But It’s what keeps “We watch Fox so you don’t have to,” in business. 
I have family in Birmingham (UK, not Alabama).
Very white, very not Muslim.
Never had an issue.
My cousin over there posted this story so I talked to her a bit about it. She couldn’t decide if she was amused or insulted as many of her friends are Muslim.
I think the Fox idiot was thinking of Bradford, which is heavily Muslim and regularly a target of the British Far Right parties for its ethnic-cleansing rants.
Ironic, NoVA as Christians outnumber Muslims there 2 to 1 and there are almost as many non-religious people as Muslims.
But I guess for some, even a little diversity is a “threat” 8-|
Montgomery County, MD schools decided to do away with all religious holidays because Muslims dare ask for a holiday to celebrate Eid-Al-Adha.
It would seem we are in the midst of a giant national tantrum as the complexion of our society changes–literally.
And it doesn’t help that Fox and other faux news sources gin up fear and controversy and hysteria rather than examine and report what’s going on in a way that helps people understand.
That’s why I mostly watch Al Jazeera America for real news.
Does Fox News ever admit when they make errors?
“And it doesn’t help that Fox and other faux news sources gin up fear and controversy and hysteria rather than examine and report what’s going on in a way that helps people understand.”
But that would be bad for their ratings and thus their profits. Stay tuned and tomorrow we will tell you the next thing to be outraged over!
Oh boy. The confusion continues. A pundit saying something stupid is not a reason for a news organization to issue a correction. That happens al the time everywhere. It is what pundits do all al sides of every issue on every news channel. It is becoming difficult to believe this is a real conversation among adults.
marie, who’s “confused”? And don’t you think news sources should use credible experts rather than people who don’t know what they are talking about? Don’t you think the interviewers should likewise correct incorrect statements if they hear them being made on air?
So, you’re bashing a host for not pointing out additional information? That could be done after every interview on every topic on every channel everywhere. Obviously, people will disagree about what’s important and what’s not so much so. But a news anchor never adds it all, later. This is bizarre.
We could do the same thing with a clip from another source on another topic or nearly any broadcast that uses a short soundbite. But, experts, pundits, or politicians being mistaken or downright wrong and even intentionally misleading is nothing new, either.
I see no point in bashing a partisan organ for being partisan. I probably would resist calling one of their employees a “news anchor,” though.
marie, a good interviewer will challenge incorrect statements as they happen, if in fact they know they are incorrect. It’s called responsible journalism.
Well, Martha McCallum is a news anchor. Bill O’Reilly is not. There is a difference. And, if we’re talking Fox News which I don’t know why we are but it seems we are, their lead news anchor Shepard Smith is not exactly an ideologue anyway.
Martha McCallum plays a news anchor on TV, I guess. She’s a little like one of the “moderators” on an infomercial, though.
In the old days, there were multiple newspapers in each town, and they had clear political affiliations. It didn’t surprise anybody when they demonstrated partisan bias. I think most people have really come to understand that Fox and MSNBC are like that now. I don’t care for it when they pretend that they aren’t.
I think other news outlets–such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (well, the Journal as it used to be) also have biases, but are/were committed to trying to be neutral news providers, apart from the editorial page. I see no evidence that Fox or MSNBC have much interest in doing this.
^^ “Oh boy. The confusion continues. A pundit saying something stupid is not a reason for a news organization to issue a correction. That happens al the time everywhere. It is what pundits do all al sides of every issue on every news channel. It is becoming difficult to believe this is a real conversation among adults.”
Absolutely wrong! Most diligent journalists would correct an erroneous statement quoted in their press organ, or expressed during their broadcasts, at the earliest opportunity. This should be especially true when the matter at hand is a subject of significant concern, like inter ethnic relations and preventing insidious bias.
I mean, it is changing but it’s much more complicated than that theory. The current concern is that not much reporting happens at all and that the mainstream press corps is becoming more of a public relations service which is interesting actually. The days of Sam Donaldson yelling at the president are ancient history (he was awesome) and we don’t see much of that anymore from anyone and somehow I don’t think it would go over all that well if it happened tomorrow. And, it wasn’t partisan although I think he probably disagreed with the administration, but what he thought was irrelevant as it should be. He was challenging authority, which used to be the job description
No, you don’t correct quotes. Quotes are quotes. They are what they are. Egads.
I see little difference in terms of their journalistic integrity. If you are saying O’Reilly, since he is not a “news anchor,” doesn’t need to have any, I would agree. But McCallum does not seem to represent the “Fair & Balanced” (ha) mission of Fox News.
Martha McCallum is the Alex Witt (MSNBC) of Fox News except she works weekdays.