Which of these things is not like the others....

[demiurgent]

Here are the top stories on different news websites, specifically highlighting political news, as they are listed, all on 'above the fold' placement (IE -- nothing in subsections below):

MSNBC

Gillibrand to succeed Clinton in the Senate (Large text, one sentence summary afterward)

Obama to reverse foreign abortion rule

Obama woos Congress on stimulus

CNN

Gillibrand to replace Clinton in the Senate (Large text, full paragraph summary afterward)

CNNMoney: Obama offers economy plan details

(No other political above-the-fold, not counting pictures of Obama on Air Force One and McCain responding to Sarah Palin jabs)

The Washington Post

Obama: New $825 Billion Stimulus Plan 'on Target' (large text, 1 sentence summary)

'War on Terror' Comes to an End (headline, 1 sentence summary)

Gillibrand Named to N.Y. Seat (headline, 1 sentence summary)

U.S. Approves Stem Cell Study (headline, 1 sentence summary)

The Wall Street Journal

Gillibrand Is Picked As New York Senator (headline,1 sentence summary)

Obama: Stimulus Bill on Track

First Stem-Cell Trial Is Approved

The New York Times

Paterson Picks Gillibrand for Senate Seat (large text, 1 sentence summary, followup links)

Washington Confident It Can Forge Recovery Plan (large text, 1 sentence summary, followup links)

The Washington Times

Obama urges movement on stimulus bill (large text, 1 sentence summary)

N.Y. Gov picks Gillibrand for Senate Seat (large text)

Obama, seeing long dip, tempers hope for economy (large text)

Stem cell study for spinal injury OK'd

FOX News

Obama Reverses Bush Policy On Abortion (large text, 1 sentence summary) -- this automatically refreshed into "About-Face on Abortion" while I was compiling this.

Dems Wary of Hill's Replacement (large text, 1 sentence summary)

Resistance to Obama Stimulus Grows



Do you see just a slight -- just a slight difference between the Fox News headlines and all the others? Some of the above sources skew liberal. Some of them skew conservative (no one accuses the Washington Times of having a liberal bias). But all of them strive to report the news as news, regardless of their leaning. But on the Fox site, it's not that Gillibrand was chosen -- it's that 'Dems' are 'wary' about Gillibrand being chosen. And the proposed abortion executive order is news, unquestionably, but on the Fox site it's the top story and clearly poised to enflame.

Really, the closest sites to Fox news in tone are things like the Huffington Post -- which isn't a news site, but is instead a partisan organ -- and the overtly propagandish Moveon.org. Both of those latter sites are laudatory towards Obama and are virulently anti-Republican, but their tone and Fox News is roughly the same.

I know we've been joking about Fox for years, but there are people out there (I work with one) who think Fox News is in fact a legitimate news organization. Doesn't there reach a point when they become culpable for false advertising, if nothing else?

Comments

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Doesn't there reach a point when they become culpable for false advertising, if nothing else?

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre)

Fox sued, and won, a federal appeals court ruling that the FFC rule against falsifying news was not a real rule, and so doesn't prevent them from falsifying the news.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

PS: "Terrorists? In your backyard? It's more likely than you think!" (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/22/youdecide_gitmo_terrorists/)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I'm not even discussing whether or not what they print is true.

Their advertising claims they are "Fox News," and their advertising tagline is "fair and balanced."

At what point are their culpable for and guilty of false advertising. That's illegal in this country -- it's not an FCC regulation. It's a consumer protection law. By making a false claim about the product they sell, they're liable for false advertising.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

#1: "Fair and balanced" is a TRADEMARK, not a promise.
#2: Fox has consistently interpreted "fair and balanced" to mean "facts on one side, the most absurd lies we can think of on the other, our conclusion will be that there's merit to both and that the REAL truth lies in line with the opinions of our parent organisation's favoured political party"
#3: They are under no obligation to avoid deliberate falsehoods in "News". Advertising "news" and giving "lies" is not false advertising when the law says there is no obligation for things labelled "news" to be true.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Actually, trademarks and service marks, when used in conjunction with product names in advertising in the marketplace are considered as advertising claims. The same is true of product names. That they've trademarked the phrase doesn't change its use as an advertising claim.

Further, how Fox interprets the phrase is irrelevant in a class action lawsuit (which the action you mentioned was not). How the judge interprets the phrase is the relevant point, and said judge is required to determine what the public would reasonably expect to believe was meant, not what Fox claimed.

As for point three -- as aggravating as that point was, it is not germane to a consumer advocacy action. Different legal points, different precedents. They would need to come up with different evil juju for these purposes.

[sben.livejournal.com]

Not to mention using the dismissive and sexist "Hill" to refer to Secretary Clinton.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

That's their usual tone. See also 'Condi.'

[shaenon.livejournal.com]

Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton. I'm going to say those words over and over, let them roll joyously off my tongue.

Similarly, "global gag rule rescinded."

[sben.livejournal.com]

I KNOW!

[magicwoman.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for pointing out how different Fox headlines are (which we knew - but to see it so blatent among the other headlines!). Thanks!!!

It's a new day! Except at Fox News.

[orikes13.livejournal.com]

Just over a year ago, work decided to limit internet access in my department. We now can only get to sites necessary for work, Wikipedia, CNN, and.... Fox News.

I can say that most of us at work hit CNN for real news and FoxNews for entertainment. It was pretty painful during the election season, but once that was over, we could go back to passing around some of the more absurd headlines and stories.

It is scary that there are people out there who believe FoxNews is legitimate.

[m0usegrrl.livejournal.com]

My stepdad thinks Fox News is the only news source there is. He also thinks Bill O'Reilly is Right. I get home from work right about halfway through The O'Reilly Factor, blaring on the living room tv, and shut myself in my room for an hour til he's nodded off. (He also tries to engage me in political discussion (read: argument) but I never take the bait.)

I SO need to get into my own apartment...

[missing-thewar.livejournal.com]

i think since so many people only watch one or the other, it's tough to really see the difference unless you lay it out kind of like you did here. so many fox news viewers take everything at face value and don't really think to fact-check everything. it's only when you start to compare and contrast that you realize what's really news and what's just propaganda. sadly, too many people don't bother to intelligently gather their news, or question anything period. it's always best to get your news from at least one or two sources, as you do.

(being a journalist, you think i'd be able to phrase this better, but it's friday. i hope you get the point.)

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

fascinating summary, Eric. Permission to repost on my LJ, with attribution and links back to yours?

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Sure thing!

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

muito obrigado (http://rosencrantz23.livejournal.com/113698.html) senhor Burns-White

[shaenon.livejournal.com]

Somebody at my gym used to have at least one TV tuned to Fox News all the time, so I ended up watching it pretty regularly. If you got all your news from Fox, you'd be under the impression that nothing of interest has happened in the world for the last several years except for attractive blondes getting kidnapped and/or murdered, liberals being mean for no reason, and endless, endless victories in Iraq. And it's all conveyed with such bright colors, such quick cuts! It's like news for vicious-minded toddlers.

I notice Fox News hasn't been on at the gym for the last couple of months. Funny, that.