Fox News creates terror

On a Fox News broadcast a few weeks ago, a former U.S. prosecutor gave out the name and address of a Middle Eastern man who was identified as a terrorist. The address in La Habra was the correct one for the man – three years ago. Now the family who lives there is being terrorized by passersby and Fox isn’t doing much in the way of apologizing.

Apparently Fox and the former prosecutor have issued one-liner apologies, but they’re akin to making a small retraction on page 10 of a newspaper after the major facts in a front-page story were discovered to be false. Now a Los Angeles-area family has to suffer the consequences of a lack of fact-checking. A highlight? Someone spray-painted “Terrist” on their house.

The family wants a correction and public apology. Maybe Fox thinks that a public apology would mean that the “terrists” have already won.

via MeFi

8 Replies to “Fox News creates terror”

  1. (sarcastic)
    Of course they’re not going to apologize. Their reporting measured up to their standards of fairness and accuracy, and it met their criteria for social responsibility. Why should they say they’re sorry?
    (/sarcastic)

  2. Fair and balanced, in action!

    Also, I’m super proud of my fellow citizens for their role in harassing this family.

    Oh, wait. No I’m not.

  3. The Fox guy’s name is John Loftus and the part that really got my goat was his explaination to the Times that “Mistakes Happen”, as if that is the end of it. I just checked his web site and, 3 weeks later, he still hasn’t acknowleged the damage he has done to this family’s lives.

    I mean, he gave out the address!! Why did he do that if it wasn’t to inspire people to go and attack the residents, either verbally or physically? He deserves what he was willing to dish out. He’s the one who has terrorized the family after all.

    And where is the FCC in all this? Ken Tomlinson sure seem willing to criticize public broadcasting for biased (albiet accurate) reporting. Here’s biased, inaccurate reporting. Yet not a peep. Q’elle surprise!

  4. Its cable so the FCC doesn’t apply – the same reason Pat Robertson can still be on the ABC Family channel after he called for someone to be murdered via the Disney corporation.

    I think Fox not only needs to issue a major apology, but hire security to protect the family until the whole things dies down. And should also cut off Sean Hannity’s nuts, but that may be asking too much.

  5. The FCC certainly *does* regulate cable television (known as multi-point distribution services), just as it regulates telephones (corded and cordless), the Internet, and just about every other electronic means of communication within the country. But in true government style, it can’t provide the regulations unless you can pay.

    From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/pubrole.html

    Q: How can I obtain copies of the Commission’s cable regulations?

    A: Due to budgetary considerations, the Commission does not supply free copies of its regulations. You can purchase copies of the Commission’s decisions and specific regulations by calling International Transcription Service (“ITS”) at (202) 857-3800.

  6. DB: Was able to find this… only confused me more, though:
    http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/program.html

    Q: Does the FCC regulate the content of cable programming?

    A: Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming — called “origination cablecasting” in the rules — that is subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the contents of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.

  7. The confusion is between the cable operator and the content provider. And yes, Charter is not responsible for Fox’s content. Only Fox is.

    However, (trust me on this) the FCC does regulate cable programming, though their rules are generally not as strict as the rules for non-cable channels.

    But my point was regarding the lack of comment from any public official. It doesn’t have to be the FCC, though they’re probably most appropriate. And yes, Tomlinson is strictly public broadcasting, so he’s not the guy.

    Fox’s hateful broadcast has cost the Voricks’ their peaceful way of life and the network is losing little, if anything. It is time for someone in the administration to speak out. I’ll even settle for the President telling us that Loftus was a jackass.

Comments are closed.