Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigV
But I think it's more likely the editing for clarity that represents difference of content.
|
I hope you don't
really believe that, and are just using a metaphor for how Fox News operates as a whole. "Edited for clarity" is an official copyediting phrase when writing transcripts. It means they took out all the "uh, er, soo--I mean, see..." crap that normal people say. If you've ever read a real unedited transcript, they can be pretty hard to understand.
If you're just being facetious about how Fox News chooses what they say as compared to other news stations, fine. But don't imply that they're literally changing the words coming out of their own spokespersons in their transcripts, that doesn't even make sense.
It's not a left-wing media
conspiracy, it never has been. It is simply the natural, unavoidable bias of reporters doing what they believe is right--it is a statistical fact that a large majority of journalists vote democratic, just like it is a statistical fact that security in Iraq has not improved. Nobody at BBC thinks to themselves, "Oooh, yes, today we're gonna really ream that Cheney guy!" and nobody at Fox News says, "Yes, we all know this war was a complete mistake, but let's release a few stories pretending we believe otherwise."
We're dealing with what these journalists truly believe to be right in their hearts, and it is impossible for that bias not to come out one way or another. That's why we have multiple news sources.