The information coming out of Fox News is often misleading or clearly incorrect. People ask me, “Spocko, is there anything we can do about this? Can’t the FCC do anything? What about the FTC and truth in advertising laws?”
How can Fox employees get away with calling themselves journalists when they are acting more like lobbyists or employees of a PR firm?
Are there every any negative consequences for people who intentionally lie while calling themselves journalists? Can’t some groups who give credentials for being “the press” take them away? Why should Fox get a higher level of protection from libel than other corporations? Is having a tagline, “Fair and Balanced” and the word “News” in your logo all it takes? (If so I’m launching Spocko’s Brain News Network with the tagline, “Vulcans Never Bluff.”)
Why do they get all the benefits of being the press without any of the responsibilities?
I had some of these questions myself so when Fox News recently broadcast a chart that was clearly wrong (but wrong in a way that made Obama look bad) I decided to ask them of the SVP of media relations at Fox News.
Here is my letter.
Media Relations Fox News
Dear Ms. Briganti:
On Monday December 12, 2011, Fox News Network, L.L.C., broadcast a chart entitled Unemployment Rate Under President Obama. The source was listed as the 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Numerous writers have pointed out the visual errors in this chart (link) and called into question whether they were genuine mistakes or intentional efforts to mislead.

I would like to hear your official statement about this chart and its errors; and how it came to be created and broadcast. I would also like to know if there will be any consequences for the people who created and aired this chart.
Toward that end, I would direct your attention to an internal memo Fox News Corporation (FNC) management sent to its newsroom staff in November 2009 (emphasis is mine):
Clearly this is not the first time that this problem has cropped up within your organization. Were the sanctions listed in the FNC memo actually carried out against previous transgressors? If you won’t provide me with the names of people terminated, please share the job titles of the employees who received disciplinary action. I ask because understanding the levels of employees who did receive disciplinary action will indicate how seriously Fox holds all its employees, from graphic artists to management, accountable for their actions. (In the job openings category in the Fox News Career section I see that there are current openings for associate producers as well a Photoshop artist, are these positions available because people were fired for on-screen errors?)
There has been much discussion lately about what constitutes a journalist in an era of live webcasting and easy publishing of information via the Internet. One widely agreed-upon indicator of good journalism is a reporter’s commitment to verifying facts. An unaccountable Fox employee in the “mistake chain” who uses a visualization that doesn’t accurately represent the data is like a writer whose sentence doesn’t accurately represent the facts. Both expressions are lies: one, a visual lie; and the other, a written lie. This is a non-partisan, apolitical truth.
If there is a continued failure to correct errors or apply negative consequences to personnel who willfully misrepresent facts, that organization, by definition, no longer engages in journalism, and it cannot claim to be acting as “the press”. A more accurate classification for your limited liability corporation might be as a lobbying firm, a PR firm, a TV production company, or an advertising agency. Those classes of corporations may not, generally, avail themselves of the limited benefits open to bona fide members of the press, such as access to certain people and events, press passes issued by police, legally guaranteed protection of sources, and judgements classified under the higher standard of “actual malice” in libel lawsuits.
As a citizen, I do not, of course, have the power to revoke Fox’s self-classification of “the press”, though I do believe you should drop it based on the continued failure of your employees to accurately represent the facts. The government classification of FNC as a press entity that must serve the public trust applies only in regard to its broadcast properties and has very limited power over your cable content. So if there are no external entities that can force you to change your classification or change your actions to accurately represent the facts and serve the public trust, why should you care?
Because it is important to your Chairman and CEO.In the May 2011 Standards of Business Conduct section of your Corporate Governance document your parent company’s CEO, Rupert Murdoch, wrote this regarding the public trust:
On dealing with government entities and officials (such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics) he wrote:
and regarding whom these standards apply to:
Should FNC, News Corp’s subsidiary corporation, be able to wrap itself in the mantle of “the press” without integrity? Can it maintain truthfulness and integrity without accurate information in its words and graphics?
When employees at another News Corp subsidiary, News of the World, failed to uphold the integrity that Mr. Murdoch holds in the highest regard, people were fired. But that wasn’t enough to regain the public trust. That subsidiary was closed and former employees have lost legal coverage.
There are external journalism groups who may declare that because of your corporation’s continued failure of truthfulness and integrity, that it should no longer get the benefits of being the press. You may not care what they think, but FNC shouldn’t expect their support when it comes time to defend your desire to use the higher standard of “actual malice” in libel lawsuits. FNC employees might also not expect to get support from the courts: a recent ruling in Oregon has shown that calling yourself a journalist does not protect you from libel cases if you continually create a factually inaccurate alternate reality and the victims of those inaccuracies decide to sue.
I look forward to your reply on this matter. I have copied many of the people who have written on this topic in the last few days, since I’m sure many of them are also interested in your response.
Sincerely,
Michal Spocko
cc
Zachary Pleat, Media Matters, Today In Dishonest Fox News Charts
Betsy Rothstein, Media Bistro, Fishbowl DC, Fox News Management Fed Up by Mistakes
David Carr, New York Times, When Truth Survives Free Speech,
Nathan Yau, Flowing Data, Fox News still makes awesome charts
Jay Livingston, Ph.D., Sociological Images, Graphic Design the Fox News Way
Mark Frauenfelder, Boing Boing, Fox News decrees that 8.6% > 8.9%
Maggie Koerth-Baker, Boing Boing, Who is a journalist?
John Cook, Gawker, Fox News’ Graphics Department Run By Blind Monkeys
Kevin Z. Smith, Society of Professional Journalists, Ethics Committee chair, School of Media Arts and Design, James Madison University SPJ Code of Ethics
Torin Douglas, Media analyst, BBC
Nick Davies, Guardian, Phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire loses News International legal fees backing.
Matt Dornic, CNN, senior Director of Public Relations for CNN Worldwide



27 Comments

excellent questions spocko — tweeted and recommended with thanks
I had a thought the other day while watching Piper Peraboo in Covert Affairs and Clair Danes in Homeland. Would we call CIA operatives who are working at a media corporation as a cover for an operation journalists?
After all, they are working for a firm that is classified at “the press” they are writing stories for regular publication, they probably have press passes.
What if they did a story that was designed as character assassination? Should they be covered by the higher standard of actual malice that we give a McClatchy journalist?
Or is given to them just because they work at the firm and call themselves a journalist.
Remember, Fox News started out as GOP-TV. It was going to be a TV production company for the Republican party. The people who worked there were going to be republican operatives.
Mahalo, spocko, again for all your efforts…!
Not being a Faux Spew viewer, I was astonished at the sheer amount of blatant half truths, and, even outright lies, the Faux Spew ‘moderators’ exhibited during last nite’s
clown car pile-upDebate…! 8-(Brilliant and airtight, spocko, even if this ultimately nets out as nothing more than a digital shard puzzled over by archaeologists reconstructing the deconstruction of our democracy.
Ooh, and before the spambot comment is gone, I’m grabbing a couple of those $33 Fendi bags for the Missus! Hope they can ship in time for Kwanzaa.
you’re encouraging it!
Spocko, George Mason U was founded as a right wing answer to higher education, with folks like Wendy Gramm on the board. Its influence in its sphere is as evil as Faux channel is on the press. These are subversions of systems that serve the country, and its people, to maintain freedom by enlightenment.
Interesting. I did not know that. I picked him specifically because he was the chairman of the ethics committee at SPJ.
It will be interesting if he stands up for real journalism or for the right wing idea of journalism.
Had anyone at Fox “News” done this on a No Child Left Behind test, he or she would have wound up on the Detention Track at school.
fuax knews is the same as corp. are people so they can do as they please lie/cheat/steal and no one goes to jail. I’m not sure why anyone is confused about this.
Thanks Spocko, I’m sure if you even hear back it will be fun, please post it also.
What’s the diff betw propaganda & errors.
Until REVERSED, why are we “pivotting” away from executive ASSASSINATION and INDEFINITE DETENTION of ANY of US to Such trifles?
Some of the errors might be in favor of the other side!
The whole, “nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes” vs. “all our “mistakes” make the left look bad.
I will! I think it will be ignored, but you never know. One of the reasons for all the cc’s was to involve other people in the discussion who are also interested, not just some random blogger with a funny name.
I would like to do a follow up post. We’ll see what happens.
LOL. Has Faux ever made an error in favor of the other side.
Is there another side anymore.
Dear Edur:
Please write a post on this topic, I’ll read it. I’ll even comment.
You may not know me and what I’ve done in the past, but here is one of the stories about my work from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/technology/15radio.html
I believe that RW corporate owned firms like Fox play a significant role in our country. The trifle here is simply a way into the issue and problem that I want to talk about. You are welcome to discuss your topic by writing a diary on it.
Oh and one more thing, you notice Glenn Beck on your TV anymore? No? Well I helped make that happen.
That would be pretty funny. Some Democrat who was arrested in a Sex scandal with a R behind his name would be pretty fun to see.
If I remember correctly there was a court case against a Fox affiliate down in Florida a few years back. I’m not a lawyer or anything close to one. The gist of the court decision was that a news channel has no legal obligation to report the truth and they can actually lie without running afoul of the law.
You are correct. And I want to revisit what that means about Fox.
Maybe they don’t have to report the truth because they are not “the press”. Only the press have to report the truth.
People often use that case as a reason to throw their hands up, “Oh well there is nothing we can do, they don’t have tell the truth”
So maybe that starts the ball rolling on the categorization of Fox.
If you are not required by law to tell the truth then you do not get the legal benefits of entities that are required to tell the truth.
That would actually get someone fired over there.
That’s great, thanks but then again it’s FLA.
Here is a link to that case in Florida. http://www.purefood.org/rbgh/akre022603.cfm
It gives a good explanation of what took place in that case.
Point made. I don’t watch any corporate media and don’t desire to defend fox, but the FACT is that obama has been and remains a horrible president and that the number of Americans unemployed/underemployed remains elevated at an unacceptable level. obumma has not offered a single legitimate policy to change this fact. His only solution to every problem is to have future generations pay for his dumb temporary jobs and or ever more regime jobs that do nothing to improve lives for those outside of government.
Ask Carl Bernstein. As early as 1975 he was writing about the CIA infiltration of the media.
You’d think this sort of activity would be a violation of the prohibition against 1) operating within the borders of the US and 2) targeting the US populace for propaganda campaigns.
Anyone in congress have the balls to do what Frank Church did back in 75?
That’s why I wish he’d change his political party affiliation officially. So we don’t have people assuming that he’s actually a Democrat. He’s really a Third Way guy (that is, a Reagan Republican who changed parties when the Rs went over the cliff).
FOX NEWS LIES!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDf1c_kFwNo#t=4m08s
Yes, Fox News lies and is a propaganda outlet but the 8.6% figure itself is a lie. The U-6 is about 16% and when you count in those who have been unemployed so long that they’re no longer counted, some economists believe the figure is about 23%.
I really don’t know why the U-3 is regarded as the “real” figure for unemployment.
The mainstream media’s attitude is perhaps best typified by the story of Fox News and the Monsanto Growth Hormone.
A team of reporters, Steve Wilson & Jane Akre, researched the effects of synthetic bovine growth hormone on cattle and discovered that a great deal of evidence exists that people who consume the meat or dairy products from treated cattle can suffer adverse health effects.
Monsanto got wind of the story and together with dairy associations pressured Fox News to shut the story down. Fox News ordered the reporters to change the story, the reporters refused and Fox fired them.
The reporters sued and LOST on appeal when the court ruled that since there is no law requiring the media to tell the truth about anything, the mainstream media is within their legal rights to fire reporters who refuse to lie!
As a side note, that legal precedent is troubling when one realizes that our national elections are counted by a privately owned company, owned jointly by the TV networks (who are not bound by law to tell the truth) and not subject to either citizen or governmental oversight.