(no subject)

[drewbear]

Apparently Fox News neglects to check their facts and advocates vigilante behavior. Otherwise, why would they publicly announce the address of a suspected terrorist? A 3 years old address which is currently inhabited by another family. A family which was subsequently harassed and threatened.

...Yeah. Who's inciting terror now, hmm?

Comments

[dedos.livejournal.com]

I think I'm going to be sick...
Shouldn't the FCC have something to say about this?

[drewbeartx.livejournal.com]

Nononononononono. VIOLENCE is okay; it's SEX we've got to keep off the airwaves!

::sigh::

Actually, I'm not sure how much jurisdiction the FCC has over Fox News. Since it's a cable-only channel, they (obviously) don't broadcast over public airwaves, which is (as I understand it) the only realm that the FCC can legally control. After all, Janet's nipple got fined, but the explicit nudity, front and back, male and female, of Rome won't be.

[dedos.livejournal.com]

Damn, I think you're right. ._.
Who regulates cable, then? What about the children?

[drewbeartx.livejournal.com]

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that the layers work like this:

Broadcast TV has to be under PG/PG-13, depending on what time of day it is.
Basic cable can be up to a soft R (you pay for it, after all)
Subscriptions channels on cable (Showtime, HBO, the Playboy channel, etc.) can be up to a hard R bordering on NC-17/X (you pay for it twice, you see)

Outright NC-17 (as defined by the clear and unobstructed presence of genitalia) is outright verbotten.

So maybe the FCC does have some control over cable after all.

[aadroma.livejournal.com]

I thought their pathetic rushed-off "what's the big deal?" apology just made this scenario even worse -- they can't even give an on-air claim, but will issue a one-line apology in a newspaper...

"Mistakes happen," my ass.

[blufiction.livejournal.com]

Although I didn't see this on TV, I assume it was part of a live broadcast, in which case, as John Loftus blurted out his erroneous info, there wasn't much Fox could have done even if they had been aware it was a mistake. (The 7 second delay would be useless as well, since unless an editor or director watching would have also known the information, they couldn't be in a position to cut. And surely the interviewing achor-person was as clueless as they all come.) They probably found out shortly after the fact, but of course, being live TV ... in any case I wouldn't go so far as to say Fox is inciting terror. John Loftus being an ignorant idiot, yes. Fox inciting terror, no. Not any more than any other of the paranoid media outlets do (which is all of them, lol).

[drewbeartx.livejournal.com]

While I see your point, I think that it can't really be applied here. Loftus didn't just pull that information out of thin air; either he or someone who works for him went out and researched for this information. Sometime during that research process, the mistake should've been found and easily could've with a simple inquiry to the local government or even by looking in an online directory.

And yes, I do hold Fox responsible for Loftus' actions, as A) they are nominally a news organization and B) he is an on-air employee of theirs. They have a responsibility (whether they act on it or not) to never intentionally spread false information. And given the extreme ease with which this misinformation could've been disproven, I personally cannot help but hold Fox as much to blame as Loftus. And after all, if Jackson's nipple could get the station fined by the FCC, then the government must feel the same way. In theory at least.