Hanlon's razor.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Do you have proof of malicious intent?
Answer: No you don't.
Ignore the stupid crap at the beginning and end.
Hanlon's razor.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Do you have proof of malicious intent?
Answer: No you don't.
Do you have proof of malicious intent?Ignore the stupid crap at the beginning and end.
Murdoch's Fox News (UK) will soon be lying on a TV set near to you![]()
To those who have contributed thus far, and who will no doubt continue adding to the circlejerk of anti-Fox New Channel sentiment in this thread, have any of you ever sat down and watched a broadcast of the channel for an extended period?
Fox News Channel has an average viewership of about 740 people in the UK, so I'm inclined to doubt it.
It is by far the most viewed cable news channel in the States, and numerous studies have found it to be the least biased of the major news networks over there.
No doubt many of you are conflating your selective experiences of the opinion entertainment shows (The O'Reilly Factor, etc.) the channel broadcasts with its bonafide rolling news coverage. The two are very separate indeed.
That's a clip from Special Report with Brit Hume, a political commentary show. It makes absolutely no allusions to being unbiased; the entire premise of the show is to espouse Brit Hume's comments on matters.Erm not sure if that is a serious statement, but i'll take it as you are.
This should spread some light on why people know Fox News is a complete load of rubbish with regards to legitimate journalism.
As said, it's been ruled in court that news broadcasts are protected as free speech and as such don't have to be true.
Does libel come into this? If they don't report the truth, can't they be sued?