Fox contributor Lauren Ashburn complained that "it's just not fair" for critics to hold Fox News accountable for any misinformation and biased commentary made on-air by the network's paid hosts and contributors, suggesting the network shouldn't be held responsible for a recent conspiracy theory about the timing of Benghazi suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala's capture, which originated on Fox.
Fox News is a platform that reaches almost everyone in the United States. They need to be responsible for who they bring on and what the effects of what they say. Saying we’re not responsible for what our guests and contributors say is such a cop out. That reasoning might work for Reddit, but Fox News as a platform provides legitimacy to the views it espouses to those who find the network credible. If they had any sense of responsibility they would fact-check what is said on the air, no matter who says it, and issue prompt clarifications when a guest or contributor says something misleading. As someone who listens to NPR, I cannot tell you how often I have heard them interrupt a conversation to issue a correction or clarification for something that had been said earlier in the program. If Fox News is going to adopt the attitude of anything goes on our network, then it is impossible to trust anything said on the channel. If they are not going to differentiate between conspiracy theories and legitimate allegations, nothing they say can be trusted. To someone who watches their network, their guests and contributors ARE the newscasters. Fox cannot have it both ways: if you bring these crack pots onto your channel, you cannot complain that they siphon off the credibility of the network—this is who you chose to represent you. If you look like a tabloid, sound like a tabloid, and read like a tabloid, it is perfectly fair for people to call you a tabloid. Have a sense of responsibility.
The the hell does "accountable" mean? If this is the liberal Benghazi it's weak sauce. The only thing that fox news is accountable for is ratings. They aren't a news organization they are a vehicle to sell toothpaste and cars (like most of the rest of the media).
I agree and by the same token I should not be held responsible for the Nazi pamphlets i keep on my coffee table and give as xmas presents. I Did not write any of them. Seriously though if fox was a station that allowed a diversity of views they could use that canard
Frankly I'm shocked that anyone using this website also watches television news. Aside from getting my oil changed and being subjected to the small TV in the waiting room which always has one 24-hour news outlet or another running, I haven't watched a TV news program since... wow. Probably 9/11/2001 and the following week. U haz internets, y u wach tee vee?
C-SPAN Live Watch the investigations and your elected officials directly. Don't let an 8 hour investigation turn into a 5 minute clip on TV, or a one sentence blurb in an article. Is the media misleading? Yes. Is the internet better? Not really sure, to be honest. One sentence without hearing the context or tone of the statement can be even more misleading than Fox News sometimes.
I sometimes feel the same way regarding MSNBC and occasionally CNN too and their diversity of views, so what I've done is start watching a bit of all of it, I don't know what to think of this new startup One America News Network other than I really like the programming before their opinion shows come on because their anchors are like robots that read the news and add nothing to it. I hear it may be a conservative owned channel so they may turn some people off it.
What I did was stop watching any of it. I only read the BBC now, and occasionally China Daily and Al Jazeera for perspective. I'm not familiar with OANN, but the danger there is cherry picking.what I've done is start watching a bit of all of it
their anchors are like robots that read the news and add nothing to it.