Skip to main content

Fox News appears to be confused about "bias..."

For as long as I can remember, I've contended that Fox News is as perplexed about bias as a newborn is about quantum physics. A recent segment of theirs regarding the Michael Brown shooting once again lends credence to that theory (closer to fact).

First of all, allow me to define "bias" for those at Fox News. Bias is "to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, especially unfairly."

On Monday's Fox & Friends, the following was a headline used to prompt discussion: "Media Bias: Is 'Unarmed Teen' Description Misleading?"

Fox News contributor Linda Chavez asked that very question, and followed it up with the following commentary:

"That description in and of itself actually colors the way in which we look at this story. We're talking about an 18-year-old man who is 6'4'' and weighs almost 300 pounds, who is videotaped just moments before the confrontation with a police officer strong arming an employee an robbing a convenience store."

Let's check to see if the media is being biased with their description of Michael Brown being an unarmed teen.

Media: "Michael Brown - unarmed teen"

Facts: "Brown was unarmed and 18-years-old, which many believe qualifies him as a teen."

What did Ms. Chavez want the headline to be?

"Huge Unarmed Teen Killed By Police, But He Was So Large, He Could Probably Have Reflected the Bullets Off His Massive Hands and Killed the Officers, So The Police Were Acting In Self-Defense"

It's really no wonder why Fox News is so puzzled by "bias," considering their tagline is, "Fox News: Fair and Balanced," and the only thing less fair and balanced might be a drunken high-heeled clown on a tight rope - my apologies to the clown...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?s=t

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/fox-news-michael-brown-unarmed-teen_n_5710179.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...