Ethics Dunce: Fox News

Who approved the playing of Aerosmith’s “Dude Looks Like A Lady” over photos of convicted Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning in uniform and in feminine make-up and garb? Fire him.

This isn’t professional, and it isn’t the proper role of journalists to mock the gender identity issues of public or private individuals. Fox is playing to the worst of its core conservative audience, the gay- and trans-hating troglodytes, and thus embraces bigotry as reasonable and humorous. Manning’s sexual problems are of tangential news value, and to the extent that they are, they should be treated with sensitivity and respect, with Fox’s goal being to educate its audience, not to play playground tease.

It would be impressive and appropriate if one of the more responsible, independent Fox on-air personalities—Shep Smith? Megyn? O’Reilly?—would chide their network for this. They should be embarrassed.


60 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: Fox News

  1. Call me “Trog”, then! When a convicted traitor and notorious pervert not only avoids the death penalty for endangering the nation, but then has the utmost gall to demand that that same nation furnish him with a free, frankensteinian surgery, I’d say that this bears some attention. I would “chide” Fox News only for making light of it with their little video ditty. There’s no humor to be found, here. This is a travesty of justice and ethics that further reduces this nation to the status of a dysfunctional laughingstock.

      • Probably not, Jack. Nor would they have likely given he/she/it an unfavorable story, either. Certainly they wouldn’t today. I would, though- and they should have. When professional national journalists fail to do so with something like this, they lend legitimacy to what can only be described as an abhorrent practice that’s completely at odds with traditional medical ethics. Again, nothing to sneer at, but to report in the honest context of what it is and the dangers it represents.

        • The use of the word “it” to describe another human being demeans you, SWP. You’re better than that.

          When professional national journalists fail to do so with something like this, they lend legitimacy to what can only be described as an abhorrent practice that’s completely at odds with traditional medical ethics.

          “Abhorrent” – to many, yes. To you,, certainly and without exception. To me – in limited cases, not at all, in fact not to provide it would be “Abhorrent”. But as a general course of treatment for those not needing it, and those who do not consent to it, “Abhorrent” doesn’t even begin to describe it. I’d call it actually Evil, and as an Intersex Activist, I constantly work to make sure Intersex babies are no longer surgically mutilated just to make others feel more comfortable.

          “At odds with traditional medical ethics” – let’s just say it’s an extraordinary claim to make to say that it isn’t at odds. An extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

          Which we have, in abundance.

              • They knew where their check is coming from, I’d say. Nor do I think that they’re stupid enough to believe in multiple sexes in private. But when you know what your paymaster wants to hear, you tend to tell him just that… whether it’s a he, she or whatever.

        • “Traditional medical ethics” are ethics, so that’s a great discussion to have.

          Ethics has to involve learning from experience. Medicine has tried quite a few things to alleviate the distress of trans people (and, bluntly, in many cases to force them to conform, pretty damned ethically questionable).

          Electroshock, for example. Since that didn’t work, it’s unethical. It might have been anyway.

          Dr. Benjamin ignited what diplomats call “a frank and open exchange of views” in the medical profession. This included at least one opponent going straight into the territory of Godwin’s Law. Dr. Benjamin collided with a well-founded long-standing principle of not taking a knife to healthy tissue. But the followup studies told a story about patient welfare that could not ethically be ignored.

          (BTW lots and lots of trans people find hormones get them to an acceptable place without surgery).

    • OK SMP, if you insist, you’re a Trog.

      I rather liked your song “Wild Thing” back in the 60’s BTW.
      Now the bardinage is out of the way, let’s get down to facts.

      First, Ms Manning has said she has no plans for surgery, “Frankensteinian” or otherwise.

      Ok, so while that fact rather emphasises that this is a hysterical and malicious beat-up with scant regards for mere facts, let’s ignore those minor details for now and get to the crux of the argument.

      There are two disputes here. The first is whether prisoners have a right to medical treatment, and if so, to what degree.I’ll deal with that first.
      Brown v. Plata 131 S.Ct. 1910 (2011)

      To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. A prison’s failure to provide sustenance for inmates “may actually produce physical ‘torture or a lingering death.’ ” ….Just as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.

      So prisoners are entitled to “adequate medical care”, by the 8th amendment. This is not a matter for debate.

      That leads on to the second dispute: what do we mean by “adequate”?

      It has been held that, for example, a blanket policy excluding prisoners from even being assessed to see whether they have diabetes is not “adequate”, even if “all prisoners are treated the same” by it.

      It has also been held that giving a diabetic prisoner a standard 2 aspirin and a band-aid is not “adequate treatment”, even if it may ameliorate the effects of having gangrenous toes. The treatment can’t be ineffective like this.

      It has been held that providing a prisoner with an experimental and expensive pancreas transplant goes well beyond “adequate treatment”. This is because the recognised standard of care is to manage the problem through insulin injections and diet. That latter is deemed “adequate”. Only what is “medically necessary”, but all of what is “medically necessary” is the standard for adequacy. The treatment doesn’t have to be the best imaginable, but it does have to meet the predefined minimum standard for adequacy.

      Cost of treatment is irrelevant, and cannot be used as an excuse not to provide it, though administrative considerations may be. Much latitude is given to prison administrations there, but they can be called on to provide evidence, not just bald assertions, that such administrative reasons are legitimate and not pretextual.


      • From the medical standards of care for Transsexuality v6 2001 and as affirmed by AMA resolution 122 (Also the APA, Endocrine Society etc)

        In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not “experimental,” “investigational,” “elective,” “cosmetic,” or optional in any meaningful sense.

        Note the key phrases “medically necessary” and not “optional in any meaningful sense”.

        As for alternate “talking cures” that have been conjectured by the public as viable alternatives, psychiatric therapies of unspecified kinds… another quote, this time from the update standards of care v7 of 2011:

        Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder &
        Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical.

        Or, to put it more succinctly, it’s snake oil, and we’ve know that for decades from experimental results. These “alternatives” don’t work, not that they haven’t been tried again and again and again.

        This argument has been put before Federal courts many times in the last two decades.
        See O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner [134 T.C. 34 (2010)], De’lonta v. Angelone,[330 F.3d 630(2003)] , Fields vs Smith [653 F.3d 550 (2011)], Kosilek v. Spencer [889 F.Supp.2d 190 (2012)]

        In all cases, it was ruled that the decision of what was “medically necessary” resided with the medical profession, not with medically untrained administrators, legislators, or politicians. Neither does the question of whether a Civil Right should be unilaterally terminated belong with the electorate or fourth estate.
        Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 269 (1972)

        “The right to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, like the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights, may not be submitted to vote; it depends on the outcome of no elections. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”

        And from Kosilek

        “Denying adequate medical care because of a fear of controversy or criticism from politicians, the press, and the public serves no legitimate penological purpose,..It is precisely the type of conduct the Eight Amendment prohibits.”

        So no, you don’t know what you’re talking about, your views have no place in a civilised society, and no-one has to take them into account.

        Or so say all the federal courts. I happen to agree with them, though I’d really prefer it if I could put the data that led the courts to these conclusions before you, so you could examine them and come to your own conclusions.

        Whether you end up changing your mind or not is another matter, and not one of any great concern to me I’m afraid. These posts are to inform the unprejudiced and unbigoted. They may end up disagreeing with me regardless, but at least their opinions will be informed.

        • Let me sum up your massive bulk of commentary, Zoe. “I’m a wannabe doctor and a proud homosexual and if you don’t bow to my worldview, you’re just ignorant and bigoted… so there!” I don’t need to be a doctor to be able to discern right from wrong and truth from falsehood. You’re just trying (as usual) to overcomplicate what’s a false issue to begin with as a means of lending it an air of credence. This is your common method, as I’ve often seen. However, I’m neither ignorant nor am I so easily impressed by the Carnival Barker presentation. Kindly save that for the truly ignorant, Zoe. I am not one. Unlike your circle of friends, I can still easily tell a man from a woman.

          • Clearly unfair, Steven, and a personal attack to parry an argument backed by data, medical research and law. The point is that neither you nor anyone else can tell a man from a woman in many cases. This is a superb example of the gray area anomaly that demands reexamination of prior conclusions and presumed absolutes. There are many ways of dealing with these ethically—just denying their existence and insulting the messenger are not among them.

            • Water off a duck’s back. Jake. It”s an occupational hazard. Rather mild in comparison to what I’m used to.

              It’s not as if SMP is in a tiny minority on this one. There are very many people whose reactions are identical. In fact, in terms of those who feel strongly enough about the issue to make their voices heard by legislators, they’re a distinct majority. They’ll tell you to your face that they know what they know, and no amount of evidence will change that – they see it as a simple issue being obfuscated for some nefarious purpose.

              When they occupy judicial benches, as some do, that’s when we get problems (Littleton vs Prange comes to mind), A commenter on a website – not so much.

              I too feel strongly on the issue. It takes an effort to remember I have no direct line to Truth, and to let the facts shape my opinions, for my mind to remain open to the possibility I might be wrong. It’s something you have to do to retain intellectual integrity, but no-one said it was easy.

              Also – IANAL. I am not a lawyer. I do like to think that if I’d decided on Law rather than Science, I might have been adequate, but maybe that’s my ego talking.

            • “in many cases”

              Exactly. With seven billion humans on the planet rare cases amount to “many” and we’re obliged to set up mechanisms so those many people are decently treated.

              Has Zoebrain mentioned here the XY person who conceived a baby and carried to term the old-fashioned way? That person was as real as Mr. Pilling and had to be treated ethically. Everyone other than the Ob/Gyn should have resolved the male/female question by (gasp) asking.

            • I just discovered all this, Jack. Now… I don’t see the need to waste time on those whose agenda is obviously that of legitimizing the worst possible human behavior and then proceeding to force acceptance of it on everyone else. These arguments are absurd on the face of it and need nothing but common sense to refute them. I hardly deny the existence of the sexually deviant. I simply refuse to justify or support their behaviors, as they are the result of mental illness and represent a health, moral and crime situation for decent citizens and their children. Their claims that they have suddenly discovered new “genders” or that a swarm of magical mutations have suddenly appeared is not the product of ethical scientific inquiry, but rather that of those with a political or financial motive. Such advocates deserve no merit, any more than they deserve any serious debate, as they have none to offer themselves.

                  • “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens Razor.

                    Or in Latin, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
                    Jon R. Stone, The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations (2005), p. 101.

                    • What does Hitchens say about reactions to a lot of irrelevant globber? But then again, never mind. Christopher is hardly one to comment on any of this.

                    • stvplln = Steven Mark Pilling, right? Logging in as wordpress rather than facebook?

                      I anticipated your critique of Hitchens Razor by the attack on Hitchens, (I forget the name off that particular fallacy, sorry) hence I gave the original ancient formulation too. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

                      What is freely asserted may be freely negated.

                      I guess the :Latin classes at boarding school weren’t entirely wasted..

                      Meanwhile, Happy New Year.

          • SMP – actually, I’m straight, not lesbian.

            I can still easily tell a man from a woman

            An amazingly useful talent! You must tell me how you do it. I’m serious.

            Then we could avoid situations like this one:

            According to Anne Tamar-Mattis, executive director of Advocates for Informed Choice, which specializes in advocating for the rights of intersex children, about 1 in 2,000 children is born with an intersex condition. Although children with these conditions typically develop as a boy or girl as they grow, since the 1950s doctors have performed this type of sex assignment surgery on infants, even when the child’s ultimate gender remains unknown. “It used to be something that was kept very quiet,” Tamar-Mattis told RH Reality Check. “Surgeons would do the surgery and tell the parents never to tell the kids. But that’s changing. Intersex is becoming more public over the last 20 years, and this case is about ensuring the safety of all children who do not have a voice.”

            Neither would we need a Family Court case in situations like this:
            Re: Sally (Special Medical Procedure) [2010] FamCA 237

            Click to access 2010_FamCA_237.pdf

            Personal testimony from “Sally”, a 14 year old… child, let us say.
            I know that after the gonads are removed, I might have to have more surgery for my vagina. Dr [X] has told me that he does not want to go to more surgery, because it might wreck sensation. He said that I would only have surgery if all else fails. If I needed surgery to look more like a normal female, I would want to have it. I know I can never have babies, but I want to be as much like a normal woman as possible. I don’t know how I would feel if I could not have the gonads removed now. I do not want to think about them not being removed. I suppose I would just wait until I was 18, and then I would have them removed as soon as I could

            “Sally” has 5alpha-reductase deficiency (5ARD) you see. Born looking mostly female, but with the 46,XY chromosomes all but 1 in 300 men have, and very few women. Though some do, and rarely, so do the daughters they give birth to. 5ARD is quite common in some parts of the world, but rare in the US for example.

            In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970’s, guevedoces … These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these ‘girls’ sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects. Their underlying pathology was found to be a deficiency of the enzyme, 5-alpha Reductase.

            As you yourself said:

            you’re just ignorant and bigoted…

            I don’t have to say anything like that. Not much point, either it’s false, so would reflect badly on me, or true, in which case you’d answer facts with insults and personal invective, and it would be obvious to all. In neither case would it do any good.

            • I never called you a lesbian, Zoe. Actually, you’re worse than that. You enable perverse behavior and thus serve to spread the misery around… and for the sake of your own ego, if nothing else. When you start talking about “intersex children”, however, you reveal an agenda of deviance against the innocent that far outweighs any personal perversity you might have had. Leading children into illicit sexuality is as great a crime as one can commit. “Contributing to the deliquency of a minor” doesn’t even begin to cover it. Not long ago, those who advocated as you do would have been thrown into prison… and rightfully so.

                  • I know exactly what it means and what the implications for children are in the hands of the concept’s proponents.

                    Perhaps you’d share your knowledge with the rest of us then? Because some might find it difficult trying to make sense of what you said.

                    Intersex – sometimes referred to as Disorders of Sexual Development – is a series of congenital medical conditions, ranging from the masculinising Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia to the feminising Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Facts, not something that anyone can be a “proponent” of, any more than one can be a “proponent” of Antarctic and Arctic regions of the Earth. Not a new situation either, suddenly “magically” having come into being..

                    See for example Veit Rosenberger, “Republican nobiles: Controlling the Res Publica,” in A Companion to Roman Religion (Blackwell, 2007), p. 295. on the subject.

                    • Once again, you fall back to the tactic of redefining the issue under a splurge of rhetoric. What “intersex” truly means is the legitimizing of the early, childhood symptoms of mental illness in order to justify a policy of no treatment for those in need. Legitimizing perversion is a political motive, not a legitimate medical issue. The more children who are allowed to sink into the pit of deviancy, the more votes the Left will garner by championing this false and criminal cause. Children need help and guidance from adults. You offer them despair and degeneration. That’s what intersex is all about in reality.

                    • What “intersex” truly means is the legitimizing of the early, childhood symptoms of mental illness in order to justify a policy of no treatment for those in need.

                      The US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health disagree.

                      As does the AMA, APA etc etc.
                      What does intersex mean?

                      A variety of conditions that lead to atypical development of physical sex characteristics are collectively referred to as intersex conditions. These conditions can involve abnormalities of the external genitals, internal reproductive organs, sex chromosomes, or sex-related hormones. Some examples include:

                      External genitals that cannot be easily classified as male or female
                      Incomplete or unusual development of the internal reproductive organs
                      Inconsistency between the external genitals and the internal reproductive organs
                      Abnormalities of the sex chromosomes
                      Abnormal development of the testes or ovaries
                      Over- or underproduction of sex-related hormones
                      Inability of the body to respond normally to sex-related hormones

          • “I don’t need to be a doctor to be able to discern right from wrong ”

            When it’s about the right and wrong of a medical treatment, listening to doctors is prudent, as is giving more weight to the opinions of specialists, as is giving even more weight to the opinions of teams of specialists.

            • You asked for a definition, Zoe. What I gave you was a truthful, reality based one. Now… you and your quack friends try to comprehend a simple fact of life on Earth. There are only two sexes. They are defined at conception by either the presence or the lack of a Y chromasome. Those sexes exist for a reason. None others are necessary nor would they serve a function if they did. Each of the sexes has its characteristics and its natural proclivities based on the species and its reproductive cycle. Among human beings, these factors are more evident in external as well as internal than in most life forms. There can be no sane misinterpretation among humans of which sex they are. (Yes, mistakes of nature DO occur, but they are extremely rare and irrelevant.) “Intersex”, deviancy and other such things are the result either of massive glandular imbalance coupled, necessarily, with mental aberration. One is a medical condition, the other psychological. Both need treatment as soon as they become noticable. To dismiss this as “natural” and deny treatment to children when such facets are in an early stage (and for the sake of politics!) is, as I have mentiioned, both intolerable and criminal. Have you got that?!

              • (Yes, mistakes of nature DO occur, but they are extremely rare and irrelevant.)

                Ah, that one’s “special pleading”.
                And it’s not every day I get called a “mistake of nature”.

                As regards treatment – I agree that it’s needed, and early, just not the way that you mean.
                Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical.

                You help by aligning sexual anatomy with neural anatomy. Trying psychological treatment doesn’t work, just as it can’t give anyone perfect pitch or cure anosmia. Or even change handedness.

                What you do is let them tell you what sex they are when Gender Identity crystallizes (usually around age 5). Then allow them to have whatever surgery they feel is needed when they’re of age – often none. Their choice, not yours.

                Now you can, if you wish, define “sex” so that “male: means “having a Y chromosome”. But you could just as well define “male” to mean “above average height”. After all, “men are taller than women” and you can claim the exceptions are “mistakes of nature, extremely rare and irrelevant”. The same logic applies. Neither such definition is useful, nor matches reality except approximately.

                You also have problems with those whose chromosomes change, usually due to a bone marrow transplant.

                See Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8 & Transplanted human bone marrow cells generate new brain cells by Crain BJ, Tran SD, Mezey E. in J Neurol Sci. 2005 Jun 15;233(1-2):121-3
                These articles show that a bone-marrow transplant recipient’s bodies gradually become genetically identical to that of the donor due to cell turnover. Even the brain. Even the reproductive glands. Not the hair though.

                Finally as regards “rare and irrelevant” – I beg to differ.

                According to you, both those people are male – even though Natalie could give birth with a donated egg, all she lacks is functional ovaries.

                • It’s not just psychological, Zoe. It’s also a matter of simple genetics. If Natalie lacks functional ovaries, I sympathize. But is Natalie genetically a male or female? You tell me. If the former, then it’s no wonder “she” lacks functional ovaries, no matter what sex she thinks she is. If she IS a she, that’s altogether different. Then it becomes a legitimate medical issue. If, however, it’s a matter of sexual denial, then she’s going to be unhappy for the rest of her life, no matter what she does. You can’t change your genetic code, Zoe. You have to come to terms with it and deal with it appropriately.

                  • You can’t change your genetic code, Zoe.

                    Unless I have a bone marrow transplant. Did you not understand that article?

                    But is Natalie genetically a male or female? You tell me.

                    The question is meaningless – most men are 46,XY, most women aren’t. But some are, and so are the daughters they give birth to. Many people don’t have either the 46,XY chromosomes most men have, nor the 46,XX chromosomes most women have.
                    “Genetically male” is just a convenient phrase like “male height”. Your height doesn’t determine your sex.

          • How sad that you consider citation from case law and respected medical authorities to be overly complicated carnival showmanship. I found Zoe’s post to be factual, clear and concise. Your strawman reply simply shows you ARE ignorant, and embarrassed by said ignorance.

            • “Respected” medical authority? First off; much of that authority has a political and financial axe of their own to grind, as do so many so-called professionals these days. Follow the money, VD. Secondly; I have a sufficient background in the sciences and enough in the arena of political debate to know utter hogwash when I hear it. Yes, I could fairly well describe that noise as “carnival showmanship”. The difference, though, is that carnivals at least provide harmless entertainment for kids. They don’t generally threaten them in heart, soul and body. This IS the case with the deviant movement and its fellow travelers.

              • First off; much of that authority has a political and financial axe of their own to grind, as do so many so-called professionals these days. Follow the money, VD.

                Evidence, please? Surely a worldwide conspiracy of such vast magnitude, involving multiple independent research teams from nations throughout the world over 60 years, would leave *some* tracks?

                Look at the swift exposure of the various “junk science” reports such as the infamous Regenerus study, commissioned by a political group, paid for by that group, and “peer reviewed” by members of that group.

                The documents reveal how the anti-gay Witherspoon Institute, which funded it, enlisted Regnerus to undertake the study in order to influence anticipated Supreme Court deliberations on same-sex marriage.

                Documents released by the University of Texas in response to a Freedom of Information Act request illustrate clearly that Regnerus’s paper was commissioned in order to further the anti-gay agenda of the Witherspoon Institute and other conservative foundations. These foundations paid almost $800,000 to create a facsimile of scholarship that could be used in judicial arguments to support the claim that same-sex couples are less capable as parents than opposite-sex couples and that children reared by same-sex couples are more troubled than those reared by opposite-sex couples.

                So… since such single, isolated incidents are so easy to detect, there must be a mountain of such documents from the hundreds of institutes involved here. If what you say is true.

                If you can’t produce any – “what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

                • What you’re essentially saying is that any “study” that upholds the fable of multiple sexuality, genetic predisposition and degeneracy in general is to be respected, while all who point out its manifest fallacies are just conservative, bigoted deniers. Fine. I have all the “evidence” I need right before my eyes. I don’t need corrupted “scholars” to redefine the human condition for me.

        • I believe the following essay applies:

          My own inquiries led me to the David Reimer case, in which a boy raised as a girl (on medical advice!) never accepted it, because he somehow knew deep down that he was set to “male”. That hints at a brain structure difference.

          Then I found out about the research Zhou and others did. On the autopsy table, parts of the brain that are different between men and women turn out to match the self-reported sex of trans people.

          I can empathize with having trouble assimilating this information! Our ideas about male and female run very deep and it’s scary to think those ideas could be wrong even in rare cases. My mind kept feeling like it had been through a painful workout as I studied the issues. As with a painful workout, it’s in better shape now.

          Incurring that pain was also a clear ethical obligation since I was suddenly interacting with a lot of trans people.

  2. Hard to have any sympathy for Manning, but you’re right.. Fox has no reason for this level of pettiness.. It just reinforces people’s negative opinions.

    • Of course they have a reason. In fact, it’s essential that they denigrate Trans people in order to remain popular with their viewing public.

      It’s supposed to reinforce an ignorant, bigoted, negative opinion. The meaner, more venomous, and above all, more petty, the better.

      Fox is hardly the worst offender here. It’s standard, socially acceptable. Quite normal.

        • Fox News is JOURNALISM???

          Um… if you say so. I bet you can’t do it with a straight face though.

          But again, even in the area of Infotainment, they’re not appreciably worse than many others in this particular area. MSNBC comes to mind.

          Fox News… journalism… um….

          Now “profession” I grant you. Commercially successful Infotainment takes considerable skill and talent to pull off, especially when there’s such cut-throat competition. So does the oldest profession, which it strongly resembles. Apart from Infotainment’s relative lack of professional ethics in comparison.

          Maybe it’s a difference in culture between Australia and the USA. Perhaps we’re inoculated against it

          For example – here’s a political broadcast for the upcoming election, from a small-l libertarian party. I doubt the US would screen it, certainly not nationally.

  3. Fox should maintain the highest level of journalistic ethics for many good reasons, not the least of which is the continual seeking out of Fox’s small offenses in an effort to prove that it is not legitimate. When you’re under that kind of scrutiny you had better watch your step.

    • Fox should maintain the highest level of journalistic ethics for many good reasons, not the least of which is the continual seeking out of Fox’s small offenses in an effort to prove that it is not legitimate. When you’re under that kind of scrutiny you had better watch your step.
      Yes, absolutely.
      Playing that song was so Jimmy Fallon-ish.
      Probably where they got the idea for it.
      Stupid and immature.

    • ‘intern’ a la ‘Wing Too Lo’.
      What they really should have done, if they absolutely had to play a song (which in my opinion, they should not) was play a traitor song.

      I personally don’t have a problem with Bradley/Chelsea’s sexual identity.
      I do have a problem with his crimes against our country.

      • If they should have played anything, I agree. But again, mockery is not professional journalism or reporting. It’s pundit stuff.
        If they were going to mock his gender issues, they dhoul have played the Four Seasons oldie, “Walk Like a Man.” that would have been just as wrong, but funnier.

  4. “not to play playground tease.”

    Jack, that’s more than a metaphor! A lot of public personalities are best explained as playground bullies who never grew up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.