Shepard Smith breaks silence on why he left Fox News

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,784
Reaction score
8,819

Nothing surprising but it’s still good to hear. I sometimes watched Fox waaay back before it went all in far right conspiracies and he did seem more levelheaded than most there.
 

Eric

Mama's lil stinker
Vaccinated
Top Poster Of Month
Posts
8,431
Reaction score
16,463
Location
California
Instagram
Main Camera
Sony
No reporter with any sense of true objectivity will survive Fox News, even if they grow a sense of it later on. Nobody has ever said "fair and balanced" with a straight face who isn't a total right wing nutjob.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
No reporter with any sense of true objectivity will survive Fox News, even if they grow a sense of it later on. Nobody has ever said "fair and balanced" with a straight face who isn't a total right wing nutjob.
What is more interesting is that this shows that the bulkhead, or division, or firewall, that they had attempted to construct, (or sell the idea that it had been constructed), between their news service, (sort of rational, and not entirely divorced from what one might term as something resembling objectively reported fact, or truths), and thier opinion shows, (a cosy and welcoming home for right wing lunatics, and their fellow travellers) was never more than a sophisticated sham, in that those who thought they could (professionally) straddle that divide, learned (the hard way) that it couldn't survive an ecounter (not one that mattered, and calling Arizona correctly did matter), with impartial, objective, reported fact.
 

Thomas Veil

Suspended
Posts
3,450
Reaction score
6,796
We strongly suspected as much, but it's nice to hear it directly from him.

Unfortunately Ingraham, Carlson and Hannity aren't going anywhere. Even if Fox suddenly gained a conscience and fired them, they'd be back on the air the next night on Newsmax or OAN.

I'm telling' you...you know the way some TV shows start out with a warning, "Contains violence, language and sexual situations"? Every one of those hosts' shows should go into and come out of every break with something like that. "This program contains lies, propaganda and fascist ideology. Viewer discretion is strongly advised."
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,784
Reaction score
8,819
What is more interesting is that this shows that the bulkhead, or division, or firewall, that they had attempted to construct, (or sell the idea that it had been constructed), between their news service, (sort of rational, and not entirely divorced from what one might term as something resembling objectively reported fact, or truths), and thier opinion shows, (a cosy and welcoming home for right wing lunatics, and their fellow travellers) was never more than a sophisticated sham, in that those who thought they could (professionally) straddle that divide, learned (the hard way) that it couldn't survive an ecounter (not one that mattered, and calling Arizona correctly did matter), with impartial, objective, reported fact.

Since the election there were several occasions that I heard Fox news hosts contradicted/corrected their opinion show hosts. Awwwwwkward. But that also didn’t seem to slow down the opinion show hosts from doubling down on spreading their bullshit. Tucker Carlson in particular seemed to jump off the rails even more than usual. Several times he had to correct his own false reporting but then seemed to go into “Anyhow, I’ve reported hundreds of lies as facts. At least a couple should stick at some point.” mode.
 

lizkat

Deep deep blue
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,901
Reaction score
12,517
Location
Catskill Mountains
From the cited piece:

Smith told Amanpour that he continues to be disturbed by what is reported on Fox.

"I don't know how some people sleep at night," Smith said of the Fox News employees who knowingly spread falsehoods. "I know that there are a lot of people who have propagated the lies and who have pushed them forward over and over again who are smart enough and educated enough to know better."

What I want to know from the FCC is why allegations of fact in the absence of evidence (the "stolen" election already, gee!) can be broadcast over and over again on news and opinion shows alike with just the occasional interjection of "well the election in Pennsylvania has been certified now although blah blah blah".

I realize the FCC's rules about content of news broadcasts are intentionally very narrow. But there are rules and they do address broadcasting of false content.

The FCC receives a wide variety of comments and complaints about the accuracy or bias of news networks, stations, reporters or commentators in how they cover – or sometimes opt not to cover – events. Other complaints concern the conduct of journalists in the gathering and reporting of news.

The FCC's authority to respond to these complaints is narrow in scope, and the agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. Moreover, the FCC cannot interfere with a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary.

What responsibilities do broadcasters have?​


Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

What if I have comments or concerns about a specific news broadcast or commentary?​


All comments and/or concerns about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed to the local station and network involved, so that the people responsible for making the programming decisions can become better informed about audience opinion.

What can the FCC do?​


The FCC may act only when it has received documented evidence, such as testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene.

Interestingly the FCC blurbs immediately above don't answer the questions that the FCC posed to itself on our behalf, especially with respect to any action the agency may take on offending stations or networks.

Sometimes I wonder why we pay the salaries at this particular agency.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,784
Reaction score
8,819
From the cited piece:



What I want to know from the FCC is why allegations of fact in the absence of evidence (the "stolen" election already, gee!) can be broadcast over and over again on news and opinion shows alike with just the occasional interjection of "well the election in Pennsylvania has been certified now although blah blah blah".

I realize the FCC's rules about content of news broadcasts are intentionally very narrow. But there are rules and they do address broadcasting of false content.



Interestingly the FCC blurbs immediately above don't answer the questions that the FCC posed to itself on our behalf, especially with respect to any action the agency may take on offending stations or networks.

Sometimes I wonder why we pay the salaries at this particular agency.

I think the FCC has become little more than the swear word and nudity police, you know, what could be really damaging to the country.

We could replace the FCC and save millions of dollars with a swear word jar.

We’re also lazy on this. Their should BLM size protest rallies outside the news networks’ HQ daily.
 

lizkat

Deep deep blue
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,901
Reaction score
12,517
Location
Catskill Mountains
I think the FCC has become little more than the swear word and nudity police, you know, what could be really damaging to the country.

We could replace the FCC and save millions of dollars with a swear word jar.

We’re also lazy on this. Their should BLM size protest rallies outside the news networks’ HQ daily.

Yeah because the language is there on limits, and there are instructions on how to file valid protests and cause the FCC to have to act.

It's like a lot of things governmental... it's all just words on paper until you read it and go make it real. Meanwhile if you don't have a job or a babysitter and it's winter and there's no fuel delivery coming, well... later for what's on TV, and if you don't like it, grab the remote and Bob's yer uncle, problem solved.

The thing is, a lot of people didn't change the channel away from Fox. I really wonder where that viewership's allegiance will land next as far as political personalities are concerned. So do all the pols now vying to pick up Trump's followers.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
@lizkat: Were the FCC's guidelines altered for the worse (so that they became more or less meaningless) during the Reagan presidency?

I seem to recall having read a piece to that effect over the past week or so in the Guardian.
 

lizkat

Deep deep blue
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
5,901
Reaction score
12,517
Location
Catskill Mountains
@lizkat: Were the FCC's guidelines altered for the worse (so that they became more or less meaningless) during the Reagan presidency?

I seem to recall having read a piece to that effect over the past week or so in the Guardian.

The rules for US broadcasters on "controversial matters" have been changed a few times and in two separate areas.

One is the Fairness Doctrine which is what I think you refer to, and that was ditched in the Reagan era, although the FCC didn't kill the rule in the Federal Register until sometime during Obama's first term. It was about a public service requirement for news broadcasts to air info on controversial matters and to present them in a "fair, honest and equitable" manner, although it didn't say how that had to be done, i.e. as news, editorializing or some other format like a panel.

The other is the "equal time" rule, dealing with political matters and it has been messed with endlessly on a case by case basis over the years. Of course it has got entangled with money: providing time for a political viewpoint aired in a commercial at the same monetary rate as for a favored sponsor. There are exceptions to the rule: "documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot news event". And predictably some of those land in court.

The whole subject is the land of milk and honey for lawyers, and why not, since it bears directly on the First Amendment.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,359
Reaction score
9,095
The rules for US broadcasters on "controversial matters" have been changed a few times and in two separate areas.

One is the Fairness Doctrine which is what I think you refer to, and that was ditched in the Reagan era, although the FCC didn't kill the rule in the Federal Register until sometime during Obama's first term. It was about a public service requirement for news broadcasts to air info on controversial matters and to present them in a "fair, honest and equitable" manner, although it didn't say how that had to be done, i.e. as news, editorializing or some other format like a panel.

The other is the "equal time" rule, dealing with political matters and it has been messed with endlessly on a case by case basis over the years. Of course it has got entangled with money: providing time for a political viewpoint aired in a commercial at the same monetary rate as for a favored sponsor. There are exceptions to the rule: "documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot news event". And predictably some of those land in court.

The whole subject is the land of milk and honey for lawyers, and why not, since it bears directly on the First Amendment.

Ah, that clarifies and explains things; yes, it must have been the Fairness Doctrine, thta I had read about, for te article (to my surprise) referenced & referred to actions taken during the Reagan presidency which I hadn't known about.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,690
Reaction score
14,520
I heard a story on the radio today about how Fox News is putting on more opinion shows and moving the actual news to different time slots. One example was moving a news program from a prime-time slot (7pm) to 3pm instead so they can get more opinion stuff on during prime time.

Many have made the joke that they should take the word “news” out of their name, but it seems like they might soon need to.

 
Top Bottom