However, it is not a surprise that fox news is reporting inaccurate and misleading stories. They have been doing it for years.
What is sad is that papers like the NYTimes seem to take great pains in setting up false equivalencies, as though they hope doing so gives the view that they are being objective, when in fact that false equivalency is actually destroying any objectivity
An obvious example of this was a month ago when they utilized this false equivalency of republican extremism on climate change by saying it was "Democratic hubris in the Obama years", that helped push the republicans over the edge to deny climate change:
"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."
Then they proceed to make excuses for the republicans by saying "most republicans do not believe climate change is a hoax"
“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
The Times does this frequently in their articles, believing I suspect, that it makes them appear "balanced". What it actually does, is distort the true picture of things.
The hiring of Bret Stephens is a perfect example of that philosophy:, "see how objective we are, we give equal voice to those who have different views, regardless that the Science on the subject has already spoken
In February they reported on a Democratic Member Quiting the Election Commission, and by invoking this so-called "balanced approach, left readers with the impression that both sides do it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html
It was a completely distorted picture of what was happening in that committee. The Democrats on that committee were willing to compromise, and work with their republican counterparts, but guess which side would not meet half-way?
The article gave such a distorted picture of what was really occurring, that the Democrat who resigned from that committee followed through with an editorial to present an actual picture of things:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/dysfunction-and-deadlock-at-the-federal-election-commission.html
and while I am at it, in the spirit of the NYTimes message, did the NYTimes ever apologize for leading the
charge to invade Iraq based on extremely unreliable sources?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
Am I setting up a false equivalency between fox news and the NYTimes? No. What I am saying is that it is way past due for the fourth estate to do their job, and let the chips fall where they may
= new reply since forum marked as read
