I'm just posting a link to a story on Fox News. Perhaps they're the ones engaging in hyperbole. I just posted a link.
What you're looking at is an example of what passes for balanced news at Fox.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
“Varied Ideological Perspectives”: a new goal promised for CBS under Skydance
- Thread starter only1moore
- Start date
I'm just posting a link to a story on Fox News. Perhaps they're the ones engaging in hyperbole. I just posted a link.
What you're looking at is an example of what passes for balanced news at Fox.
Today, in a news conference, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused President Barack Obama of Treasonous Conspiracy.
They would like to have unquestioning coverage of that claim.
Actual journalism, however, requires reporting that Gabbard made that claim without any evidence or probable cause, that the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 says:
Actual journalism would then further require reporting that Gabbard is suggesting that Obama, who accused Russia of interference in the 2016 election, with evidence has somehow levied war against the United States and given aid and comfort to Russia by accusing Russia of wrongdoing.
Further actual journalism would require noting (and showing) that one of the "Most Wanted" pages on the FBI website is that of the 12 Russian Military Officers indicted by a federal grand jury in 2018 (during the first Trump term) on charges related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
www.fbi.gov
Additional actual journalism would require reporting that while DNI Gabbard is accusing a former President of the United States of Treasonous Conspiracy, her own complicated relationship with Russia and Russian propaganda is considerably better documented:
abcnews.go.com
Further depth and clarity would require inclusion of the fact that although DNI Gabbard sued former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton for remarks Clinton made in a 2019 interview that Gabbard "lied about her ties to Russia", Gabbard dropped the lawsuit mere months after.
As essential background to DNI Gabbard making unfounded accusations of Treasonous Conspiracy against President Obama, the story should include that in her 2024 book, Gabbard misquoted and mischaracterized the remarks Clinton made about her---the remarks Gabbard sued over and then dismissed the lawsuit:
www.theguardian.com
And then, of course, context: Why would the White House do this? Why now? And especially given the lack of evidence, is there another story that the White House desperately needs to distract the media and the public from?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I know there are people on this board (I could name them, but so can you) who would call this "biased journalism". It's not. It's journalism.
A government official has made an astonishing accusation toward a former United States President absent evidence. It is important to state the known facts, including what the law is, and then examine the veracity of past statements made by said government official and any links she may have to the story beyond her accusation of the former President.
All this stuff gets a lot easier if the administration would tell the truth, obey the law and make accusations only when facts warrant. But that doesn't seem to be their style, so we're the bad guys for noticing and helping other people notice what the government that is supposed to serve the people, to be answerable to the people and whom the people pay is doing.
F**k that noise all day long.
They would like to have unquestioning coverage of that claim.
Actual journalism, however, requires reporting that Gabbard made that claim without any evidence or probable cause, that the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 says:
Actual journalism would then further require reporting that Gabbard is suggesting that Obama, who accused Russia of interference in the 2016 election, with evidence has somehow levied war against the United States and given aid and comfort to Russia by accusing Russia of wrongdoing.
Further actual journalism would require noting (and showing) that one of the "Most Wanted" pages on the FBI website is that of the 12 Russian Military Officers indicted by a federal grand jury in 2018 (during the first Trump term) on charges related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 U.S. ELECTIONS | Federal Bureau of Investigation
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; FALSE REGISTRATION OF A DOMAIN NAME; AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MONEY LAUNDERING
www.fbi.gov
Additional actual journalism would require reporting that while DNI Gabbard is accusing a former President of the United States of Treasonous Conspiracy, her own complicated relationship with Russia and Russian propaganda is considerably better documented:
Tulsi Gabbard's views on Russia shaped in part by Kremlin propaganda outlet, ex-aides say
Former aides of Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump's pick for director of national intelligence, say her views on Russia may have been shaped by consuming Kremlin propaganda.
Further depth and clarity would require inclusion of the fact that although DNI Gabbard sued former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton for remarks Clinton made in a 2019 interview that Gabbard "lied about her ties to Russia", Gabbard dropped the lawsuit mere months after.
As essential background to DNI Gabbard making unfounded accusations of Treasonous Conspiracy against President Obama, the story should include that in her 2024 book, Gabbard misquoted and mischaracterized the remarks Clinton made about her---the remarks Gabbard sued over and then dismissed the lawsuit:
Tulsi Gabbard repeats false Hillary Clinton ‘grooming’ claim in new book
Ex-Democrat, reported contender for Trump running mate, sued Clinton for Russia remark but dropped case
And then, of course, context: Why would the White House do this? Why now? And especially given the lack of evidence, is there another story that the White House desperately needs to distract the media and the public from?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I know there are people on this board (I could name them, but so can you) who would call this "biased journalism". It's not. It's journalism.
A government official has made an astonishing accusation toward a former United States President absent evidence. It is important to state the known facts, including what the law is, and then examine the veracity of past statements made by said government official and any links she may have to the story beyond her accusation of the former President.
All this stuff gets a lot easier if the administration would tell the truth, obey the law and make accusations only when facts warrant. But that doesn't seem to be their style, so we're the bad guys for noticing and helping other people notice what the government that is supposed to serve the people, to be answerable to the people and whom the people pay is doing.
F**k that noise all day long.
Last edited:
We never hear from the small parties like the green party and other small political parties.
I agree with your broader point, but the reason I can say "Jill Stein" and you know who I'm talking about is that she was the Green Party candidate for president in 2024 and she got coverage.
Why did she get coverage? Because the polls were neck-and-neck, and the thinking was that her candidacy could draw just enough liberal votes to tip the election to Trump.
Stein ended up in third place, with 861,142 votes, which was inconsequential to the outcome.
There's a chicken-egg factor at play here. There's not much reason for news to extensively cover candidates and parties who have no reasonable chance of winning. If the Green Party or another alternative party wants to have a chance in elections, they have to make their case and convert Democrats and Republicans and/or motivate people who do not now vote. Soundbites on news shows are unlikely to do that, so the lower-profile coverage isn't really hurting them.
Now---Elon Musk has filed the paperwork for the America Party. If the White House continues to alienate its base with its handling of the Epstein case and Musk can enlist conservative candidates who can appeal to current GOP voters to jump ship, you could very well see intense coverage of a third party as soon as the 2026 election cycle.
While I agree with your sentiment, something needs to be said here about how past administrations would have handled Joy's comments and why how the current administration's handling of those comments seems so threatening. If comments like those made on "The View" were made during past administrations, no matter which party was in power, those administrations would have either 1) completely ignored the comment (she has a right to say what she said under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and she really doesn't know the whole story anyway) or 2) reiterated the White House's stance on the matter without singling out Joy or "The View" for direct reference.
Instead of taking either of these two alternatives, the current administration threatened to have "The View" cancelled for low ratings. This stance has constitutional implications because under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. government cannot pass any law abridging the freedom of the press. In other words, the White House has no leg to stand on constitutionally when it threatens to have this or any other show canceled because of comments made by the show's hosts or guests.
For the same reason, the announcement of the cancellation of theSteven Colbert show by CBS, though it may have been done for real financial and ratings reasons, looks very bad because 1) the current owners of CBS/Paramount had just received permission to merge with Skydance which needed approval by the FCC to occur; 2) that permission was announced right after the announcement that Steven Colbert's show had been cancelled, because Mr. Colbert had regularly criticized the head of the current administration and its policies, which is a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution. Now it very well may be (as stated in another post) that Mr. Colbert's show was going to be cancelled anyway but the choice of timing was absolutely terrible and left many wondering, including yours truly, whether the current administration had a hand in that cancellation, which, if true, would be a direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
That might be the most sincere reply to obvious gaslighting I've ever seen in my life.
You're a saint, Ted.
It's funny how we didn't keep hearing these excuses from you dismissing the president's statements attacking the media during the previous administration. (Perhaps because, aside from calling Peter Doocy a SOB, he rarely did.)
Huh? The point of general news reporting is to provide both sides, whether if it’s local officials, government, etc
Where does it say that? There is no fairness doctrine.
No they’re sensationalist media. Fox, OANN do things to drive ratings up. No one is expecting Fox to interview democratic politicians. They should. But they don’t.
You’re a long time journalist and have been a news director just like I have. What you’re saying it totally different.
So why don't they have to provide "varied ideological perspectives?" It sounds like one set of rules for Fox and another for everyone else.
No, that's a practice, not a point. And you use the practice of talking to both sides to arrive at the truth.
"Both sides" suggests that if a University appoints a Black person as its president and says he/she/they are the most qualified person possible, you should then find someone who says otherwise, even if there is no reason to doubt the University and the person's credentials are clear and apparent.
That could mean interviewing a right-wing politician who immediately dismisses the appointment as being a "diversity hire". It could also mean interviewing the Grand Dragon of the KKK, who will explain his view that Black people are inferior and so this person can't possibly be the best, or even adequate.
Sure, you can interview them, but do they deserve equal time---or any time---if there's nothing supporting their claim?
I'm also older than you, operated under the Fairness Doctrine, and that is an actual example of the debates that were occurring in newsrooms. The end result most often was to avoid covering certain topics so as not to trigger the Fairness Doctrine and then be forced to give equal time to terrible humans.
Last edited:
Real-world example from my career:
In 1986, I moved to Phoenix to do news at KTVK, then the ABC affiliate.
Four months after I arrived, President Reagan addressed the nation on the issue of prisoners of war and servicemembers missing in action in Southeast Asia:
www.reaganlibrary.gov
I located a group of Vietnam Veterans in Phoenix and organized an interview with the three leaders of the group. Four of us, at a dining room table.
That summer, Congressman John McCain had won the primary and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat that Barry Goldwater was retiring from.
Near the end of our conversation, with cameras rolling, I asked the three veterans if they felt having a fellow Vietnam Veteran and former POW (McCain's jet was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and he was held captive for five and a half years) in the United States Senate (he was heavily favored to defeat Democrat Richard Kimball, and in fact won in a landslide) would be helpful to their cause of returning any live servicemembers and/or their remains.
Their response, virtually in unison:
"McCain? He's a f***ing RINO! He sold us out. He collaborated with the Viet Cong."
Evidence? None. But three men who served our country in Vietnam said so, on camera, on the record.
Should I have aired it?
I mean, it's both sides of the argument, right? America says he's a war hero. Three guys in Tempe who got drafted say he's a traitor.
Coin-flip, right?
Get serious.
In 1986, I moved to Phoenix to do news at KTVK, then the ABC affiliate.
Four months after I arrived, President Reagan addressed the nation on the issue of prisoners of war and servicemembers missing in action in Southeast Asia:
Radio Address to the Nation on POW's and MIA's in Southeast Asia, July 19, 1986
71986a
www.reaganlibrary.gov
I located a group of Vietnam Veterans in Phoenix and organized an interview with the three leaders of the group. Four of us, at a dining room table.
That summer, Congressman John McCain had won the primary and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat that Barry Goldwater was retiring from.
Near the end of our conversation, with cameras rolling, I asked the three veterans if they felt having a fellow Vietnam Veteran and former POW (McCain's jet was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and he was held captive for five and a half years) in the United States Senate (he was heavily favored to defeat Democrat Richard Kimball, and in fact won in a landslide) would be helpful to their cause of returning any live servicemembers and/or their remains.
Their response, virtually in unison:
"McCain? He's a f***ing RINO! He sold us out. He collaborated with the Viet Cong."
Evidence? None. But three men who served our country in Vietnam said so, on camera, on the record.
Should I have aired it?
I mean, it's both sides of the argument, right? America says he's a war hero. Three guys in Tempe who got drafted say he's a traitor.
Coin-flip, right?
Get serious.
Michael, that is an excellent post.Real-world example from my career:
In 1986, I moved to Phoenix to do news at KTVK, then the ABC affiliate.
Four months after I arrived, President Reagan addressed the nation on the issue of prisoners of war and servicemembers missing in action in Southeast Asia:
Radio Address to the Nation on POW's and MIA's in Southeast Asia, July 19, 1986
71986a
I located a group of Vietnam Veterans in Phoenix and organized an interview with the three leaders of the group. Four of us, at a dining room table.
That summer, Congressman John McCain had won the primary and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat that Barry Goldwater was retiring from.
In the course of our conversation, with cameras rolling, I asked the three veterans if they felt having a fellow Vietnam Veteran and former POW (McCain's jet was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and he was held captive for five and a half years) in the United States Senate (he was heavily favored to defeat Democrat Richard Kimball, and in fact won in a landslide) would be helpful to their cause of returning any live servicemembers and/or their remains.
Their response, virtually in unison:
"McCain? He's a f***ing RINO! He sold us out. He collaborated with the Viet Cong."
Evidence? None. But three men who served our country in Vietnam said so, on camera, on the record.
Should I have aired it?
I mean, it's both sides of the argument, right? America says he's a war hero. Three guys in Tempe who got drafted say he's a traitor.
Coin-flip, right?
Get serious.
For context, we should point out that during the mid 1980s there were many Americans that were convinced that thousands of U.S. POWs we’re still being held captive in Vietnam, and there were many who urged President Reagan to take action, including military attack, in order to secure their release.
The problem was there was absolutely no evidence to support the “forgotten POWs” story.
The basis of the allegations? The Rambo: First Blood Part II movie released in 1985, which was a complete work of fiction.
Rambo: First Blood Part II - Wikipedia
Disinformation has been around longer than many of us realize.
Pete Buttigieg seemed to be the only one that went on Fox News regularly during the previous administration.
What were “all sides” in Watergate? Initially it was denials from the White House but eventually there weren’t 2 sides to report, as there was a crime committed (bugging of DNC and eventually a cover up).
I respect your career and what you’re saying. I don’t agree. As of matter of fact, one of my mentors who’s 86, and still proudly working doesn’t agree. In the age of digital editing, you can take out hateful comments from “terrible humans” and make a point of what the story is. It’s not hard. I’ve interviewed people who I didn’t agree with all of the time. What Fox News does and what’s done at local level are two different things.
no you didn’t have to. Was that all they said? Did you only ask them that one question? I’ll say it again. I respect everything you’ve done in your career. Not everyone has to be alike and do the same thingsReal-world example from my career:
In 1986, I moved to Phoenix to do news at KTVK, then the ABC affiliate.
Four months after I arrived, President Reagan addressed the nation on the issue of prisoners of war and servicemembers missing in action in Southeast Asia:
Radio Address to the Nation on POW's and MIA's in Southeast Asia, July 19, 1986
71986a
I located a group of Vietnam Veterans in Phoenix and organized an interview with the three leaders of the group. Four of us, at a dining room table.
That summer, Congressman John McCain had won the primary and was the Republican candidate for the United States Senate seat that Barry Goldwater was retiring from.
Near the end of our conversation, with cameras rolling, I asked the three veterans if they felt having a fellow Vietnam Veteran and former POW (McCain's jet was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and he was held captive for five and a half years) in the United States Senate (he was heavily favored to defeat Democrat Richard Kimball, and in fact won in a landslide) would be helpful to their cause of returning any live servicemembers and/or their remains.
Their response, virtually in unison:
"McCain? He's a f***ing RINO! He sold us out. He collaborated with the Viet Cong."
Evidence? None. But three men who served our country in Vietnam said so, on camera, on the record.
Should I have aired it?
I mean, it's both sides of the argument, right? America says he's a war hero. Three guys in Tempe who got drafted say he's a traitor.
Coin-flip, right?
Get serious.