TV watchdog checks claims of bias on Murdoch channel [Fox News]

The Guardian ^ | May 8, 2003 | Matt Wells

[ejdrapes]

TV watchdog checks claims of bias on Murdoch channel

The Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly patriotic stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial success, is under investigation by television regulators in Britain for alleged bias.

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel, broadcast on Sky Digital satellite, also controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

If the network is found to have breached the ITC's "due impartiality" rules, it could be forced out.

In 1999 the ITC revoked the licence of Med TV, a channel aimed at the Kurdish diaspora, for failing to conform to the impartiality rules.

Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, called on the ITC to act against Fox News: "I'm not in favour of censorship, but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms.

"So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ."

ITC tackles Fox News bias claims

[Big Bad Bob]

I presume that the BBC isn't going to be summoned to explain it's pro-saddam agenda throughout the war, bloody Red bastards.

[MichiganMan]

"So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ."

If we allow it?!? "Allowing" it is censorship? Good lord, this guy is an Orwell poster boy!

[Texas_Jarhead]

my thoughts exactly

[mhking]

Posting entire story, as it is not covered by the WP/LAT exclusion:




The Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel, whose determinedly pro-US stance during the Iraq conflict brought it critical notoriety but commercial success, is being investigated by television regulators in Britain for alleged bias.

The independent television commission is looking into nine complaints from viewers about the US channel, which is broadcast in Britain on Rupert Murdoch's Sky Digital satellite service.

If the US network is found to have breached the strict "due impartiality" rules laid down by the commission, it could be forced off Sky's network in the UK.

There is a precedent: after a number of warnings in 1999 the commission revoked the licence of Med TV, a channel aimed at Kurdish viewers, for failing to conform to the impartiality rules.

However, it is thought the ITC is worried about taking on Mr Murdoch. Commission sources played down the significance of its inquiries into Fox, saying the complaints were being treated in the same way as any other.

Under European Union rules, any channel broadcasting in Britain must be licensed by a European regulator.

Fox's licence is granted by the ITC because London is the broadcaster's European base.

The Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera, often accused of bias from the opposite perspective, is licensed by the French television regulator because its base is in Paris.

Julian Petley, the chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, called on the commission to act against Fox News.

"The commission has set a precedent by revoking Med TV's licence, so I don't see how it can't have Fox taken off [Sky] as well.

"I'm not in favour of censorship but Murdoch would like to do with British television news what he has done with newspapers, which is to force people to compete on his own terms.

"So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship by narrowing the range of views and a coarsening of the level of debate."

Fox News may raise the hackles of liberal commentators but it is an undoubted commercial success, having overtaken CNN as the most popular news channel in the US.

In theory it must conform to the same impartiality rules as all news broadcasters licensed in Britain, including the BBC, ITV and Sky News.

Section 3 of the commission's programme code says it must ensure "due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".

Impartiality is not required in every programme as long as a broadcaster can show impartiality "over time".

Complaints of alleged bias in an asylum discussion programme on Sky News, hosted by Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn, were rejected on this basis because another Sky programme redressed the balance.

Some senior media figures believe the rules for broadcasters other than the BBC and ITV should be relaxed.

Chris Shaw, the controller of news and current affairs at Channel Five, and Roger Mosey, the head of television news at the BBC, have suggested smaller broadcasters could have more freedom to air opinionated news programmes.

[patj]

Looks like they need to receive some complaints about the BBC. Have they ever investigated them?

[just mimi]

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel...

patj wrote: Looks like they need to receive some complaints about the BBC. Have they ever investigated them?

My thoughts exactly. Many many many more complaints for the BBC -- at least more than nine!

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Only George Orwell could have anticipated this king of stuff emerging out of the EU... FoxNews biased (and should be banned) but Al Jezera and BBC balanced and OK. And some people think we shouldn't be so unilateral in rejecting the International Criminal Court, UN sanctions, etc.

Europe is headed to the ash-heep of history, joining their fellow travelers the Soviets.

[Drango]

If the network is found to have breached the ITC's "due impartiality" rules, it could be forced out.

Any day now, someone will file a complaint against CNN and BBC. I'm sure both will be shut down immediately.

[Always Right]

"So if we allow into Britain the kind of journalism represented by Fox, that would bring about a form of censorship ."

I am getting dizzy from all this spin.

[Always Right]

In theory it must conform to the same impartiality rules as all news broadcasters licensed in Britain, including the BBC, ITV and Sky News.

I content that there is no such thing as impartial news. Shoot, you can make the case that doing a report in English shows a bias. Even in reporting the time of day you have a bias to a particular time zone. Everyting is slanted.

[metesky]

Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, called on the ITC to act against Fox News: "I'm not in favour of censorship, but...

Say no more.

[Budge]

In theory it must conform to the same impartiality rules as all news broadcasters licensed in Britain,...

What the hell are these [insane] people thinking?

I don't know how much of what we saw in the U.S.A. was broadcast in Briton, but I watched a lot of FOX during the war and I saw both sides presented.

Oh, wait. Strike all that. I suppose in England "Fair and Balanced" (impartiality) means far left leaning (communist) only information.

[Drango]

Julian Petley, chairman of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, called on the ITC to act against Fox News: "I'm not in favour of censorship, but...

Seems that Julian has sliped into Alice in Wonderland...

`But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
`How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
`You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
Alice didn't think that proved it at all; however, she went on` And how do you know that you're mad?'

[E.G.C.]

So in other words, if you don't present liveral or progressive viewpoints as representing neutrality, you're in violation of the impartiality rules as enforced in Great Britian.

I've a feeling this nation is on it's way to the sewer with this kind of mentality
Regards.....

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Section 3 of the commission's programme code says it must ensure "due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".

The elegance of the First Amendment lies in its intent to exclude the government entirely from any role in deciding who is objective and who is not. Since nobody can know--let alone tell--all of the truth, and since "Half the truth can be a very big lie" (Churchill), absence of bias is an unprovable negative.

And the examples of the BBC and our own NPR illustrate that government ownership is a long way from a guarantee of objectivity. Indeed if the government is the judge of who is objective, we know that it will define eternal incumbency as the de facto standard of "objectivity."

It is patent that government licensing/censorship actually creates broadcasting as we know it; without it there would be a free-for-all in which reception of a given broadcast would be at the mercy of those who might intentionally jam it. But is that worse in principle than the a priori censorship imposed by the government on all who wish to transmit but are forbidden by the licensing agency to do so?

[Phrostie]

Section 3 of the commission's programme code says it must ensure "due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".

Impartiality, of course, is defined as anyone who agrees with me.

[Becki]

The independent television commission is investigating nine complaints by viewers of the channel..

1. CNN
2. BBC
3. ABC
4. CBS
5. NBC
6. Al Jazeera
7. La Monde
8. Peter Jennings
9. Dan Rather

Becki

[OPS4]

These people prefer the communist way, and like it.

Ops4 God Bless America!

[Timesink]

WARNING! WARNING!