News Coverage Leaves Me Baffled
There are sometimes when I just can't work out the media. I had a short stint as a newspaper editor/reporter/photographer, and I still can't understand why certain media outlets choose their stories. With the devastation in Asia, I've been glued to the television, but after a while, Sky News' reporting has become a bit repetitious. It happens. They're a 24 hour news channel, and only so much fresh news comes in at once.
So I started channel flipping. The BBC has coverage of the tsunami. So does ITV. So does CNN. So does MSNBC. So does every European news channel I've looked at.
Then I flipped to the US's FOX news. I only ever watch it when something live is happening in stories such as the Scott Peterson trial. And what is FOX showing today?
Osama Bin Laden and the war in Iraq.
I read the "news ticker" at the bottom of the screen for several minutes. Not a single mention of the tsunami. Eventually a screen popped up that said "Survivors of the killer wave". It's all too tabloid for me.
So I started channel flipping. The BBC has coverage of the tsunami. So does ITV. So does CNN. So does MSNBC. So does every European news channel I've looked at.
Then I flipped to the US's FOX news. I only ever watch it when something live is happening in stories such as the Scott Peterson trial. And what is FOX showing today?
Osama Bin Laden and the war in Iraq.
I read the "news ticker" at the bottom of the screen for several minutes. Not a single mention of the tsunami. Eventually a screen popped up that said "Survivors of the killer wave". It's all too tabloid for me.
posted by Melinda at 12/28/2004 05:27:00 pm
12 Comments:
I don't even know how Fox can legally call itself a news channel. Its presenters are over-opinionated bigots and its editorial policies are a sham. I would lose my job immediately if I attempted for one day to run a newsroom the way they do.
rant over!
I agree with you. When I switched over yesterday, they ended one of their "news programmes" with (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Here, where the spin ends. We're the only ones you can trust." Yeah right.
Of course the war in Iraq is important. I am an American citizen with friends in the US military, and my brother-in-law is currently in Iraq with the British army. The other news channels weren't ignoring news in that region. I caught the CBS news on Sky just after midnight last night, and their coverage was balanced. It's just Fox that I find unbelievable. Well, I won't be wasting my time switching over to them anymore. If it's a news story I can't find anywhere else, I'll just keep up to date via internet.
I'm new to Blogging and would be encouraged by any unbiased review you could give of my site; thanks
I've been a journalist for over 30 years, working all over the world. I've been a reporter, writer, editor, news director, bureau chief, station manager, etc. Fox is the most unbiased news organization I've ever seen. What's hilarious is how a certain segment of society (leftists) are so biased themselves that they react to Fox like vampires exposed to the light. You said you started flipping through the channels because the tsunami comverage was becoming repetitive. Then when you found a channel that was covering something else -- the important ongoing story of the war in Iraq -- because it was on Fox, you criticize it. It's your bias that is at issue here. Not the bias you perceive at Fox. I currently work in Washington, DC and the only reason I don't run over there with a job application is I'd have to take a cut in pay. They don't pay the movie star salaries of the major networks.
And that's what's nice about blogging. I have my "leftist" opinions and am allowed to express them. You have your views and you can express those. I stand by my opinions.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm a feminist as well as a leftist.
I still believe Fox is too far up the arse of its own opinions to be an objective news broadcaster. The BBC was accused on air by a Fox presenter of displaying 'frothing at the mouth anti-americanism' earlier this year because a reporter dared to assert that the dossier submitted by our government as its case for going to war on Iraq had been exaggerated. Oh - and guess what? It transpires that it had been. That pesky 45 minute WMD claim turned out to be bollocks after all.
Fox by the way was found to be in breach of broadcasting regulations... again.
My main complaint with FOX has nothing to do with its politics. I find it too close to sensationalist tabloid television. I listen and read opinions from across the political spectrum. It's the method of their coverage, not the rhetoric.
Lone Ranger wrote:
You said you started flipping through the channels because the tsunami comverage [sic] was becoming repetitive. Then when you found a channel that was covering something else -- the important ongoing story of the war in Iraq -- because it was on Fox, you criticize it. It's your bias that is at issue here. Not the bias you perceive at Fox.Odd. I could swear that Meg was commenting on their tabloid-esque ticker-tape news, not the Iraq story. Kinda missed the point there, didn'tcha, Ranger?
Lone Ranger wrote:
I currently work in Washington, DC and the only reason I don't run over there with a job application is I'd have to take a cut in pay. They don't pay the movie star salaries of the major networks.Hmm. In other words, you prefer "movie star salaries" over Fox's supposed "unbiased news." So much for principle, eh?
Regarding bias, all news organizations are biased. We all simply prefer those whose bias more closely matches our own. Just because Fox claims they're unbiased (i.e., no spin here) doesn't make them so. What it makes them, actually, is hypocritical. The last I checked, the way to show that you're TRYING to be unbiased is to ADMIT your own bias. When did Fox ever do THAT? I live in the Baltimore/DC corridor. Even the left-leaning Washington Post admits their own bias, as does the right-leaning Washington Times. Me? I lean left.
Thanks for that. You hit on my point exactly. My post had nothing to do with bias or with politics. I never mentioned either. My complaint with Fox has to do with the feeling I get I'm watching "Hard Copy" rather than the news.
And I never said the war in Iraq was unimportant. If you'll read above, I stated exactly the opposite. I might not agree with it, but I never in a million years would say it's not important. I feel too much respect for the military of all nations involved to relegate them to the back pages of the news.
One minor edit to my previous comment: I should've said 'Mel', not 'Meg.' This is what comes of having two friends with very similar names. I'll probably get taken to task by both. Mel (there, I got it right for once), has already hounded me for calling her Meg. I can't wait to see if Meg berates me for confusing her with Mel. (Did I get that one right? I hope so. Sheesh!)
Awwww, I hope I would never hound you about anything! I thought it was funny. Hey, I've most definitely been called worse!
Post a Comment
<< Home