Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Fox -Ooops-News

Remember last fall when Fox News labeled disgraced REPUBLICAN Congressman Mark Foley a Democrat in a graphic... well this week the network dropped the ball again in a story about Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson's indictment. Fox broke the story about Jefferson and proceeded to run video footage featuring Michigan Congressman John Conyers, who happens to Chair the House Judiciary Committee, implying that Conyers was the one indicted.

Frank James from the Tribune tells the story.

Another pathetic journalistic example from the "Fair and Balanced" network.


Anonymous said...

So...Fox News made two mistakes in 8 months, is that what you're saying (they also jumped the gun on Pope John Paul's death too--remember that)? Divide three errors against the hundreds of news items they've aired in that timeframe and you'll get a number that's about as low as your IQ. How many corrections have NPR shows had to make in 8 months? I remember hearing several on Morning Edition alone in the last few months. Tsk tsk.

...and Fox showed John Conyers--a Democrat instead of William Jefferson--another Democrat? Sounds like a Fair & Balanced mistake to me. The bottom line is that Fox confused two corrupt Democrats--big deal. Seen one, seen 'em all.

Do you really expect the public to believe that NPR is not partisan in its coverage, or doesn't have an agenda? Their (your) crappy Iraq coverage alone is about as unbalanced as anyone will encounter, anywhere in media. And how many contrarian opions has NPR aired on the topic of Global Warming? Of the many stories I've heard on GW on NPR I can think of none that did not weight the story in favor of the hysterics. To NPR, the underlying science that contributes to the understanding of GW has stood still for the last two years. We're now understanding that the sun's affect on cloud seeding is driving most of the change in climate but I have yet to hear a story on this development, including the prominent scientists who have become skeptics.

Where is your integrity?

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

There are corrupt Republicans and corrupt Democrats everywhere. What we have is a culture war...Rep and Dem will never agree. It is rather simple...who cares what mistakes were made through a newscast?? Why is this even up for debate?

I find it is usually religious right wing Republicans that get bent out of shape over this kind of thing.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

Gee, what anger!

Anonymous said...

no anger here. i'm not a republican, nor am i a "right winger"; nor am i religious. and i don't watch fox news regularly (prefer cnn). but i listen to NPR on the way to, and from, work and can attest to it's bias.

the author of this post lives in a very tall glass house indeed.

Anonymous said...

Quote of the Day, from Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons (

"I worry about CNN more than I do about"

"For good reason: CNN's ratings have been on a steady decline since 2003, when it regularly got 689,000 households to tune in each day, to a low of 383,000 last year, according to Nielsen Media Research. For the first six months of this year, it's up to 431,000. Fox News, its younger, more conservative competitor, routinely trounces it in the ratings, often garnering twice the household ratings and recently besting CNN in prime time for key coverage of the presidential debates."

Anonymous said...

MSNBC Politics reporter Bill Dedman scoured Federal Elections Commission political contributions records and found that 144 journalists or reporters gave to political candidates or Parties in the last election two election cycles.

of the 144 contributors, only 17 gave exclusively to Republicans, and only two gave to both Parties.

127 of 144--88%--gave to Democrats.

Five journalists were from Fox, and, interestingly, ONLY ONE GAVE TO REPUBLICANS. Four of the five contributors GAVE TO DEMOCRATS.

Another interesting tidbit:

Only five contributors were from the dinosaur medium of radio, three of them were from retrograde NPR and THEY ALL GAVE TO DEMOCRATS:
- Corey Flintoff gave $538 to Howard Dean
- Michelle Trudeau gave $1,000 to Howard Dean
- Susan Goodman gave $1,450 to Ben Cardin and Judy Feder

So...what was Eby babbling about newsroom bias?

He should clean his own organization before he criticizes others.

Tim Eby said...

For several reasons I'll refrain comment from the post by Anonymous other than to share a segment of the NPR News Code of Ethics which are strictly adhered to at the company:

VIII. Politics, Community and Outside Activities

1. NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist's impartiality in coverage.

2. NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them.

3. NPR journalists may not serve on government boards or commissions.

4. NPR journalists may sit on community advisory boards, educational institution trustee boards, boards of religious organizations or boards of nonprofit organizations so long as NPR does not normally cover them and they are not engaged in significant lobbying or political activity. Such activities should be disclosed to the Managing Editor or designee, and NPR may revoke approval if it believes continued service will create the appearance of a conflict of interest or an actual conflict.

5. When a spouse, family member or companion of an NPR journalist is involved in political activity, the journalist should be sensitive to the fact that this could create real or apparent conflicts of interest. In such instances the NPR journalist should advise his or her supervisor to determine whether s/he should recuse him or herself from a certain story or certain coverage.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you posted NPRs CoE, and I want to believe you're serious about them. The problem I have with you posting critiques of Fox News is that your partisanship becomes very apparent. After all, where is the scholarship in your criticism, and what other media outlets do you criticize?

Whenever I see criticism of Fox News I immediately assume it's from wacky left wingers, and I'm nearly always correct. Jumping on that bandwagon is beneath you and your status at NPR.

We all have opinions, but your position at NPR should preclude you from such partisan cheap shots, especially since so many right wingers (O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) would salivate to catch a senior executive at NPR taking them. Yeah, it's your personal blog, but you're still "who you are"--Mr. NPR. It would be a plum gotcha for them--"See, we told you there's a liberal bias!". From what I understand, a reporter from the midwest bureau of Fox News poked around OLSD during the book list controversy, so they catch wind of things large AND small.

While you may not make political contributions I think you should stay away from making political stands on such a public forum. Just my two cents.


Anonymous said...

One final note:
After six, or so, posts registered as "anonymous" (and another couple as "eby is an idiot") to protest your decision to ban anonymous postings I am retiring those usernames. Eliminating the former to respect and comply with the decorum you wish to have on your blog, and the latter because it's just too obnoxious--even for me (you pull those posts anyway).

Any posting by me going forward will be by my real name.

The blogger formerly known as Anonymous

Tim Eby said...

To The blogger formerly known as Anonymous

See the post:

Press Freedom in Russia