A news organization that reports on a problem with its parent company should disclose that it is owned by the company in question.
For example, the Wall Street Journal, reporting on the recent News Corp. scandal, states very prominently, near the top, as a stand-alone 3rd paragraph:
“News Corp. owns The Wall Street Journal.”
The July 14, 2011 WSJ article is here.
However, Fox News.com fails to disclose its ownership by News Corp. when it reports on the same scandal. See the July 17 Fox News.com story, here. News Corp.’s relationship with Fox TV gets disclosed, but that’s a different network, which does not report news.
Why would Fox News.com omit this disclosure?
EDIT: I’ve done more searching and to be fair, I found many Fox News.com and Fox Business.com stories that disclose the relationship with News Corp.
But I found many, many stories that do not:
Tonight, Fox News reported that the Obama healthcare law was upheld by a federal court.
They were right!!
They reported that the case was one of 30 legal challenges to Obamacare, which greatly minimizes the importance of the story. True but incredibly misleading!!
They forgot to mention:
1. This was the first time that a federal *appeals* court has considered the Obamacare law, making this a very significant legal decision.
2. One of the judges (Jeffrey Sutton) who wrote in favor of the “Obamacare” law today:
A. was a law clerk for Supreme Court justice Scalia (the “uber justice” for conservative principles)
B. was appointed by George W. Bush
C. is favored by conservatives for consistently pushing for states’ rights, as noted by the Washington Post here
D. is likely to be agreed with by U.S. Supreme Court conservatives, and
E. explained today in great detail why the healthcare law is valid under the Constitution (specifically, why the law’s requirement that every American must purchase health insurance is a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the commerce clause).
In my view, Judge Sutton has ended conservatives’ hopes for Obamacare to be killed in the courts. (This is my prediction and I am not suggesting that Fox News should have reported it.)
Unfortunately, on this major development, Fox News viewers simply don’t know what is going on, because this important news has not been reported to them.
The opinion of the 6th Circuit court of appeals is here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0168p-06.pdf
In Chris Wallace’s interview of Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday, June 19, 2011, Mr. Wallace accused Diane Sawyer of ABC News of getting her reporting wrong in a 2010 report, as an example of the too-liberal shortcomings of mainstream media.
In fact, it is Mr. Wallace who got it wrong. Here’s why. Wallace played a clip of Diane Sawyer reporting on the newly signed AZ immigration law in 2010. She said that it required AZ police to stop and question people who do not seem to be U.S. citizens.
Wallace then turned to Jon Stewart and said: “But that isn’t what the law requires them to do. In fact, the law says the only way that you can stop somebody is as part of a lawful enforcement stop. You can’t just say, hey, you’re walking down the street, exactly as she suggested. It has to be because, there’s a broken taillight, or they’re loitering, or they’re doing something else. Don’t you think she should have mentioned that?”
But Wallace had his facts wrong. He was describing a later amendment to the law, NOT the version that Arizona adopted on April 23, 2010, the date of Diane Sawyer’s report. As adopted, the AZ law worked just as she said — AZ cops were required to detain a person to determine their immigration status if the cop had ANY LAWFUL CONTACT AT ALL with the person, and if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was an illegal alien.
Literally, if the cop saw the person just walking down the street.
Diane Sawyer had it right. Absolutely NO “lawful enforcement stop” was required by the Arizona law when it was adopted. Chris Wallace bungled his reporting as he smeared Ms. Sawyer on national television.
The question is, will Mr. Wallace apologize to Diane Sawyer for this? And should he apologize to Jon Stewart, for confronting him with a totally false “gotcha” of mainstream media, and asking Mr. Stewart to comment on his fabrication on the spot?
As adopted on April 23, 2010, the Arizona immigration law (Senate Bill 1070) required AZ police who have “ANY LAWFUL CONTACT” with somebody to detain them in order to determine their immigration status “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.” No other law enforcement stop was required, as claimed by Chris Wallace.
Later, on April 30, 2010, the AZ governor signed an amendment (House Bill 2162), which deleted the “any lawful contact” precondition, and replaced it with the condition that the police officer must have encountered the suspected alien in “ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION, OR ARREST . . . IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE.” This amended version is what Wallace was describing.
Here is the AZ immigration law, with the later April 30 amendment language shown in a different color: http://documents.nytimes.com/the-arizona-immigration-law?ref=politics
Here is an Arizona news source reporting about the April 30 amendment, stating: “The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they “stop, detain or arrest.” The earlier bill simply said “contact.” The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to….” http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html
I viewed Mr. Wallace’s interview of Jon Stewart here, and his smear of Diane Sawyer begins at 6:55: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUdBp-cck