It Would Be Censorship Not To Silence You
	found on The Guardian written by captainebo, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 10 May 4:24am
		"While American regulators rush to open doors to corporate media monopolies," captainebo writes, "the Brits are threatening an entirely different approach, removing the most famously biased news channel from the airwaves. "I'm not in favour of censorship but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms. So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship by narrowing the range of views and a coarsening of the level of debate." "Under British journalism regulations, TV news media must display 'due impartiality' in reporting, a directive at odds with FOX's notorious slant. If FOX is expelled from the UK, it will not be the first time British objectivity laws were used to shut down a station, as Kurdish broadcasting station Med-TV was evicted after calling for violence against Turkey. Even so, some regulators are reluctant to take on such a behemoth as Rupert Murdoch, and have downplayed rumors of their impending attack on the Australian billionare's station.

	"Opponents of FOX argue that by failing to fairly portray liberal views, the station actually suppresses the fair dissemination of information, yielding a de facto censorship of necessary debate. Nevertheless, there is something Orwellian about the notion of suppressing a news station in order to prevent censorship. With international policy debates increasingly influenced by ultra-biased reporting such as FOX's, have the Brits suggested the only solution to a corporate media plutocracy, or is this simply an area where free speech and free markets should be allowed to reign?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 70 commentsmost: 14 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Apparently..   by MC Nally       at Sat 10 May 5:13am score of 2.5 compelling     We must destroy freedom of the press in order to save it..   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Apparently..   by Voice of Bob       at Sat 10 May 6:48am score of 5 informative   in reply to comment 1     First of all, "Freedom of the Press" is a US construct. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The difference here is that we expect a certain amount of objectivity in what we deal with as 'press' and apparently, so do the British. An advertisement is 'press' too, and so is porn. But we don't allow either to be officially be labeled as 'news'. By taking such a slanted angle on what it reports, Fox as been shifting from reporting news to advertising a view. Check out this bit on the origins of the term Yellow Journalism: The Cuban insurrection would become the event that lowered the World's reputation forever as it sunk to compete with Hearst's Journal. The Journal fervently declared its support for the local revolutionaries against the tyranny of their Spanish rulers. Hearst even refused to carry news from Spanish sources, declaring only rebel informants could be trusted. Such a basic breach of journalistic objectivity offended the more conservative newspapers, but it made for exciting reading. People flocked to the newsstands to read the Journal's rebel accounts, which described the conflict in the simple language of the Spanish villain and the Cuban hero. The World could have acted responsibly and depicted the clash accurately for its readers. However, the rising circulation rates of both the World and the Journal during this period of jingoism show that the drama made money for these newspapers, and the competition was too tight to throw the money away. Both papers lowered their standards so much that they routinely carried news items directly off the pages of their rivals. And from The Society of Professional Journalists: Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection. The code is voluntary, but there it is. I don't think that Fox passes muster. Fox wants to tell you not just what it says is the news, but what actually qualifies as news. I don't think they should be allowed to, and I applaud Britain for calling it like it sees it. The gods love heroes, they also love a good joke.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Apparently..   by Jay Mack       at Sat 10 May 12:47pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 4     I applaud Britain for calling it like it sees it. You make several good points, but I wouldn't go that far. I think there is a big difference between advertising a product and advertising a political viewpoint. Now, I personally don't like Fox. I think their reporting and news presentation often don't qualify as good journalism. I think they are pushing a conservative agenda and they do journalism a disservice. But I don't think they should be banned or censored in anyway. Essentially, they have become political speech. They are presenting the news from a Fox perspective. It almost becomes more opinion based and I don't see why we should support an effort to stop people from presenting their worldview. Where would that leave magazines like Mother Jones or any other political based, but biased, news source? Now I realize there are differences between the two mediums, which can influence legislation. However, for a government to try and stop a person from speaking because they don't like certain political views or the way they present those views is troubling. I also realize there are some regulations, especially regarding elections and equal time, already on the books in America. (I'm not sure about the UK) These laws don't bother me as much and I guess it does raise an interesting conflict. But I think the key difference is that in an election, the regulations involve the people running for office and not the ideas. Check out www.hell-vetica.com link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Apparently..   by MC Nally       at Sat 10 May 3:34pm score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 4     First of all, "Freedom of the Press" is a US construct. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I thoroughly disagree. "The First Amendment" is an American construct. "Freedom of the Press" is an abstract principle honored (or not) to widely varying degrees by all nations. Your objection would be valid if I were attempting to assert that Britons have First Amendment rights, but clearly I'm not. Discussing the extent to which the British, or the Germans, or the Burmese, etc., enjoy the right (or privilege) of "Freedom of the Press" makes perfect sense and such conversations occur all the time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Apparently..   by Mark McGrath       at Sat 10 May 4:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     First of all, "Freedom of the Press" is a US construct. Just because it's also in the US constitution doesn't make it a US construct. Freedom of the press is an ideal, and it's an ideal that's existed at least as long as the oldest newspaper, which was published before the United States even existed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Misinformation and doublespeak   by M. Mosher       at Sun 11 May 4:49pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 4     The difference here is that we expect a certain amount of objectivity in what we deal with as 'press' and apparently, so do the British. This is what might qualify as delicious irony if it weren't so scary. Freedom of the press in the US (I can't speak for Britain) was enshrined in the constitution for exactly the opposite reason you seem to think. In the early days leading up to the revolution, newspapers were the only effective way of getting messages out and they were almost universally slanted in one political direction or the other. Many of these papers were shut down by the various pre-revolution governments because they were viewed as seditious. The first amendment was written to protect political views, not squelch them as you seem to believe, and it certainly had nothing to do with imposing impartiality. Another point worth making is that the British rules seem only to apply to TV journalism, not print journalism. If the rules were more universal, The Guardian and dozens of other papers would have been shut down years ago. Finally, this quote grabbed my attention for its blatant doublespeak. "I'm not in favor of censorship, but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms," Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, tells the British newspaper The Guardian. "So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ." First, a man who chairs a group called "Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom" advocating censorship to protect freedom would surely have George turning over in his grave. Secondly, that he is whining to the Guardian, a paper that few would label impartial, has many of us smirking. Thirdly, when Petley complains that Sky News and Murdoch force people to compete on his own terms what does he mean? Is he suggesting that all other broadcasters will become equally conservative or just equally slanted? What are Murdoch's terms? Isn't his real complaint that Murdoch will simply force people to compete? As an economist, I am always suspicious when competition is deemed a bad thing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Apparently..   by danila       at Sun 11 May 1:12am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 9     I think the point is that Fox should not be a political power with their own opinion. That's the same as your ISP — you don't expect them to tell you what is good and what is not, you expect them to provide you Internet access. In a similar way you expect your TV station or newspaper to provide unbiased coverage. If you want to be a political power, become a political party, not a news outlet.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Apparently..   by Linux Ate My Dog!       at Sun 11 May 8:46am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 9     But I don't think they should be banned or censored in anyway. Essentially, they have become political speech. FOX News bills itself as a fair and impartial newssource. You and the British TV regulkators say they are not, they are a political tool. Then this is a truth-in-advertising issue. I thin the regulators are entirely justified in examining whether an entity billing itself as a 'news' station actually fits its bill. "He's old school." -- byrne   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Apparently..   by Petronius       at Sun 11 May 9:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     I agree entirely. Freedom of the Press is neither a US construct or a right granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant any rights. Those rights already exist and are your birthright as a human being. The fact that many governments abridge those rights is merely a measure of their own wickedness. The genius of the US Constitution is twofold: one, it is the first attempt by any society to bring its laws into concert with those God-given rights; and second, makes it very difficult to create organs of state that might at some point abridge those rights. It is not perfect, and our current struggle to determine when we are protecting ourselves from our enemies and when we are merely protecting the government is a demonstration of that. I think we will have an easier time of it than Britain would. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Apparently..   by rumagent       at Sun 11 May 9:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     I have rights... but god has nothing to do with them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Apparently..   by Jay Mack       at Sun 11 May 11:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     I think you can make that argument for any news source, even one that tried to be as objective as possible. Since the news is told through one's worldview, then there will always be a bias. And I don't think a government should prevent speech. I also think you might be correct regarding the truth-in-advertising issue, but that doesn't mean you should ban that station. I'd guess that Fox would say they are being fair and objective. I'd disagree, but if it were a truth-in-advertising thing, you still don't take away their voice. Perhaps it would be an issue for the courts to decide and a lawsuit to stop the advertising technique, but not censorship. Check out www.hell-vetica.com link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Apparently..   by kuuba       at Sun 11 May 11:43pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 37     it is the first attempt by any society to bring its laws into concert with those God-given rights Ah. Time to start picking some nits. Those rights were granted to the American citizens in the Bill of Rights, which was proposed in September of 1789, but ratified only in 1791. In France, these same rights were put into law in August of 1789. Sorry!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: God-given rights   by cooldaddy       at Mon 12 May 5:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     "The genius of the US Constitution is twofold: one, it is the first attempt by any society to bring its laws into concert with those God-given rights;" The only right afforded us by God is that of free will. If we choose to exercise our free will in contrast to established laws, we must face the consequences of our actions, right or wrong. God did not give us the right to free press or free speech. These are rights afforded us by our governments.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: God-given rights   by bytesex       at Mon 12 May 7:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Agreed, although I think the original poster meant that our rights are curtailed instead of afforded by governments, and that the natural state of man — living in proverbial paradise — knows, naturally, the freedom of speech, and therefore, the freedom of press. But then God allowed Cain to kill Abel, showing us that he was a cruel, uncaring god, really. And to react to another poster; freedom of speech (and press) is a right that has existed throughout the ages, in more and less restrictive forms, most notably since the middle ages in England, Holland and the north of Italy. Even after it was enshrined during the Enlightenment, it still took the Anglo-Saxon countries of the time a long while before releasing the printer of the responsibility for what he printed. James Joyce, for example, god have his soul, could have, were he alive today, testify of this. Casey.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Apparently..   by Petronius       at Mon 12 May 8:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     Dammit, missed it by a month! BTW, was that French Declaration before or after the Reign of Terror? The French might have beat the Americans to the principle by a hair, but we got the motor working better a lot earlier. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Misinformation and doublespeak   by melshocker       at Mon 12 May 8:58am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 47     >As an economist, I am always suspicious when >competition is deemed a bad thing. I think that's one of the bigger weaknesses of economics as a discipline. Competition in the economic sphere selects for optimal money production, and nothing else. I would like to think that there are other dimensions that we need to use to evaluate the elements of our society. The problem with competition is that it doesn't select for what's best for society, but for whomever is the most "effective." In the business world, competition selects for who can turn the biggest profit (or please their shareholders the most). That's the primary outcome of competition in the economic world: any benefits to consumers (the whole "competition results in survival of who serves the customer best") is at best a side effect, when it happens at all. Economic competition selects for efficiency at making money: anything more humane than that is left by the wayside. In the realm of the media, the same holds true. "Competition" doesn't ensure that news sources have to strive for greater depth and objectivity, just that they get the most eyeballs. As is absolutely, almost irrefutably clear since broadcasters stopped seeing their news departments as matters of prestigious public service, but rather as profit centers, television news programs have been in a race to see who can be the most superficial, tawdry, sensationalistic, and unserious as possible, cus that's what sells shoes and adult diapers. I'm not arguing for state controlled media or monopolies, just stating that competition is not a magic bullet, and that the much-vaunted "invisible hand of the marketplace" doesn't operate with society's health in mind, and that money is a piss-poor evaluator of the health or value of an enterprise.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Apparently..   by rekoil       at Mon 12 May 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     However, Mother Jones, Salon.com, et al have never tried to pass their politically-slanted reporting as anything but, as opposed to Fox's "Fair and Balanced " and "We Report, You Decide" advertising slogans...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Apparently..   by Ajax       at Mon 12 May 2:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     The Constitution does not grant any rights. Those rights already exist and are your birthright as a human being. Uhm. The Constitution grants some rights — otherwise everyone could vote in U.S. elections. Go ahead with your hyperbole, but show some restraint. ;) "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Smash the State!   by dagnabbitt       at Sat 10 May 5:43am score of 1     Oy, this is tough. It smacks of Big Brother, but man, I hate Fox News. I don't think that it'll come to much, though. It's possible to put the right (pun) spin on any story, though subtlety isn't a Fox hallmark. I find these truths to be self-evident.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Methinks the Lady doth protest too much   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sat 10 May 6:15am score of 1.5 succinct     OK, let me get this straight. The UK is saying that news must be unbiased, unlike Faux news service. How exactly is this censorship? Because you are telling people that 'fair and balanced' means just that? I am shocked! Shocked! that a governmental agency would force a news station to show both sides of the story! After all, only shouting out your view of events is not called News. It is called Opinion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  The AI doth protest even louder!   by Brian Jones       at Sat 10 May 4:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     After all, only shouting out your view of events is not called News. It is called Opinion. Silly person. Everybody knows that shouting out your view of events is called QuickLinking. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: The AI doth protest even louder!   by Ajax       at Mon 12 May 2:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     I thought it was called "blogging." Or is it only blogging if nobody reads it? "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Most of us hate Fox   by monkihed       at Sat 10 May 6:49am score of 3 astute     But if the government shut's 'em up, Fox only gets a larger pedestal to stand on, and they get to be all martyr-y. In the US, they'll use it to further their rhetoric. Bad news. People tend to stick with news sources (newspapers, nightly news, etc) because the slant is something that appeals to them. It's true that news organizations also have some impact on people's thoughts, but I doubt Fox is so much gaining converts to the conservative cause, as it is preaching to the Neocon choir. Especially since people who have cable and can find Fox News are generally media savvy enough to know that there is more than one news outlet. However, if people get the impression that this is something that governments don't want them to see, then Fox will be much more intriguing, maybe more convincing in its "the-world-is-out-for-white-guy-blood" message. The last thing I want to see is Brit Hume, broken halo in hand, spewing about censorship, the liberal media, and his odessey — against all Liberal odds!! — for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Count me among thy millions..   by Autocharismatic       at Sat 10 May 1:05pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 5     Does anybody across the pond actually WATCH the American FNC? Fox News is not exactly known for their coverage of international events that don't involve shock, awe, or embedding, so why would any Briton watch a show that deals primarily with domestic affairs in an another country? I am admittedly a news junkie, and am prone to turning into BBC World on the local public station for international news; however I usually have little interest British domestic affairs because it has no affect on me. If FNC is taken off the air in the UK, I really don't think it'll hurt Sky and Murdoch too much, and nobody's going to miss it. But you're absolutely right about Hume and O'Reilly making this the focus of a stomach-turning show or eight. There's a man holding a megaphone, he must have been the voice of God.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Count me among thy millions..   by bbtommy       at Sat 10 May 5:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     I've seen it on my Sattelite listings, but when there's quality newspapers and news coverage by reputable organisations like the BBC, I am not sure why anybody would want to. Plus they will have difficulty finding a target market — British media is a lot more left-leaning than US media. I mean, we've got supposedly right wing newspapers (The Daily Telegraph) spouting anti-American anti-war rhetoric, plus the Guardian / Observer (the left-leaning papers), the Independent. All in all, most people in this country won't give a shit that Fox is gone — it's not like they're exactly br making any attempt at professional journalism. But I still disagree with censorship.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  For the record   by sceefy uk       at Sun 11 May 11:41am score of 2.5 helpful   in reply to comment 11     While most people this side of the pond don't watch FOX News at all, one of the reasons for this is that they can't. FOX is only available on satellite or cable television, and it faces competition from the (frankly much better) BBC and Sky news services. If this were the only issue, then I doubt this would be on the radar at all. However the controversy comes from the fact that the government is trying to push through a Bill that would allow, among other things, for Rupert Murdoch (the man behind Sky and FOX News) to buy a terrestrial TV station. This is currently impossible because the law states that you have to be a British citizen to own a terrestrial channel. This bill would massively increase the potential audience for FOX News (or whatever the British brand would be called). Say what you want about the rights and wrongs of "opinionated" news services, but the law states that our news reporting must display 'due impartiality'. For FOX News to gain a terrestrial foothold in this country and continue to push its present agenda would be breaking that law, plain and simple. Nor False Because Spoken Magnificently   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Count me among thy millions..   by danila       at Sun 11 May 1:25am score of 1 nuanced   in reply to comment 17     Don't call it censorship. Media companies have to comply with certain rules — provide fire exits in their offices, prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace, don't use cancerogenic paints for printing the newspapers and yes, being objective and provide balanced coverage if that is a British rule. If they don't comply, they are closed and this is not censorship. Censorship is prohibiting certain information from being distributed. Only information can be censored, not a whole TV station. That it called a ban.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Count me among thy millions..   by Mike1024       at Sun 11 May 2:07pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 17     Hey, All in all, most people in this country won't give a shit that Fox is gone I can confirm this. I'm a Brit, and I can tell you that I didn't even know it was possible to get fox. I certainly didn't ever watch it myself. Also, Satellite/cable TV aren't immensely prolific in this country. Any you can only get Fox if you get satellite or cable. So the majority of the population couldn't watch fox even if they did want to. Michael Whipped that shit out, and aint no doubt about it; It hit the ground and caused an earthquake and power outage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Interesting   by uncarved block       at Sat 10 May 10:08am score of 3 interesting     I doubt these complaints will go anywhere, but once the number of complainants (with enough credibility-- the tinfoil hat crowd can submit a lot of paperwork) gets over a certain point, it would be unseemly not to investigate-- that it would look like Fox was getting a pass because of Murdoch's riches.       The crankiness factor seems pretty high in this case all the same. From everything I've ever heard about the British press, they make up for a lack of First Amendment mandated government freedom by libel laws that make it incredibly difficult for the slighted parties to win. As long as you're not releasing government secrets, everything else was fair game. Simplistic, perhaps, but the wider range of opinions and debates was what separated the British and American media.       As far as the de facto censorship goes: from everything I've seen, if there was a liberal version of Fox News, the Fox commentators would have no trouble at all calling for it to be removed on account of bias, IMHO, so they can't really claim the higher ground. Listen in on any of Neil Cavuto's closing rants, and consider how easily such an argument could come out of his mouth. "But that's his clearly marked opinion, not the news", comes the hypothetical response. Well, yes, but the important thing in this case is not the official/unofficial status of the argument, but whether it could be made at all. "Does Cavuto represent Fox News in total?", might be the next objection. Well, can you really say he differs in kind, or merely in degree? Were he on CNN, you could honestly say he was out of step with the tone of the station; on Fox, he's merely vocalizes the agenda typically left unstated or understated, IMO.       A question, a speculation, for all the UK Polymers: do you think the issue might not be the left/right bias, but rather a perception that Fox is trying to shove the American angle on the British populace? National pride hardly seems to have passed over the Brits, and I wonder how much of that might be the real issue here. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Interesting   by eminem enterprises       at Sat 10 May 10:19am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 6     Actually, libel laws in Britain are harder on defendants than on plaintiffs, putting the onus on former to prove the truth (or "fair comment" status) of the allegedly libellous statement. That's why Richard Perle was threatening to sue Seymour Hersh in the UK. Thats's why that other sonovabitch press baron Robert Maxwell was able to get away with his shenanigans for so long, by threatening or bringing libel suits against reporters who got too close to the truth. Everybody has a share   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Just because a man has fashion sense   by gordon shumway       at Sat 10 May 5:52pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 7     "Actually, libel laws in Britain are harder on defendants than on plaintiffs" Liberace sued the Daily Mirror for libel for asserting he was gay. And won. When he died of AIDS a year later they ran the headline "We Want Our Money Back."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Just because a man has fashion sense   by fishist       at Mon 12 May 11:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Yeah because only gay people die of AIDS...not that i'm saying Liberace was straight. Reward good behavior. Punish poor behavior   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Impartial News Media   by Blue Dot       at Sat 10 May 12:54pm score of 3 astute     While I might be a neo-con on the Plastic political spectrum, I can't stomach a minute of watching FOX. It's an absolutely horrid experience--it seems to me that the talking heads, even when 'reporting impartially', don't take off their jaded glasses long enough to tell a story with a heart and a head, and without blasting someone. Yet, the only thing that makes me more nauseous than watching FOX news is the possibility that the UK will expel it. As others have mentioned, it will give FOX a strong leg to stand on as a martyr or agency unwilling to bend its integrity. What frightens me more, though, is that FOX loses its voice--the only thing that really shows how bad and illogical their brand of thinking is. You know how it works: everyone knows the KKK is bad, but perhaps someone is not sure why. He or she goes to hear them talk, or reads some publication, and now is positive that they're evil, derranged people. If the government bans them and forbids public speeches or rallies, the KKK suddenly become victims of the government, and eventually one wonders why the government was so harsh on such principled people... FOX isn't advocating violence, and they do invite their share of straw-dummy leftists on the show to mimic impartiality. It's no secret that there's a slightly left-of-center slant to most news (at least in America), so having one giant jackass for comparison will do nothing but make the reasonable people sound all that more level-headed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Impartial News Media   by sven_haagendaas       at Sat 10 May 3:12pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 10     Hear hear. The problem with the FNC is not biased reporting as much as the extreme jingoism, belligerence and stone-cold stupidity. Its flagship host is the former mouthpiece of Inside Edition, for crissakes. Despite the fact that conservatives make my teeth hurt, I would cheer a right-wing network (or any kind of network, for that matter) that is as well-produced, witty and thought-provoking as the Weekly Standard. And ditto on the censorship. Unfortunately, obnoxious idiocy can't be made illegal, or we'd have to jail all 3 million Fox viewers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Impartial News Media   by Some Guy       at Sun 11 May 10:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Umm, they are too advocating violence. Sincerity: the new sarcasm   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Impartial News Media   by Ajax       at Mon 12 May 2:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     As others have mentioned, it will give FOX a strong leg to stand on as a martyr or agency unwilling to bend its integrity. I'm not sure...my reading of U.S. history shows that it's just not possible for us to hate both Britain and France — so in order to lambaste the Brits for their snootiness, FOX would have to let up on the France-bashing. Imagine! They'd have to ask people to throw out their Reeboks, and start buying Evian again. What would that do to their integrity? ;) "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  This is not censorship.   by LJ Gould       at Sat 10 May 5:13pm score of 5 informative     There are a limited number of bands available for licence by broadcasters in any given country. These bands are allocated according to which sort of services the broadcaster provides. In addition to the general category, additional categories for licence applications are provided for local stations, public broadcasters, news services, &c. FOX applied for a broadcast licence in Britian as a news service; because of supply and demand, it is easier to obtain a licence as a news broadcaster than it is to obtain a general one: if you qualify. The caveat for FOX is that in order to qualify for a special News broadcasters licence, you must present an unbiased view of the news. If FOX is found to be biased, Britian is right to revoke their licence because they will have broken the terms of their agreement. This does not mean FOX news will be 'banned' from Britiain, what it means is that the station will have to re-apply for a licence through the much more competitive general broadcaster's category. Fox could be back on the air in six months, all it needs is a licence as something other than a news broadcaster — just like all the other purveyors of fiction.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Re: This is not censorship.   by Jeffrey W. Baker       at Sat 10 May 6:58pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 18     I was going to say the same thing about the fact that Fox News broadcasts in the USA at the mercy of the people via the FCC, but then I couldn't actually find any over-the-air Fox New stations in this country. Why would they want to broadcast over-the-air in Britain, with all the extra regulation that implies?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by Jonas Cord       at Sat 10 May 5:15pm score of 2.5 obnoxious     People in these media-savvy and politically charged times have a definite tendency to excuse what serves their agenda pragmatically. This is particularly true of allegations of bias in the media — the Right continues to lambast CNN for bias and the Left, falling into their devious trap, hysterically cries (correctly) that Fox is neither fair nor balanced. Now, what I am unable to reconcile, as a NPR listening Liberal, is this case against Fox is taking place in the UK, home of the BBC. Since the start of Gulf War II, my local NPR affiliate has been running BBC World Service overnight. I'm a bit of a night person, and have had the opportunity to listen to it for hours on end. After becoming intmately familiar with the programming, I am afraid I will have to join with some Conservatives and say that, at the very least, BBC World Service Radio is hopelessly and pathetically biased. This is mostly because BBC Radio has a rather unusual tendency not do "reporting" (summaries of facts) but rather "journalism," where the Journalist details his or her subjective experiences. There's also a bizarre tendency to rely entirely on random people on the street for discussion of issues — talk radio worldwide, if you will — without any subsequent clarification or refutation by experts (I never thought I'd miss our blowhard pundits.) I'll briefly and broadly mention some of the most distinct biases I've detected. I routinely hear Palestinian officials interviewed, Palestinian people interviewed, Palestinian expatriates interviewed, Palestinian facts and figures reported — one could be easily mistaken into believing that the Israelis are mostly quiet and invisible people who only occasionally come down from their mountain to make inflammatory remarks, which are not quoted directly, but rather reinterpreted and rewritten by BBC presenters. It's no better when it comes to the depiction of America in any shape or form — I distinctly remember, while living in the UK, that the reporting coming out of the U.S. to the UK by the BBC was so wholly and bizarrely nonrepresentitive of the life I've known, or any other American I've known well. I found it rather amusing that reporting from American inner cities, where I grew up, were reported "third world" style, focusing on squalor, poverty and danger — as I sat watching in my comfortable luxury hotel room in the UK, in a fashionable and expensive neighborhood that was far more dangerous by any measure than any slum I'd known back home. When I began sighing with relief when NPR came back on the air, as I'd be able to gain broader understanding of what was going on in the world again — I realized something definitely fishy was going on with the BBC. My question to all of you is — am I the only liberal who thinks this? Or, like my conservative friends apologizing for Fox, will you maintain that when it serves our purposes, it's "fair and balanced?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Re: Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by Ananna       at Sat 10 May 11:09pm score of 3 compelling   in reply to comment 19     I'm not sure I can agree with you, even though I think I hear what you're saying. For example, I listened to BBC World last night to an intensely intriguing journalistic piece about Libya and yes, it was exactly as you describe. But the difference is that the reporter wasn't drawing conclusions by the "man on the street" interviews, whereas Sky News or Fox News will actually berate the "man on the street" if their opinion doesn't fit with their world view. I wish I could provide a link to the piece about Libya, because it came across to me as incredibly fair and balanced. She noted that Quadafi was a dictator, but also brought up the incredible non-dictator measures that Quadafi has adopted. I got from her report that Libya isn't some crazy terrorist country bent on the destruction of freedom, but instead an incredibly complex country that is making slow and unsteady steps toward becoming a society that has respect for human rights and individual freedoms. I want to believe that there is such thing as an irrefutable fact, but as I grow older, I'm finding my faith in facts is diminishing. Anecdote can be powerful, but people don't have any respect for it anymore. Fox News is filled with anecdote, but that's not my problem with it. Fox News sometimes even presents more than one side of a story, but I've yet to see a Fox News opinion or story or newscast that presented any issue as multi-faceted. And that's the thing for me, that's what maybe, at its heart makes me a liberal, is that I believe the world is such an incredibly complex place, that it is impossible for it to be described in either/or terms. That's my problem with Fox News. You're either with us or again' us. On the Israel and Palestinian issue, I cannot speak to what you've said, because I don't have the grasp of memory to remember what specific reports I've heard on BBC World on that issue. I can say that I don't have that same feeling, because the feelings are what generally stick with me, even if the facts go in one ear and out the other. I guess I hate Plastic for that very reason — people's absolute faith in some irrefutable fact that will once and for all shut down all conversation because there is really nothing to say after it has been presented. I just don't believe such facts exist, not for even the most egregious, crazy story posted here. There is always a human element, always a facet of the story that is nuanced enough to be immune to fact-based or objective scrutiny. Anyway, I respect people's desire for facts, I just don't think such a thing exists in the real world of flesh and blood. Maybe it is an American thing that we demand our facts, even if they turn out to be made up — how many wars is it we've entered into based on facts that were later shown to be fictitious? Quite a few of them, I expect. But I guess that is a digression from what you are saying in your post, and I'm sure the frothing maniacs will behead me for even suggesting it. Secretly, I am of the opinion that people on Plastic hate anecdotes because there is no refuting them except to say, "well, that's what happened to you but this other thing happened to me, so you are dumb." That's not the point of giving a personal account. I would agree that anyone who gives a personal account as "proof" that something is true or not is not being fully honest with themselves, but even then, it cannot be completely denied that some people have personal experiences that fully describe a wider issue. Samuel Clemens would hate Plastic, I fear, because of the petty insistence on dry, rote debate. It says "The Web's Smartest Readers" not "The Web's Most Intelligent Readers" for a reason, because smart has so many nuances to its definition. I can be smart and completely wrong, but still provide valuable insight into an issue. Intelligence is highly overrated, as Albert Einstein pointed out, creativity is more important. I watch Plastic become less and less creative every day, with its insistence on following posting guidelines and the obnoxious Submissions Queue and its obstinate demand for stories that conform to the most boring template, wrung dry of any personal flair or dynamics. To bring this all back to the televised and broadcast news, this same pattern seems to be apparent. We demand objectivity and balance because we see so little of it, but what we're ignoring is that we aren't seeing subjectivity and bias, we're seeing a complete lack of curiosity, inquisitiveness and instinct. Reporters used to call it "working on a hunch", but that has all but disappeared from our public discourse. You can't show a bear wearing only a shirt, since that implies that the bear ought to be wearing pants, but isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by Ananna       at Sat 10 May 11:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     I apologize, that's "Qaddafi", of course. You can't show a bear wearing only a shirt, since that implies that the bear ought to be wearing pants, but isn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by Anonymous SidVicious       at Sun 11 May 9:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     I believe the world is such an incredibly complex place, that it is impossible for it to be described in either/or terms...I am of the opinion that people on Plastic hate anecdotes... Intelligence is highly overrated, creativity is more important... I watch Plastic become less and less creative every day... we're seeing a complete lack of curiosity, inquisitiveness and instinct. IMhO, & speaking as someone who's relatively new, I don't know how much more creative things used to be around here, but I believe it was MAYORBOB(TM) (scroll down, second paragraph), who summed it up best when he said that at a little over two years, Plastic does not exactly have a golden age just yet. However, in the short amount of time that I have spent here, and in the spirit of anti-silence and anti-censorship, I feel very fortunate to have read some of the most articulate, creative, well-informed, talented and yes, side-splittingly fun-neee comments you're ever likely to find. Sure, with 36000+ members and climbling, you're bound to get a few more 'idiots' giving anonymity a bad name now and then, but I'd like to think the overall quality hasn't diminished, despite the inevitability of one true constant: change. I especially enjoyed the recent 'Everything you wanted to know about submitting but were too afraid to ask' discussion, and would just like to say thank you Plastic, not only for letting me express my opinions freely, but for all the great, un-censored posts I've read so far. "May you live in interesting times." -Robert F. Kennedy, 1966.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by gaspacho       at Mon 12 May 8:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     I want to believe that there is such thing as an irrefutable fact, but as I grow older, I'm finding my faith in facts is diminishing. Anecdote can be powerful, but people don't have any respect for it anymore. Most 'facts' are just anecdotes that have been fossilized through generalization, abstraction, and consensual repetition. This makes anecdotes more contentious, but also more interesting to read. Save the anecdote! socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by hellohihihihi       at Sun 11 May 12:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     There have been complaints about the BBC World Service before. It seems like the BBC and the BBC World Service are different organizations, with the BBC World Service mostly ignored inside the UK. The person's opinion is an interesting read. Personally, of course, everything I've seen and heard from the BBC has been pretty good (though I don't have much exposure to it). If they are biased, though, it seems their focus is on broadcasting outside of the UK, not inside it. It doesn't seem like it really needs a license to operate in the UK if the BBCWS's purpose lies elsewhere.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: Here come the Flames: FOX News vs. BBC   by melshocker       at Sun 11 May 1:59pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 19     >I routinely hear Palestinian officials interviewed, >Palestinian people interviewed, Palestinian expatriates >interviewed, Palestinian facts and figures reported ? one >could be easily mistaken into believing that the Israelis >are mostly quiet The question of whether the BBC is overly left-leaning is something I imagine we'll never settle: just as conservatives find the Wall Street Journal the only voice of unbiased objectivity, and the New York Times a bastion of Communism, while lefties think of the Times as, at best, not a completely obvious corporate shill rag. That being said, I don't think the BBC's reliance on (for example) Palestinian officials is knockdown evidence of their bias: when question these officials, if the official says something the interviewer finds questionable, I've heard them go after the guy and force him to clarify or justify his statement like I've NEVER heard an American journalist do, short of the rabid interruptionism of the Fox News "Hardball" variety.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Truth in advertising..   by CashCarSTAR       at Sat 10 May 5:25pm score of 1     Is it just me, or does the UK seem to go almost overboard when it comes to honesty? From the libel laws, to accurate advertising laws, the UK seems to value honesty. I'm all for freedom of the press...my beef is with calling themselves a news station. More concerned with propaganda than proof FNC brings disrepute to the term news, and my problem is with that false advertising manner. In a nutshell, FNC is entertainment, not education. If they applied for their license labeling themselves as news, then there is a case for fraud. What is it you want to change?....We are the radio...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Easy Solution   by Zi       at Sat 10 May 9:24pm score of 1     Here's a way out of it. Fox New changes its name to Fox Opinion and changes its motto from "We report, you decide" to "we report our side." They then run a bug on screen at all times that states: We are not a news channel, we are an entertainment channel. Works for me. So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Fox   by Infe       at Sat 10 May 9:34pm score of 1     Fox, as is the case with most conservative people in the media, doesn't hide its slant. Oh can't finish this comment, sorry, the BBC news is on.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  tonight's headline: pot berates kettle   by gerrymander       at Sun 11 May 1:15am score of 1.5 clever     There's something inherently amusing about any story on Fox News bias printed in the Guardian. It its own way, that paper is to many readers just as biased in its reporting as Fox is; only the direction of the slant changes. As a side note, the Zap2It link notes the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom as "among those leading the charge to have FNC taken off air." Links from the front page of the CPBF website under the heading "Journalism" include such bastions of impartiality as StopWar, Working for Change, Left Direct and Michael Moore's homepage. Methinks the lefty doth protest too much.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Re: tonight's headline: pot berates kettle   by postbear       at Sun 11 May 2:50am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 31     why is it an issue for you that the campaign for press and broadcasting freedom would be advocating that fox be refused description as a news service? their mission statement indicates that "the cpbf was founded in 1979 to campaign for a freer more accountable media." do you feel it inappropriate for a citizens' advocacy group to pressure the government (which they helped elect) to monitor the media and hold it accountable for its bias? as for the links from the cpbf website — there are 64 links in that one section of the front page alone, and many more throughout the site. most are directed at media outlets, monitors and commentators — the newspaper society is represented, as are the writer's guild, journalism uk and the global journalism review. if you mean to imply, in your post, that the cpbf only represents the interests of fringe-dwelling leftists, you are most sadly mistaken. media monitoring has for too long been the willing undertaking of extremists of all stripes. this is more true, i'd wager, in the u.s. than in britain and here in canada. that parliament is willing to address the concerns of the citizenry regarding the accountability and balance of the news media is only sensible, and if fox is required to acquire the official label of 'entertainment' rather than 'news', i fail to see any censorship. parliament is only describing fox in the manner that most individuals have been doing for quite some time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: tonight's headline: pot berates kettle   by gerrymander       at Sun 11 May 10:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     why is it an issue for you that the campaign for press and broadcasting freedom would be advocating that fox be refused description as a news service? The CPBF is hardly being evenhanded in their call for high standards in news reporting. While I admit to choosing some of the most noteworthy biased sources in their links list to the exclusion of moderate ones, it is worth noting that there are no right-leaning links whatsoever. Surely an unbiased group which claimed Indymedia as an example of responsible journalism would also be forced to admit the Free Republic site as well. (And in my opinion, any unbiased source which recommended either as examples of good journalism has stretched that definition to uselessness.) Not to put too fine a point on it, calling on Britain to refuse Fox News while still allowing the Guardian to pass muster is undermining the high-minded purported aims of the organization. "Campaigning for a freer, more accountable media" is a is a worthwhile goal; the CPBF's actions against Fox appear to be the debased and far more typical "campaigning for a more accountable media among voices we don't like."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Amusing from a country with such biased papers   by eiger       at Sun 11 May 3:39am score of 1     I'm not going to claim to know the ins and outs of British law here. However, recently when I went to the UK to visit my wife's family I was shocked at just how biased every newspaper I read there was. From the 'Tory-graph' to the Guardian even to my beloved Economist, British media seems to wear its biases on its sleeves like a badge of honor. Every single article I read, no matter how inane, seemed to be pushing some particular world view. Personally, I have no real problem with that. I think it is actually better than the American attempt at 'objectivity' which frankly is impossible. IT seems better to me just to accept bias and read a newspaper (or watch a station) that agrees with yours (and of course if you are intellectually honest, check out the opposing views now and again). Therefore, a lot of the comments above attacking Fox for bias as something unknown in Britain struck me as particularly silly. Pick up a british newspaper sometime and see how 'objective' the British press really is. Then again I thought Kerry was going to win. So, what the hell do I know?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  not exactly censorship, but bad for the left   by melshocker       at Sun 11 May 2:08pm score of 1     I don't think this rates as censorship, precisely. The British Government isn't saying that Fox News is not allowed to say the sorts of things that it says, but that it can't say ONLY the sorts of things it says, that it has to balance out its coverage. Whether or not that's appropriate is another matter, but I don't think its censorship: it's a requirement to say more than one is saying, not a limit on what one can say. There used to be a similar rule in this country about "equal time" for political candidates on networks: it wasn't censorship, it was ensuring that a public service (which is what news programs are meant to be, a justification for giving broadcasting companies the right to sole usage of a portion of the publically owned broadcast spectrum) was in fact a service to the public, and not to a narrow interest group. That being said, I agree with those posters who say that this will only bolster Fox News' claims of victimhood in a world dominated by left leaning press. It's just bad tactically for the left. Of course, and rightly so, it's not the law's concern as to what's tactically good or bad for either side. On a related note, it's my understanding that the British Government is allowed to officially censor release of news items that affect military or national security. Can anyone confirm or refute this?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Re: not exactly censorship, but bad for the left   by Victor Lazlo       at Sun 11 May 3:45pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 45     Yes, its the Official Secrets Act. Ashcroft would love to have it here. Only things is we don't need it. We don't have any media outlet, electronic or print, that has the balls to take on Top Gun.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  I wish there was a 'news FDA'   by brainowner       at Sun 11 May 6:14pm score of 1     There is so much information out there these days, it becomes very hard to tell truth from fiction. One of the things that has been striking me recently, is that if one keeps informed, I can easily find one or two news stories a day that contain obvious falsehoods. This I really have problems with. So called "news organizations" that have hundreds if not thousands of people working for them should not be allowed to present me with 'news' that even I can verify is false. I wish there were something like a 'news FDA'. Just like a restaurant or grocery store that sells rotten food will be closed down, so a 'news station' that repeatedly reports facts that are verifiably false, should be closed down. I'd even be willing to pay some extra taxes to keep my news based in facts. Of course, everybody is free to present his opinion, I'm not against freedom of speech. The problem I have is that most people seem to have way too much trust in the 'news' they see on television and hear on the radio. That is, 'news' has a much better image than their current quality warrants. News sources like FOX are like restaurants that frequently serve poisoned food. There is two ways this can go. Either eventually people catch on and stop trusting any news that they get. Or alternatively, some federal agency is created to ensure some basic quality control of the news. I think the latter would be the preferred solution.. even though I realize there are all kinds of practical problems in implementing it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Re: I wish there was a 'news FDA'   by gordon shumway       at Sun 11 May 10:58pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 48     "I'm not against freedom of speech." Yes you are. You think a news source with a political slant you don't approve of "should be closed down" by the government, and you think there should be a government censorship agency to determine what's true and what isn't (by the way, if you got your wish, who do you think Bush would have as head of such an agency?). There is no way you can reconcile that with being for freedom of speech.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: I wish there was a 'news FDA'   by brainowner       at Mon 12 May 9:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Your preoccupation with your own political slant seems to have let you to hallucinate some things that were not in my post. I couldn't have asked for a better illustration of what I am talking about. You think a news source with a political slant you don't approve of "should be closed down" by the government, This, is a lie. That is, a statement which contradicts the facts, which you made while having the facts available to you. I never said such a thing. What I said was that: a "news source" that repeatedly makes claims that are at odds with the facts should not be allowed to call itself a news source. Or some disclaimer should appear in the screen that says "the Federal Information Integrity Agency has determined that this information source repeatedly made verifiably false claims." If we had something like that on plastic, your above post would give you one penalty point in the "puts words in mouths of posters that posters never uttered" category.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: I wish there was a 'news FDA'   by Ajax       at Mon 12 May 3:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     Oddly enough, I'm in the position of agreeing with gordon shumway on something. I wish there were something like a 'news FDA'. Just like a restaurant or grocery store that sells rotten food will be closed down, so a 'news station' that repeatedly reports facts that are verifiably false, should be closed down. [emphasis mine] That, dear friend, is what you said. What I said was that: a "news source" that repeatedly makes claims that are at odds with the facts should not be allowed to call itself a news source. Or some disclaimer should appear in the screen that says "the Federal Information Integrity Agency has determined that this information source repeatedly made verifiably false claims." No, that is not what you said. Maybe it's what you meant, but you didn't say that. What you said is quoted above — I pulled it directly from your post. This, is a lie. That is, a statement which contradicts the facts, which you made while having the facts available to you. It is your statement, rather, that contradicts the facts. Shumway rightly took you to task for holding up freedom of speech with one hand, and "closing down" quote-unquote-news outlets with the other. These are inconsistent views, and your subsequent attempt to rewrite reality and claim you didn't use the words "close down" (when they're right up there for all to see) did not go unnoticed. "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: I wish there was a 'news FDA'   by brainowner       at Mon 12 May 11:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     Yes, you are correct. I used the words "closed down". I thought it was clear from the context that what I meant with that is that a news source can no longer call itself a "news source". That is, they will have to close down *as a news source*. I emphasized this by saying that everybody of course has the right to present their opinion. They are just not allowed to call this news. Similarly, it is not disallowed for a store to sell rotten food. They can call it compost I guess. They are just not allowed to call themselves a restaurant. But I admit it was dumb of me to use the words "closing down". Even so, I don't know how from this it follows that you "agree with Shumway". Shumway claimed I wanted to close down a news source because their political slant didn't agree with mine. That's definitely nonsense. Really, I don't see why you think my views are 'inconsistent'. Do you consider it against freedom of speech that a company cannot put lies in the "nutrition facts" that appear on its cans of food? Cause I don't. Similarly, I don't see why it is constraining freedom of speech to tell "news sources" that they cannot make false claims and present them as facts.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  shame   by googa       at Mon 12 May 1:53am score of 1     shame it doesn't appear to apply to the printed press, as then the reporters of this story (the guardian) would be shut down for being a tedious leftwing rag. Still, a man can dream.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Hmm. Shouty, shouty, shouty   by zammo       at Mon 12 May 8:30am score of 2.5 funny     This seems to be descending into 'my newspaper's better than your newspaper' so, some on-the-button, cutting-edge points from me (ah ha). Whoever's made the point about British newspapers being obviously biased is, I think, right. A cursory glance at the Telegraph will leave even the most fence-sitting liberal gasping for breath and Oliver Letwin's head on a plate, whilst the Grauniad is (literally) red rag to the old Tory bulls. The only paper that isn't slanted is the Independent, which I faithfully read every day and which is an object lesson in just how boring un-spun news can be. What they all have in common, though, is that they wear their prejudices on their sleeves, as someone has already noted. The American press, on the other hand (I read the International Herald and Tribune and the New York Times online fairly regularly) and I've noticed a tendency to go 'Here are the facts. Believe them. Or fuck off.' The former organ's coverage of Palestine, for instance, was so incredibly one-sided it left me fit to burst — but then, I'm exposed to the kind of slack-arsed reporting where journalists have the temerity to ask people what they think. Anyway. This is related to Murdoch because... It should be pretty obvious that the Sun's and the Times' rabidly anti-European prejudices are attempts by the dirty digger to retain his business empire (which would, I understand, become even more legally dubious under European jurisdiction than it is under that of the Brits). However, it's not. It just looks like a good old John Bull effort to retain Christianity, beef and beer in the face of the fiendish machinations of the Bosch and the Froggies. 'Cos you can still get away with it. And with profits like Murdoch's you can undersell all the other dailies too. Think free speech and free markets are synonymous? Did they tell you that on Fox? Yoda es fuertissimo. El puede vencer a Count Dooku. Pero Jesus es aun mas fuerte. El tiene muchos poderes.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  There is no censorship here.   by flowers       at Mon 12 May 6:15pm score of 1.5 brilliant     Nothing prevents the FOX people from saying whatever they want to in Britain. They are simply prevented from calling it news. If the FOX News channel is restricted from broadcasting in the UK as a result of this law, they can simply change the name to something else that more closely represents the channel's content ... like the FOX Idle Speculation Channel, the FOX Opinion Channel, or the FOX News Byproduct Network. The principles of journalism are being betrayed left, right, and center by our "free press" in a constant battle for ratings. Regulation that enforces journalistic integrity is long overdue on this side of the pond, as well.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Drink up!   by snarkism       at Mon 12 May 10:13pm score of 1     Oh, those whacky Aussie ex-pats, causing general mayhem to make money. Bart: "...and if that doesn't work, we'll sell it to the Fox Network. They'll buy anything." Homer: "Now son, FOX has a lot of quality programming." "Ha ha ha" snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  press! press! pull! nyuk nyuk!   by born sleepy       at Mon 12 May 10:38pm score of 1     "Freedom of press is limited to those who own one." --H. L. Mencken. I think it's sort of cute how you Brits get all huffy about stuff like this. here in America after next month the entire media industry will be up for sale once the FCC passes the Media Monopoly Act. I can't wait til it's all owned by one conglomerate: finally, no more decisions to make. I couldn't fix your brakes, so I made your horn louder.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]