This morning Fox News TV was all agog with a report that Iran had pointed ballistic missiles towards Israel.

I searched for this news item tonight, and could only find a Canadian newspaper report stating that Iran said they would strike Israel with missiles if Israel attacked their nuclear facilities.

The item has subsequently been changed on the Fox website to correlate to the Canadian item.

So did Fox News just make a mistake? Or did they jump too eagerly on a story that sounded like it could frighten people?

Well that explains my little chat with the neighbor. He mentioned this and that they were nuclear capable. I've warned him about Fox News but he's pretty set in his ways and it's not worth being pissed off at each other for too long so I don't push it too much anymore. He's about 76 and originally from Latvia. A refugee from the Big War.

He seems to think Obama is quite the liar too but I can't agree or disagree with him there. I just have my suspicions about where he gets some of his ideas.

I think Foxnews made a mistake, unfortunately it is the same mistake them and others make. They report stories before they know the story. Being first beats being correct sometimes.

Jokul, you are a very sweet, forgiving man and you should be--and are--well-loved for that quality.

But, let's face it. If a news 'source' has a choice between spreading fear to the masses (which sells advertising space) and actually reporting the news that may not sell advertising space, what will that 'news' source do--until, of course, it's called on it?

Publicly supported or subscriber supported cable should be able to find objective, or at least reasonable, analysts on both sides of the fence. There ARE some reasonable, non-ideologue liberals, and there are a few conservative analysts who also manage this difficult feat, but when you get to the fringe left and the neocons, you only find screamers. PBS has Moyers, but nobody with a contrasting point of view.

But now that I think about it, reasonable news would probably not be watched by many people.

The point of my OP was also to enquire as to whether or not Fox is just going along with the by now familiar administration program of raising the terror alert bar in time of crisis. We're all aware that the color coded alerts were fake, now the administration needs something new to keep us scared.

"A Scared America votes Republican"

Is Fox News on board with that?

Is CNN on board with the leftist agenda? Is MSNBC on board with the leftist agenda? Is NPR on board with the leftist agenda? Is CBS on board with the leftist agenda? Is NBC on board with the leftist agenda? Is ABC on board with the leftist agenda?

You are not going to like this, Dax, but Fox News is actually pretty damn close to its mantra of "fair and balanced." In any event, its a great deal closer to "fair and balanced" than are the other news outlets I named.

In the instance at hand, I think Fox News likely did what it thought was in its commercial interests...it pounced on a story likely to generate views and thus revenue. I ascribe commercial motivations to that action and you apparently ascribe political motivations. I think the commercial motivations might be easier to prove but I am willing to concede that does not disprove any potential political motivations.

I do believe that Fox is politically as well as commercially motivated. Absent talk radio, Fox is the only right leaning network on the block, so the interests are entwined.

they do have some objective news, but at least once an hour they'll throw in a talking point story, and their analysis is all right wing, except for Alan Colmes.

That isn't what I object to. I object to them calling themselves fair and balanced when they clearly are not. At least neither MSNBC nor CNN makes that claim.

I mean, they have Karl Rove doing political analysis for them, Look at their commentators, Gingrich, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bernard Goldberg, it's a roster of the far right. If they got any further right they'd be using White Supremacist leaders as their analysts.

Anyone else note the manner in which Dax suggests the right is racist?

(Yawn) Get back to us when something new is said. The problem (all objective studies aside which have concluded that Fox News Channel DOES, in fact, provide the most balanced news coverage among the major networks), is that the political left is going to continue to brand Fox as latter-day Nazis simply because they DON'T act like a media outlet for the Democratic National Committee.

Is your reply an example of the objectivity commonly expressed by the right when describing Fox's "Fair and Balanced" claim? I've gotten the impression, from you, the objectivity you display pertains to a noun rather than an adjective.

Some on here will argue when I "theorize" Cheney has much influence, in Washington and on those making presentations on Fox News. Cheney doesn't have to come out and say, Let's ATTACK IRAN...all he has to do , is hope little "nuggets" of information like this are fed to the American people, albeit false information like this news piece.

Fox News officially apologizes for calling Obama & Michelle Obama's "fist bump" a "terrorist gesture" on June 10, 2008:



While talking about a conservative group putting together an anti-Obama documentary, Fox News shows footage of Michelle Obama, mentions that she said "for the first time she is proud of her country", and underneath the footage posts a large label saying "OUTRAGED LIBERALS: STOP PICKING ON OBAMA'S BABY MAMA!" :



That's a random sampling of the "fair and balanced" reporting from Fox News. And those weren't news analysis shows either; that was suppsoed to be straight-up reporting. Imagine; calling a presidential candidate's spouse a "baby-mama". Incrediblly crass and puerile, and I think you might call it racist as well if you weren't a blind partisan.

I don't take fox news seriously at all. Also I think it was a slip made on purpose to test the waters with the American people.

Do you think the Canadian newspaper was used in order to get this slip out or was the Canadian story just a legitimate case of misreporting? Inquiring minds want to know.

Not at all, Mr. Spin. I suggested that the racist element in America tends to be right wing.

The Canadian newspaper, which is from Edmonton, had the correct story. It was Fox who had it wrong and then corrected it.

One needs only to reflect upon the recent Democratic Primary race to see just how incredibly mind boggling, how astoundingly ignorant THAT statement is.

I gave some facts and stated an opinion.

You do the same, please. "That's an ignorant statement" is not an argument, else you'd have been defeated long ago. Come up with something.

Isn't "All Objective Studies" the name of a neo-con blog website?

Awwwww. A little too subtle for you? OK. Let me rephrase: One needs only to reflect upon the recent Democratic Primary race to see just how incredibly mind boggling, how astoundingly ignorant THAT statement is, considering the amount of racist (and I might add, "sexist") pandering AND race/gender-based insults that were tossed around by the political liberals who are the first to accuse conservatives of being racist and sexist.

It points out, once again, how if one wants to know what liberals are guilty of doing, one needs only listen to their accusations.

Do you mind explaining how pandering is considered racist?

How do allegedly racist comments by Democrats make the fact that Neo-nazis are right wing any less true?

How does it make Republican racist comments any less odious?

I should have said that the organized racist element in America tends to be right wing, and I hope that clears it up for you.

Hey, hey, HEY!

HEY!

Am I here? Is this thing on? I'm talking here!

I SAID, Fox News, as shown in the video I provided, referred to the Senator's wife, and the potential future First Lady, as a "BABY MAMA".

Do you have a FAIR and BALANCED explanation for why Fox News would say that about the Senator's wife?

Is Laura Bush ever referred to as George's "Baby Mama"? No? How come? Why not? Is there some reason why Michelle Obama is a baby-mama but Laura Bush is not?

I plead with you to explain this to me. It's fair and balaced, I know it must be, because it's Fox News. So you can make me understand why one is a babymama and one is off-limits. Please. I'm begging you.

Captain America:

No sorry I can't.I have been watching Fox news for the last 3 months and sometimes I have to laugh.Fox news is owned by Rupert Murdock,who owns a newspaper in England called the Sun,a racist filthy rag,all fox news is,is a tv version of that newspaper for Americans,without the filth,nuff said.

Uncle Ray:

I am watching a debate on Fox news on affirmitive action being taken away if Omama wins the election,and the that woman Laura Ingram is just priceless,I love to meet people like her.

If you would like to get into a "Battle of the Verses" on network news coverage i.e. who's balanced and who's not I'll be happy to oblige you. Lemme know!

In the meanwhile I'm simply stating that media studies done by rather left-wing universities have concluded that Fox News Channel is more centrist in its news presentation than ANY of the other major news networks. Now you can jump up and down and foam at the mouth and scream "right-wing Nazis" all you want, if that's what you want to do. But, compared to their network news competition, Fox News Channel is closer to being "fair and balanced" than anyone else. Period. Get over it!

Dax, I will grant you that militant and organized racists in America tend to be right wing. Those people number a few thousand. On the other hand, the endemic racism thaat plagued America in the Civil Rights era and even into today tends to be exercised overwhelmingly by white, DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING voters.

The racism that plagued America in the civil rights era was a holdover from the fifties, and was indeed often propounded by Dixiecrats, southern Democrats.

Much of the conversion from Democrat to Republican in the south came about because the southern Democrats preferred the Republican's policies on race to the Dem's.

Rupert Murdock was born an Australia. He inherited a newspaper chain here from his father. Rupert has taken out American citenship to own media in the USA. His papers here are tabloid but not particularly right wing. They have supported both parties in diferent elections.

I suspect Fox News bias might have more to do with its American managers than its owner.

Not so in the states though. See the NY Post.

I'm waiting for the topless girl pics to appear on the front page of the Wall St. Journal now that he owns it.