FOX News is "fair and balanced" because they give both sides of the story

A lady caller to C-SPAN's Washington Journal said that this morning. So "fair and balanced" is defined as giving both sides of the story. For example, FOX News might say, "There are some who say that President Bush lied about Saddam possessing WMDs but others say it was a failure of intelligence..." Is that "fair and balanced"? Because Bush did lie about WMDs, did he not?

Giving "both sides" to a story that obviously does not have two sides is not fair and balanced. It is propaganda. It is partisan. It is a lie.

For example, FOX News might say that "Since Rep. Molohan has made himself wealthy as a member of the House, the issue of "corruption" is a bi-partisan matter.." Is that "fair and balanced"? Because Rep. Molahan has not yet been charged or sent to jail for anything. Even if he is guilty, does that make everything bipartisan and equal in the area of corruption, if the Republicans that are crooks outnumber the Democrats by 10-1? Is that a fair characterization? Is that "fair and balanced" and are that giving both sides?

I heard the Faux defenders this A.M. Yikes.

The truth doesn't need "fair" and it certainly doesn't need "balanced"! There aren't two sides to the truth! The truth is the truth and that is what all new agencies should be reporting!

And others think that its right & proper to murder an innocent child in order save a few pennies on a gallon of gasoline.

fake-Christian Dominionist side of the story, and the neo-conservative propagandistic fascist republican side of the story.

Why? Are you saying there are more than these two sides in America?

and I say 2 + 2 = 5

and Fox News gives me as much credibility as you by "showing both sides of the story," then that's just plain stupid.

Which is what Fox News does---gives the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd plenty of airtime in the interest of "fairness."

Come to think of it, that's what all of the corporate media does these days, for the most part.

Also, when they have people like Mary Matalin coming on to defend Ann Coulter's stupid remarks. Tha tis supposed to be balanced. They are giving "Ann's side" of the story. Nobody is right or wrong. And they say nothing is black or white with "liberals"?..:)

and on CNN there was some woman from "National Review Online" and some other guy from the print edition of the same rag, er, mag. Anyway, they were both trying to defend coulter's remarks. So it has started happening on all corporate media outlets, which is not surprising. So, in the interest of fairness and balance, I, who is just a news consumer, am going to make a comment. Coulter absolutely sucks. Period. If she, he, whatever, got hit by a truck tomorrow, I would not feel bad. Olbermann said it best the other night when he asked how her soul can be defended on judgement day. Answer, it can't.

four"

Too bad the Bush administration disagrees, along with Foxsnooze.

They tell both sides, the truth and lies. Don't ask us to help you figure out which is which. That's stenography not news reporting. Real reporting goes beyond who,what,where,and when to ask the important question. WHY?

and then lies that contradict the other lies and that is what they call fair and balanced.

"balanced" reporting of a story if they see:

1. two (and ONLY two) viewpoints--after all, we all know there are ONLY TWO possible sides to a story!;

2. absurd viewpoints given equal weight with sensible ones;

3. disproven theories given equal weight with proven ones, so long as they continue to believe in the disproven ones;

4. when a fact arises they would rather not acknowledge the truth of, they see its "truth" framed as a "controversy," with "both sides" disputing the truth of the fact. This way, they can cling to the idea that the fact is not really true at all; it's a legitimate "opinion" that the fact may not be true.

so you can get the white republican view vs the black republican view.