30 reasons why Fox News is not legit

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Henk,

Het begint er op te lijken dat Fox & Co. toch meer de maat genomen gaat
worden.
Een goede zaak en niet alleen voor de nieuwsvoorziening in de USA, maar
ook voor de verslaggeving over het M.O.

Groet / Cees

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200910270002
30 reasons why Fox News is not legit

"Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering,
reporting and interpreting information." -- Society of Professional
Journalists

Why the Beltway press has invested so much time and energy in recent
weeks defending Fox News, with one scribe even claiming that the White
House's public critique of the network was "dangerous to press freedom,"
and why the press refuses to acknowledge what's so obvious about the
cable channel's political pursuits, remains baffling.

The facts regarding Fox News' lack of professionalism seem rather
obvious (as I detail below 30 different times). And that ought to be
plain for Beltway journalists as well. But whether for reasons having to
do with external professional, social, or political pressures, many
journalists have opted to pretend that Fox News is a serious outlet,
that it's just like its cable and network TV news competitors.

They insist that any suggestion that Rupert Murdoch's cable channel
isn't legitimate is completely off-base and that the White House is not
even allowed to have an opinion on the issue. Indeed, ABC News' Jake
Tapper suggested it was not "appropriate" for the administration to tag
the channel as illegitimate. (Tapper himself can't tell the difference
between the programming that Fox News and ABC News produce.)

The rush to defend Fox News is an odd one, because I don't remember the
same type of the circle-the-wagons defense when the previous Republican
administration openly waged war on The New York Times and NBC, two news
outlets whose standards far outshine the kind of pseudo-reporting Fox
News produces on a daily basis. That Beltway media elites have decided
to rally around Fox News of all entities remains as puzzling as it is
short-sighted.

The truth is, journalism is not difficult to practice, nor is it tough
to identify. Journalists aren't licensed, and anyone can try their hand
at it, as the Internet has made clear. So there is no higher authority
declaring what is and isn't journalism. But the craft, like obscenity,
is instantly recognizable in its true form.

For generations in this country, there has been a sort of a gentleman's
agreement in terms of what constituted professional behavior among
journalists. And there has been a sense of shame when members crossed
those lines into unprofessional behavior. Bosses chastened those
employees, people were fired, and ethics panels were summarily convened
to make certain the transgressions didn't happen again. Fox News,
though, has walked away from all of that. And guess what? The rest of
the press hasn't said boo.

That's been the sad case for years. (Playing dumb about Fox News'
partisan pursuits now qualifies as a Beltway intramural sport.) Indeed,
the loophole, or the caveat, to journalism's gentleman's agreement has
always been that the guidelines were voluntary and self-policing. There
was no governing body, either within journalism or without, that
regulated the product. The only collective deterrent from producing bad
journalism, aside from rather lax U.S. libel laws, is a collective sense
of shame, a shared feeling that making a factual error -- or worse,
purposefully pushing false information under the guise of journalism --
was both unprofessional and unacceptable.

But clearly, Fox News does not share that sense of shame, because it's
not part of the larger journalism brotherhood. Fox News doesn't feel
like rules such as fairness, accuracy, neutrality, and independence
apply, which is obvious since Fox News breaks those rules with stunning
regularity. In fact, its programming day seems designed to break the
traditional rules ad nauseam. That's what it's built to do. And if
nothing else, Fox News is ruthlessly efficient.

So, Fox News has altered the game by unchaining itself from the moral
groundings of U.S. journalism. And guess what? There is no industry
shame being rained down on the outlet. The rest of the press not only
doesn't complain, it defends Fox News and even apologizes on its behalf,
which is what we've seen unfold for the last two weeks.

If we're actually going to have this is-the-world-really-round "debate"
about Fox News, then let's put it in perspective in terms of what
constitutes a legitimate news organization.

Here's how the Society of Professional Journalists describes the craft:

    Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that
public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of
democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by
seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events
and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties
strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional
integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

The organization's Code of Ethics declares "the Society's principles and
standards of practice." In terms of a broad-based definition of what
journalism ought to be, the Code of Ethics remains the industry
standard. And as you'll see below, Fox News routinely, and blatantly,
breaks the code to which ethical journalists are supposed to aspire. Fox
News staffers (and not just the opinion show hosts) don't simply fail to
live up to the industry's own ethical standards. They produce broadcasts
that run directly counter to established values and rules. In other
words, they obliterate the Code of Ethics on a regular basis, which to
me signals that Fox News is not a legitimate source of journalism.

Below are some cornerstones to journalism's Code of Ethics, followed by
clear-cut examples of how Fox News tramples that code:

--Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to
avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

Timeline of a [madrassa] smear

--Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material,
photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not
misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of
context.

After teasing story by saying "Obama makes a little girl cry," Fox News'
Kelly acknowledged it was not true

--Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement
for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo
illustrations.

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

--Never plagiarize.

Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all

--Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity,
geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social
status.

Media adopt gender, racial stereotypes in characterizing Sotomayor's
temperament, intellect

--Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and
commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party"
protests

--Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those
affected by tragedy or grief.

Fox News, CBS air clips of peephole video of ESPN's Erin Andrews

--Recognize that private people have a greater right to control
information about themselves than do public officials and others who
seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can
justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.

O'Reilly Producer Stalks Amanda Terkel: THE VIDEO

--Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Foxy News breaks out the boudoir B-roll to cover "the great breast
augmentation scandal"

--Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise
integrity or damage credibility.

Would a real news organization help GOP PACs raise money?

--Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and
shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and
service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic
integrity.

FLASHBACK: When Fox News boasted about its "unprecedented" access to the
Bush White House

--Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

After exclusive access, softball interviews during Bush admin, Fox News
blasts ABC for White House exclusive

--Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News seeks to confirm wildly inaccurate reporting that
it's already aired on Jennings controversy; former student seeks Fox
News correction

I normally wouldn't spend so much time with the chapter-and-verse
examples to highlight the clear fact that Fox News is not a legitimate
news organization. But since Beltway media elites continue to cling to
the claim that it is, as well as peddle the bizarre, anti-free speech
concept that the White House somehow ought to be forbidden to criticize
the press, I'll continue with even more inescapable examples to back up
the observation that Fox News is not a legitimate news outlet.

For instance, a legitimate news organization does not:

    * Source its research to "conservative blogs."
    * Purposefully present stories out of context.
    * Regularly declare "Victory!" when a White House initiative fails.
    * Ignore a breaking news story that embarrasses the Republican
Party.
    * Invite fringe conspiracy theorists to appear on news shows.
    * Suggest during a news program that Democrats voted to "protect
pedophiles, but not veterans."
    * Routinely accuse the president of the United States of being like
Adolf Hitler.
    * Describe itself as the "voice of the opposition."
    * Air more than 100 commercials promoting partisan political
rallies.
    * Show 22 clips of health care reform opponents who attended town
hall forums, and none of health reform supporters.
    * Purchase full-page newspaper ads to spread falsehoods about the
news competition.
    * Invade the privacy of second-grade students.
    * Promote violent political rhetoric.
    * Fail to fact-check a murder story before airing allegations about
it.
    * Allow a news anchor to suggest a Supreme Court nominee is guilty
of "reverse racism."

It certainly would be helpful if reporters and pundits who work for
respected corporate news outlets and who today defend Fox News as a
legitimate operation (or at least chastise the White House for raising
doubts) examined the 30 examples I listed above and ask themselves this:
If they committed just one of those newsroom transgressions, would they
still have a job? Would bosses at ABC or The New York Times or The
Washington Post or wherever be willing to have those journalists on
staff if they bent, and then busted, journalism's Code of Ethics the way
Fox News regularly does?

I suspect the obvious answer is no. And I suspect journalists understand
that. So why the Beltway charade? Why refuse to acknowledge the
self-evident truth that Fox is not a legitimate news organization?

(Additional research by Simon Maloy.)

Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter.

Author by jflz201884 (2 hours and 26 minutes ago)
This is a brilliant compilation of relatively few Fox News
transgressions, Eric. Many of us who entered the news business five
decades ago could not have envisioned such wholesale violation of
journalism ethics. We spent our entire careers knowing credibility is
everything. Lose it and you deserve to be out.
Fox's defenders like to point out the pedigrees of the cable channel's
stalwarts, including the retired-but-still around Brit Hume.
Right. These aren't replicants formed out of pods a la "Invasion of the
Body Snatchers." Before Fox's 1996 founding, they had enjoyed solid,
respectable careers.
Why hasn't their employer's bailout from professionalism found them
quitting?
Lots of times you just can't quit. A worker, whether paid $50,000 or $5
million, looks for reasons to stay. We can't read people's minds, but
it's reasonable to assume the stunningly regular breaking of the rules
deeply troubles many Fox employees. Some, perhaps, like to pretend it
isn't happening.
A paid Fox News analyst-consultant CAN quit. And one did just the other
day: Jane Hall, professor of communication at The American University.
Too much Glenn Beck is the reported reason. Hall, incidentally, was a
regular on Fox's best program, "Fox News Watch."
We can expect similar departures.
Jerry Elsea

Author by chrisgodawgs (1 hour and 43 minutes ago)
Hey Media Matters readers, I have a quick easy way to make some
Christmas money for all of you. One wingnut blog is offering $1,000 to
anyone who can present just one lie from Fox News. I'd like us to flood
his blog with examples, and I know he will weasel out of paying, but
this should be fish in a barrel. The link is
[url=http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-1000-dollar-fox-news-lies-challenge.html]

Author by rtwmd1230 (55 minutes ago)
Can anyone offer an explanation of why EVERYONE in the MSM is rushing to
Fox's defense? I just don't get it at all.

Author by Cannonball (52 minutes ago)
"Why refuse to acknowledge the self-evident truth that Fox is not a
legitimate news organization?"
Simple, they fear they may be next to be criticized, either by the White
House or Fox. It's the slippery slope theory that once they acknowledge
that the White House may criticize news organizations, one day President
Obama will openly mock one of the White House pressroom reporters'
stupid, misleading or slanted questions.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********