The Fox News Debacle: Some Clarification

Wow! I've gotten some varied responses to my last blog. Thanks for your input, guys. I love it. I've tried to answer each one individually, but I wrote this in answer to Kacie, and I think it will help put my views into perspective. So, without further ado...

There is no oath for journalists, just responsibility. People definitely have the right to free speech. Some shows, such as Bill O'Reilly's (btw, I hate that prick), are opinion shows. It is his job to voice his opinion. Do I agree with his opinion? No, not usually, but I support his right to speak it.

With the news, it's different. When reporting the news, there is a responsibility to present an unbiased, factual account of what is going on. It isn't supposed to be about ratings, nor is it intended to be a soapbox from which to push a political agenda. To do so would make it nothing more than sensationalism. The news would be reduced to a tabloid.

This is why there is a distinction in the Bill of Rights between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This is why a journalist who reports something faulty is open to a libel suit. It is not necessarily a set of rules that they must live by, nor an oath, but a duty to the people whom they serve. If a local newspaper prints something that is erroneous, they would immediately print a retraction. Because if an organization that professes to report fact is found to publish fiction, no one would trust them anymore. The same duty falls to the broadcast journalists, as well.

I do take things with a grain of salt, but I'm not in Iraq or North Korea or Washington, D.C., so if I am to know what is going on in these places, I am forced to rely on the news. And unfortunately, the best place to get that information in a responsibly unbiased fashion, is from the BBC or the internet.

Politically, I don't find myself in line with either of the two major parties. My views are financially conservative, yet socially very liberal. I guess if I had to pick a party, it would be the Libertarian party, and of the entire field of politicians with which we started, I think that Ron Paul would have been best for our country.

Unfortunately, our two-party system only allows for two viable candidates. We need a change in the status quo, otherwise we are witnessing the beginning of the decline of everything we have built. I respect John McCain, but he is not the man to bring about that change. Hillary Clinton would have been a nightmare and would have taken us down a path of Socialism from which it would have been difficult to return. So out of the three people we have to choose from, I feel Obama is logical choice. I honestly feel that his lack of experience in Washington is his greatest asset, because he is hopefully free from the taint of corruption that plagues our government at present. Maybe under his administration, we can bring about true, positive change, and create a better world for future generations.

My beef with Fox News isn't about my support of Obama's candidacy, however. It is about their disregard for their responsibility to present an unbiased viewpoint. There is no room for racism in an enlightened society, especially in the news. Sure, all of the news networks promote their own views. They're people, they ARE going for ratings, and like it or not, everything is going to have a slant. History is written by the winners, and the news is written by people with their own agendas. But the shady, racist techniques which Fox has begun to employ are crossing the line.

Until next time,

Clay

Btw, thanks for reading. I love you guys! :)