Faux News violates GB law?

[Doctor_J]

I switched over to Thom during a Franken ad today, and he was saying something about how Britain's answer to the FCC has declared that Fox News is in violation of that country's broadcast standards because "most of what they broadcast is false". Anyone heard anything about this? I switched back to Al before hearing the long version of this story

[yardwork]

1. I don't know anything about it, but Britain's laws are different from ours

They appear to have more stringent laws involving libel and slander, and less free speech protection. At the same time, their broadsheet newspapers publish the most outrageous rumors. I can never figure it out.

[MasonJar]

2. Did y'all see "Outfoxed"? Faux News is totally exposed by its

former employees. You can get the CD from Move-on. It is worth the time and money.

[Mr_Spock]

3. I got it today!!

Woohoo! I can't wait to watch it!

[LTR]

4. It's amazing how they can get away with altering the news

I posted about something similar earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2031172

Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?

[mandyky]

5. I have heard and read that in sevral places today

One was CSpan's Washington Journal, the others were posts here and at Smirking Chimp.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. It may have been about this specific case

The Office for Communications ruled that Fox had broken their Programme Code. Since the original is a public pronouncement, and their website uses such small print that I can't read it, I've reproduced the decision in full here - you can get roughly what Gibson was saying from it:

The Programme Code requires that all factually-based programmes should be characterised by “a respect for truth”; that in Personal View programmes the opinions expressed, however partial, should “not rest upon false evidence” and the “facts should be respected”. To ensure fairness, programmes which contain a damaging critique of any individual or organisation should normally offer those criticised an opportunity to respond.

a) Ofcom does not accept that Fox News’s claim that an appointment of a monitor to detect ‘pro-Arab’ bias is proof of an “anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest” within the BBC. Similarly, we do not believe that a simple Internet search for the words “BBC” and “anti-American” is sufficient evidence to back-up such a statement. (An Internet search will only identify those sites which contain those words, it will not make any editorial judgement over how those words are used). Fox News stated that the BBC’s approach was “irrational” and “dishonest”. However, it did not provide any evidence other than to say the BBC bashed American policy; or that it ridiculed the US President without any analysis; and that it persecuted Tony Blair.

b) We do not accept that the Hutton Inquiry supported the statement that the “BBC felt entitled to lie and when caught lying, felt entitled to defend its lying”. The Inquiry stated that BBC editorial system was “defective”. At no stage did Hutton accuse the BBC management of lying.
c) Fox News argue that the presenter was not directly quoting Gilligan when he claimed that the reporter “insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military”. However, the manner in which John Gibson delivered these lines and the fact that he indicated that Gilligan said it “on-air” gave the distinct impression that he was quoting Gilligan directly. It did not appear that he was summarising Gilligan’s reporting. Furthermore, Fox News failed to provide any evidence, except that it felt that Gilligan’s reporting of the US advance into Baghdad was incorrect, that supported this statement.

d) As previously stated the Hutton Inquiry concluded that the BBC editorial system was “defective”. There is no evidence, and Fox News did not provide any, that the BBC “insisted its reporter had a right to lie”. Fox News argue that from its “study of BBC reporting” it could claim that the “BBC knew that the war was wrong”. Fox News’s “study” appears to be based on its own viewing and listening of BBC services. It could provide nothing more than this statement to back up this assertion.

We recognise how important freedom of expression is within the media. This item was part of a well-established spot, in which the presenter put forwards his own opinion in an uncompromising manner. However, such items should not make false statements by undermining facts. Fox News was unable to provide any substantial evidence to support the overall allegation that the BBC management had lied and the BBC had an anti-American obsession. It had also incorrectly attributed quotes to the reporter Andrew Gilligan.

Even taking into account that this was a ‘personal view’ item, the strength and number of allegations that John Gibson made against the BBC meant that Fox News should have offered the BBC an opportunity to respond.

Fox News was therefore in breach of Sections 2.1 (respect for truth), 2.7 (opportunity to take part), and 3.5(b) (personal view programmes - opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence) of the Programme Code.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/prog_cb/pcb_11/upheld_cases?a=87101

Guardian story on it here: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1239094,00.html?=rss

There's no immediate consequence of the ruling, I think. Repeated breaking of the rules might get Ofcom to think about whether Fox News is suitable for broadcast, I suppose.