What would Fox News do if news orgs all had "fact checker" sections that included other news orgs?

[gulliver]

On my wish list, what if all authentic news organizations had a fact checking department that checked other news organizations? The Washington Post and New York Times have fact checker sections, for example, but they have a huge gap. They leave out other news organizations.

Why? It makes no sense. I actually think the idea of news organizations fact checking one another would be healthy, enlightening, and entertaining. I would love to see Fox New's take on The Washington Post's journalism, and I would also love to see the Post's and the Times's take on Fox News's journalism parody.

It would put Fox News in an interesting position if news organizations had fact checking departments. Fox News would have to decide whether or not to add fact checking to its news parody. If Fox didn't have fact checking, all of the authentic news organizations could have, as the first line on their own fact checking pages, "Why doesn't Fox have a fact checking section?" If Fox did have a fact checking section, I'm sure it would be very entertaining.

[cyclonefence]

1. Nothing would change

because the fans of Fox News rely on their guts to tell them what is true, not on stupid elitist facts. Stephen Colbert warned us about this years ago: this is Truthiness.

Ronald Reagan's FCC destroyed what used to be sort of a fact-check on news organizations when they banned the "Equal Time" rule that mandated airtime (of equal length) for the opposing position. CNN and to a lesser extent MSNBC continue to follow this rule by allowing assholes like Rick Santorum to speak on their networks. Fox used to have Alan Colmes as Sean Hannity's liberal partner, but he was fired, and they went full-bore RW. And it's not likely to change: I read yesterday that the evil Murdoch son, Lachlan, will take over the news side of the empire, while James will oversee entertainment when Rupert kicks it.

[virgogal]

2. I don't watch Fox--what have they said recently that is NOT true?

I'm not talking about opinion,but actual news reporting.

[gulliver]

3. A ton of things. And opinion should be included. Why would it not be?

What Fox News does is slant, under-report, and ignore facts selectively. That is not a true presentation of the facts of events occurring in the world. It's false.

Fact checking sites don't simply say true and false. They have ratings systems. Donald Trump regularly gets "Four Pinocchios" on the Washington Post fact checker. Why shouldn't Sean Hannity or Fox News itself?

To those who say it might cause an escalating war of fact checking, I say, yes, exactly!

And it doesn't have to be all negative. News organizations can compliment and congratulate one another too. They can even compliment the Fox parody when it includes news or opinion consistent with the facts.

Right now, the authentic news organizations don't criticize Fox News very often. That leaves people with a false impression that Fox News and, for example, The Washington Post are just choices of news sources. Authentic news needs to claim its rightful place above news parody outlets like Fox.

[virgogal]

4. Because an opinion is----an opinion, and a fact is a fact.

If you don't know the difference there isn't much else to say.

[gulliver]

6. Opinion shows and comments saying falsehoods are what I am talking about.

Your post asks what they have "said" or what they are "reporting". You can "say" or "report" false things in the process of "opining." That's what I'm talking about. Trump does it all the time.

So, yes, I do know the difference between opinion and fact. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Some of my favorite MSNBC hosts already say "Fox lied" all the time...

[gulliver]

7. That's great. News criticizing news is important.