking on Fox, what's with the phrase "homicide bombing" rather than suicide bombing? I mean, almost all terrorist bombings are either homicide or attempted homicide. Using "suicide bomber" conveys the additional information that the bomber committed suicide, "homicide bomber" conveys no additional information.

[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
So let me get this straight. You think, our enemy beheading an innocent American civilian helping to rebuilt Iraq doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, and is comparable to a dog bite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that was amazing the way you turned my comments about press coverage into sounding like I equated decapitation to a dog bite. Are you training to be a Fox reporter? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Greymage said:
[ QUOTE ]
Nitro said:
So let me get this straight. You think, our enemy beheading an innocent American civilian helping to rebuilt Iraq doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, and is comparable to a dog bite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it news to you that Islamist terrorists are barbaric and despicable and willing to torture and kill innocent civilians in the name of jihad?

Was the story newsworthy? Yes. Front page news? I don't think so.

As for the "dog bite" comment, what I meant, in case you hadn't heard the saying before, was that "dog bites man" is not usually a story, "man bites dog" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is it newsworthy, not only should it be on the front page of every newspaper, but the full video should be broadcast on every newscast in the US.

This country needs to be reminded who we are dealing with. A lot of people seem to forget.

[ QUOTE ]
Greymage said:
[ QUOTE ]

I think the NYT reacted to the criticism and tried to rectify it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so that's what they mean when people say Fox is pushing the mainstream channels to the right! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="blue"> BC: Naw, that's just leftist paranoia talk. No wonder they want to censor the news.</font>

[ QUOTE ]

Wolf Blitzer didn't mention it in his report of the top stories, several hours after Fox had been running it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you just say the other channels were a lot slower running the story? Maybe Wolf's "top stories" means CNN's top stories.

<font color="blue"> BC: I suppose Kobe Bryant's "not guilty" plea was a top story? CNN/Blitzer led with that. I think Adam Walsh's pitch for his card deck and website was third.</font>

[ QUOTE ]

Seems like the left-bent media are reluctant to let the public see news that works against the left's political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, that's why it's all over all the news outlets now?

<font color="blue"> BC: Keyword: "reluctant", graymage. Please read carefully. They were and are reluctant. But they were embarrassed and are catching up. LOL </font>

[ QUOTE ]

Leftists seem to have a great deal of animosity towards Fox, conservative talk show hosts, and internet news and opinion dissemination.

That's understandable and fine with me. Though, I don't see why they begrudge the little dab (comparitively) of airtime and exposure conservatives have.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious! Conservatives control the airwaves now! I mean, calling the NY Times liberal is like calling Rush Limbaugh liberal. You don't see the liberal left wing on in the media the way you see the conservative right wing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="blue"> BC: Yes we do. We've been reading, watching and listening to leftists and liberals for a generation. </font>


[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's revealing that, evidently, if you were in charge you would have presented the story of Berg's murder with the attitude: dog bites man, so what?

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif