Reply #22: I visit a news industry site--Cablenewser.com

[Shopaholic]

But it ought to be called "Foxbrownnoser.com. The webmaster posted Gibson's rebuttal of the BBC censure today but didn't bother to post the point-by-point article which outlined the allegations against Fox and their feeble responses. You're going to love one of the Fox points of defense. They claim that if you go to Google.Com and key in the words "BBC Lied" it comes up with several thousand hits. Therefore, what John Gibson said must be true because Google has sites that link to similar claims! Hey--there are links to Fox News Lies and Bush Lies too--does that mean that they're all telling the truth and that--gosh--Fox and President Bush Lie? Faux's twisted logic at work again. Anyway, here's a link to the point-by-point case against Fox, their rebuttal and the British Government's official findings on each point:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds14717.html

And here's an expert from the report:

"We recognise how important freedom of expression is within the media. This item was part of a well-established spot, in which the presenter put forwards his own opinion in an uncompromising manner. However, such items should not make false statements by undermining facts. Fox News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American obsession. It had also incorrectly attributed quotes to the reporter Andrew Gilligan. Even taking into account that this was a ‘personal view’ item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond."