JC29856 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Do the US have any agency looking over channels/Shows calling themselves "news" and see to that they keep themselves objective and unbiased?

quite the ooposite, the courts ruled that news orgs dont have to tell the truth, they can manufacture "stories"!

brianlux said:

JC29856 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Do the US have any agency looking over channels/Shows calling themselves "news" and see to that they keep themselves objective and unbiased?

quite the ooposite, the courts ruled that news orgs dont have to tell the truth, they can manufacture "stories"!

I'd never heard this but I believe it.  Are there countries where there are agencies that do this? 

I go by the Lou Reed summation of what gets thrown out there:  "Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."

The Swedish Broadcasting Commission

The Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority also includes the Swedish Broadcasting Commission as an independent decision-making body. The Commission examines the contents of radio and TV programmes to see whether they adhere to the applicable broadcasting regulations.

The Commission’s investigations are either carried out based on viewers and listeners complaints regarding a programme, or at our initiative. Out of all the complaints received, only a few are investigated by the Commission as a whole. The complaints that are investigated by the Commission are often of a more complex nature, or concerns matters of principle.

Impartiality

Applies to: The public service companies (SVT, SR and UR)

Being impartial is to adopt a neutral attitude without bias. Impartiality mainly involves three things:

• If a person is clearly singled out and criticised, they should be given an opportunity to respond to the criticism.
• Controversial topics or events may not be treated with bias.
• Representatives of the broadcasting company may not take sides in a controversial issue.

The impartiality requirement does not, however, mean that a segment cannot adopt a critical approach or a particular angle. The public service companies are obligated to comment on different events, promote debate and scrutinise companies, organisations and authorities. The public service companies' obligation to comment also implies a certain scope for evaluative opinions.

Criticism of a clearly designated party

If a clearly designated party is subjected to severe criticism or serious accusations, they should, as a rule, be given an opportunity to defend themselves in the same programme. This can be achieved either through the designated party’s participation in the programme or by providing a statement by the party. Refusal to participate does not preclude the programme being aired. In such cases, the designated party's opinion should be presented in another way when possible.

Biased treatment of a topic or an event

Controversial topics or events may not be treated biasedly so that only one party's version or views clearly dominate. It is, however, allowed to depict a topic from a particular point of view, if it is evident from the programme or the programme's presentation. A biased report in one programme may be balanced by another report in another programme.


Maybe PBS adheres to rules like this just like swedish television?

Just read that rules for impartiality have been removed for other companies/broadcasters than public service companies in Sweden. So, not much different from Fox News in that regard.

But do you have something similar to our "broadcast commision" in the states?

Degeneratefk said:

JC29856 said: 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Do the US have any agency looking over channels/Shows calling themselves "news" and see to that they keep themselves objective and unbiased?

quite the ooposite, the courts ruled that news orgs dont have to tell the truth, they can manufacture "stories"!

I hadn't heard this either. What case was it? Was it a supreme court case or a lower level? 

dignin said:

Hannity is such a dirtbag.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/956729170700259329/video/1

rgambs said:

The Obama years were hard on Hannity and his type, the lack of scandal and the steady economic progress left them searching for material to use to trash the President.  It really drove folks like him deep into weirdo conspiracy territory.  Benghazi was the mortar that sealed that behavior in.
Now they can't abandon their "deep state" worldview, it's too deeply seated (or is it seeded?) and they've already had to do somersaults.

Hannity listed his cherry-picked and biased economic indicators on his radio program every single day for the entirety of the 3 year campaign.  Then Trump won and he had to turn around in the span of 3 months and pretend that the economy which he said was in shambles, with phony govt economic accounting, is now booming, and all those economic stats (like unemployment in particular) are proof of Trump's supremacy.  

I almost feel bad for the guy, it must be exhausting living in a state of doublethink 24/7, living an incredibly busy and demanding public life that is literally focused on the exercise of doublethink.  Yikes.  Miserable.

Fox and Friends this morning looked so pissed that they had to report on the NY Times story. The woman even said something like "Do ya even care?" And they were going on and on about anonymous sources, but I believe they failed to mention that Fox News also confirmed the story.

State run television.