PBS science reporter: Fox’s Ebola coverage is ‘a level of ignorance we should not allow’

[CatWoman]

iles O’Brien, 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 CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Brian Stelter looked back at the last week’s 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.

“We’ve heard the words ‘Ebola in America,’ a lot the past few days,” Stelter noted. “It’s technically true. There is a case of Ebola here in America. But to say Ebola is here, doesn’t that sort of inflame people’s fears?”

“It borders on irresponsibility when people get on television and start talking that way when they should know better,” O’Brien 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]

1. Nothing says "stay tuned!" like fear. Especially if they can make Obama look bad in the process.

If this had been a disease from Europe called "white-bola" they would never say a damn thing about it

[Cleita]

3. I thought there was at one time. It was called measles and wiped out much

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]

2. Yes, but according to many on DU it's a First Ammendment right

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.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. Yep

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]

17. Was the PBS guy on Fox stating to the face of the Fox reporter he was wrong?

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]

18. It doesn't need to be on the same program

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]

22. But there does need to be because it may be the only show available to many

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]

35. It's called the Fairness Doctrine.

We used to have it.

[Cleita]

39. Yes, but today it's called censorship and a violation of the First Amendment

Scroll down a read the answers to my other posts.

[daleanime]

43. I call it disgusting....

God forbid that we have a fair, honest and calm discussion about the issues facing us.

[2banon]

19. "according to many" on DU? That's a first for me!

[Cleita]

23. There was a whole thread on it yesterday. I'm sure you can find it if you

missed it.

[2banon]

33. Yeah, I wasn't at my computer yesterday.. So I missed it.

Don't know how many du posters engaged, that believe such nonsense.

[Chemisse]

25. I guess I agree with 'many' on DU.

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]

26. How is getting all sides of an issue on the table restricting speech?

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]

28. Spin it how you want but free speech includes misinformation and lies.

The Founders would be horrified by your proposal.

[Cleita]

30. Exactly what do you understand my proposal is?

It's as far from censorship as is possible.

[Cayenne]

31. Mandating other POVs to a limited space is curtailing speech

I can't say A, until B,C,D, and E get get equal time is censorship.

[Enthusiast]

36. We had the Fairness Doctrine for years and it wasn't considered curtailing free speech.

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]

40. Would the Fairness Doctrine apply to a cable channel?

I was under the impression that only those radio and television stations that broadcast on the public airwaves were affected by it.

[Enthusiast]

41. I think a new Fairness Doctrine should apply to any station with editorial content.

Including strong opinions. Like the Bill O'Reilly show.

[lpbk2713]

4. That level of ignorance is par for Faux.

The ebola issue is just a scratch on the surface.

[etherealtruth]

5. The ability to spread dis and mis-information

[OnyxCollie]

6. I've checked the Yellow Pages

but I don't see "witch doctor."

Will Obamacare cover my visit?

[malaise]

7. To be honest

Fox's coverage of anything and everything is a level of ignorance we should not allow

[Enthusiast]

37. If we don't restrict it we should at least condemn it, the Fox lies.

The problem is, Fox isn't the only outfit with a RW agenda.

[malaise]

42. Correct

[Kablooie]

8. How do you handle freedom of speech when the speech contains lies intended to panic the public?

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]

10. You handle it like any other speech

You counter it with the truth.

[Kablooie]

12. Problem is Fox tells its listeners the truth is a lie and their lies are the truth.

and their followers believe them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. And?

Sorry, but that's a risk of free speech, and a risk worth taking, IMO.

[Kablooie]

15. Technically Fox News is not free speech. It's paid speech.

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]

16. Sorry, I assumed that everyone in this conversation

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]

20. Of course I know. I was being facetious.

One of my rights is the right to facetious speech.
Or maybe it's one of my wrongs, I'm not sure which.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. No problem

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]

29. Fox never broadcasts truth. It's against their policies. They are the propaganda arm of the RW.

[2banon]

32. Shouting "Fire!" Falsely IS the exception to Free Speech say the U.S. Supreme Court

Shouting fire in a crowded theater

The Schenck case[edit]

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]

9. it's ALL of their reporting. it's the way they roll.

[Enthusiast]

38. +1 You nailed it.

[MisterP]

14. ugh, I've heard Tantaros's comment in not a few mouths here ...

[7962]

24. EVERY damn network has been leading their news shows with Ebloa! Ebola!

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]

27. The Court has already ruled

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]

34. Miles O'Obrien does his homework

[TBF]

44. Andrea Tantaros has rocks for brains if she thinks

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.