Journalism Profs Call for an End to Fox News Coronavirus 'Misinformation' in Open Letter to Murdoch

[babylonsister]

Journalism Professors Call for an End to Fox News Coronavirus 'Misinformation' in Open Letter to Rupert Murdoch
By James Walker On 4/2/20 at 5:01 AM EDT


Journalism and communications professors have called on Fox News to stop spreading "misinformation" about the COVID-19 pandemic in an open letter to Rupert Murdoch and Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch on Wednesday.

The academics and journalists accused the network of violating "elementary canons of journalism," and argued that the channel had "contributed to the spread of a grave pandemic" with its coverage of the novel coronavirus.

Their letter also urged Fox News to protect its elderly viewers by basing its coronavirus coverage on scientific fact.

CNN's Reliable Sources reported that 74 academics and journalists had signed the open letter as of Wednesday evening.

Columbia Journalism School Professor Todd Gitlin and 73 others said: "The misinformation that reaches the Fox News audience is a danger to public health. Indeed, it is not an overstatement to say that your misreporting endangers your own viewers—and not only them, for in a pandemic, individual behavior affects significant numbers of other people as well.

"Yet by commission as well as omission—direct, uncontested misinformation as well as failure to report the true dimensions of the crisis—Fox News has been derelict in its duty to provide clear and accurate information about COVID-19."

more...

https://www.newsweek.com/journalism-professors-fox-news-end-coronavirus-misinformation-open-letter-1495688?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2tTVr6ebsCOjFUQdVjaH8-VjwFXtDq5jVGmcU7pJTeh0BLOiRrLmJT3Zw#Echobox=1585818430

[samnsara]

1. this is why trump*s sending out all those damned cards...

....Faux is gonna kill off all his base. Hes trying to salvage those who can read...

[Phoenix61]

2. I'm waiting for the class action law suit

that breaks their little piggy bank and makes advertisers shun them. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but it makes me smile.

[crickets]

3. You and me both.

Getting their license yanked would make me break out the happy dance. One can dream.

[Wednesdays]

6. There is no "license."

Since they're on cable, there's little in the way of regulations. Sad, but true.

[crickets]

9. Thanks, Wednesdays, I stand corrected on network licensing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/10/11/trump-threatens-to-challenge-nbcs-license-over-fake-news/

Stations (carrying a combination of broadcast, cable, and educational channels) are licensed, not networks. Seems I made the same mistake as the idiot in chief. Dang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[Long explication of the rise and fall of the Fairness Doctrine, as well as attempts to revive it.]

On August 5, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision,[25] which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the Court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[26] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

Seems to me controversial issues and outright lies are two different things, but...

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#LICENSING

Interesting reading:

News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene.

Hmmm.

[thesquanderer]

4. re: "derelict in its duty to provide clear and accurate information"

They have no such duty. Their duty is to make money. Secondarily, to support the Republican party.

[Wednesdays]

5. Fat chance Faux Noise will change anything

So long as that $$$ keeps rolling in.

[Mr. Ected]

7. Hasn't FOX News already been legally deemed to be entertainment and not news?

And therefore immune to suits filed due to their gross misrepresentations?

[ooky]

8. They will be dismissed by Fox News as "liberals" and go on

spreading their propaganda.