The daily MSNBC promos they they run all day long, in my opinion, are out of bounds of fairness.
Here is the transcript of the one running today, Oct. 27, 2008.
Voice over says, "Tonight, It's the final stretch, and it's getting ugly," (cut away to Chris Matthews on camera sound bite " Two Strongest emotions in politics are, JEALOUSLY, and FEAR" (back to voiceover) As McCain's ad go even more negative, can they turn the tide in his favor, or will voters swing the other direction? (Back to Chris Matthews on camera sound bite) "Here's my Theory", (Back to Voiceover) Hardball with Chris Matthews, tonight at 7 on MSNBC.
This is absolutely outrageous, for a news channel to actually state their opinion as a fact that John McCain's ads are "going more negative"...
These MSNBC news hacks know better. This is definitely worth a report to the FCC. You have the text up above, I checked and rechecked it for accuracy. It is the Chris Matthews Hardball Promo for Oct. 27, 2008 on MSNBC. The complaint is MSNBC stating their opinion as if it is a fact.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Once again, cite the exact statute that MSNBC is violating. So far, you have provided nothing other than it's your OPINION that MSNBC is violating an FCC rule.
The media can't report opinion and innuendo as fact. The media CAN report opinion and innuendo, as long as they IDENTIFY IT as such.
MSNBC is so far over the line they just don't seem to care. Quoting an UNNAMED McCain higher up, huh, what is that? You can't quote an unnamed person.
This is just making up rules as MSNBC goes along.
So what you're basically saying is, "I have no idea what the statute is, therefore, I have no proof that anything I'm saying is correct."
Care to say how you came to this belief that MSNBC is violating FCC rules?
Did Hannity or Limbaugh tell you this?
My own instincts, and I have a background in video editing as well. A news program reporting innuendo or opinion as fact is definitely worthy of an FCC investigation.
Unnamed sources get quoted in the news all the time--nothing illegal or unethical about it. Personally, I believe that protection of sources is one of the underpinnings of a free media. Remember Watergate? What if we didn't have unnamed protected sources then?
Alessandro, you are willing to engage with people who express opposing views, and that I suppose, is to be commended. The problem is that you are unwilling to actually consider the content of others' arguments.
At any rate, you've failed to make any convincing argument at all that opinion *is* being presented as fact. I think that news media organizations have the responsibility to provide analysis along with reporting. And I think that most sensible people are able to discern the difference between opinion, analysis, and straight facts.
Regardless, let's just grant your supposition that MSNBC is reporting opinion as fact. Find me the statute that says that's illegal. Cite me the wording of the statute, and how the law itself, or any courts that have weighed in on the issue, define opinion and fact as they relate to presentation on the airwaves.
I'm a nurse. I'm no expert in communications law. Your background in video editing probably doesn't make you one either. Let's be real, OK?
hey blogger...
they are not NEWS REPORTERS
they are PUNDITS
dumbass
they are paid to have opinions on what they are reporting
thats the definition of what a pundit is....anyways.
YOU LOST ....TWICE go kill yaself
Post a Comment