General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPBS science reporter: Fox’s Ebola coverage is ‘a level of ignorance we should not allow’
iles OBrien, the science correspondent for PBS Newshour, lamented on Sunday that he was embarrassed at some of the coverage of Ebola on Fox News that had a racial component, and seemed intended to scare viewers.
On the Sunday edition of CNNs Reliable Sources, host Brian Stelter looked back at the last weeks coverage of Ebola on Fox News. In one case, Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck seemed almost disappointed when an expert downplayed the threat of the disease in the United States.
Weve heard the words Ebola in America, a lot the past few days, Stelter noted. Its technically true. There is a case of Ebola here in America. But to say Ebola is here, doesnt that sort of inflame peoples fears?
It borders on irresponsibility when people get on television and start talking that way when they should know better, OBrien explained. They should do their homework and they should report in a responsible manner.
Stelter also pointed to Fox News host Andrea Tantaros, who had warned viewers that West Africans might come to the U.S. infected with Ebola, and then go to a witch doctor instead of the hospital.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/pbs-science-reporter-foxs-ebola-coverage-is-a-level-of-ignorance-we-should-not-allow/
arcane1
(38,613 posts)If this had been a disease from Europe called "white-bola" they would never say a damn thing about it
Cleita
(75,480 posts)of the Native American and Polynesian populations during the centuries of exploration and colonization by white Europeans. And you are right. Not much is said about it in our history books.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)to lie all you like while no law should be passed that makes them have someone on the air with an opposing viewpoint to keep them honest.
There are numerous sources already on the air with an opposing viewpoint, i.e., telling the truth about Ebola. No reason to pass a law for that.
And yes, it is a First Amendment right for Fox to spew half-truths and untruths.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I didn't think so because there is no law stating that all POV be presented on a news program so the listener can decide for himself what the truth is. This is why a law is needed.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)There are more than enough news sources around that there is no longer any reason for the every program to carry every point of view.
Do you want to have opposing views on Rachel Maddow's show? On Ed's show?
Sorry, I just can't agree that we need the government to mandate our choice of news outlets.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)viewers. Also Rachel and Ed often invite others to come on their show to dispute what they report and the liars refuse to go on because they will be exposed. This is why this is needed to keep all sides honest.
When Rachel first went on TV she had the likes of Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews on and they subsequently wouldn't go on her show because she challenged their lies. Ed often has Republicans on his show but doesn't let them get away with misinformation.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We used to have it.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Scroll down a read the answers to my other posts.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)God forbid that we have a fair, honest and calm discussion about the issues facing us.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)missed it.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Don't know how many du posters engaged, that believe such nonsense.
Chemisse
(30,783 posts)We have freedom of speech. We should not be picking and choosing when to restrict it. That is censorship.
I think I am also in agreement with 'many' of our founding fathers.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)If it takes a law to make this happen because the First Amendment has been corrupted and abused, do you know I think the founding fathers would agree. Real censorship is only hearing one viewpoint and when it's a lie, it's then propaganda. It's what Goebbels was so good at.
Cayenne
(480 posts)The Founders would be horrified by your proposal.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It's as far from censorship as is possible.
Cayenne
(480 posts)I can't say A, until B,C,D, and E get get equal time is censorship.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The Fairness Doctrine enhanced free speech.
As it stands now Fox and the others manipulate the line up and cut the microphone to restrict speech.
Mariana
(14,830 posts)I was under the impression that only those radio and television stations that broadcast on the public airwaves were affected by it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Including strong opinions. Like the Bill O'Reilly show.
lpbk2713
(42,674 posts)The ebola issue is just a scratch on the surface.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)but I don't see "witch doctor."
Will Obamacare cover my visit?
malaise
(267,465 posts)Fox's coverage of anything and everything is a level of ignorance we should not allow
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The problem is, Fox isn't the only outfit with a RW agenda.
malaise
(267,465 posts)Kablooie
(18,547 posts)And that speech comes from one of the most popularly followed information sources in the country?
It seems this is getting close to the forbidden 'crying fire in a public place' kind of situation.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)You counter it with the truth.
Kablooie
(18,547 posts)and their followers believe them.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Sorry, but that's a risk of free speech, and a risk worth taking, IMO.
Kablooie
(18,547 posts)All the speakers are paid and the network pays to be broadcast.
Of course SCOTUS seems to think that paid speech is just a louder, more worthy level of free speech than actual free speech so the point is moot.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)knew that when discussing "free speech", it had to do with the prohibition against government censorship of speech, not whether or not the speakers were being paid.
"Free speech" in this context has zero to do with money.
Kablooie
(18,547 posts)One of my rights is the right to facetious speech.
Or maybe it's one of my wrongs, I'm not sure which.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I almost posted "I hope you forgot the sarcasm smilie", but I didn't want to come off as being a dick in case you were serious.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
spanone
(135,588 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)why does it make any difference when fox does the same thing? Just the other day, CBS spent quite some time talking about the Texas case and the fear surrounding the community. So whats the difference? Its just weird how so many heads explode around here when you mention the words "fox news". They may lead cable, but they're still waaay behind network ratings. If they really mattered that much pres McCain would be finishing up his second term!!
The Wizard
(12,467 posts)that yelling fire in a crowded theater is speech intended to cause panic and the ensuing mayhem. Pox News contends that yelling this place might be on fire in a crowded theater is OK because the Courts have ruled that Pox can deliberately make false statements and report it as news.
They conflated Iraq, WMD and 9-11 to start a war for profit. The Supreme Court has perverted the law and the language and will go down in History as a key contributor to America's demise.
Pox is a major player in exploiting fear and ignorance to cause the ignorant to react to stimuli designed to victimize a portion of the population for cheap political gain. Everyone on Pox News is anti American for money. They are presstitutes.
madokie
(51,076 posts)TBF
(31,892 posts)West Africans might come to the U.S. infected with Ebola, and then go to a witch doctor instead of the hospital. If you can afford the plane fare you are looking for help with health care - not looking for witch doctors.