Wanna ‘fair and balanced’ fight?

I am deeply saddened by a recent tragedy that has struck TheDaily Campus. No, it isn’t the change in my beautiful articlepicture, but I know that’s on your minds as well. The tragedyI’m referring to is the death of accountability in JayMandyam’s recent article about Fox News.

Unlike Jay, I am going to actually make accusations and backthem up, which is key, about his journalistic integrity. By citingspecific examples from his most recent article and evaluating itsexemplary use of several journalistic fallacies, I believe I canaccurately support my contention that it is he, not Fox News, whois a hypocrite.

In order to fairly consider this assertion, I must dispel mypreviously held biases and accordingly recite my frequent viewingof Fox News, and a fondness for its reporting styles. Having statedsuch enables the audience to accurately identify any bias thatmight plague my article, however, I doubt you will find any.

So in accordance with being “fair and balanced” Inow destroy Mr. Mandyam’s argument that Fox News is ahypocritical network and Al Franken’s use of their slogan isjust a matter of them “lightening up.”

The first sentence of Mr. Mandyam’s article suggests that,”Fox News claims it is out to give its listeners what theywant: news without a liberal bias.” I’m not certain ifMr. Mandyam watches Fox News, but they make no such claim. The onlyproclamation on their part is a promise to counterbalance anyliberal ideals with independent and conservative ones. Not only dothey propose not to spin their news to the left, they are equallyas careful of slanting their reporting to the right.

The journalistic fallacy of his statement can be categorized notonly as an appeal to ignorance (on the part of the audience, ofcourse) but furthermore, it stacks the deck against Fox News byleaving out the network’s equal promise to leave no idealsunturned in their reporting; not just those that are conservativeor independent.

Mr. Mandyam’s next blatant disregard for journalisticintegrity is his question to Fox News: “If [they are] soconcerned with reporting unbiased news, why did [they] sue anauthor for his use of a widely used phrase?”

The phrase used on the cover of Al Franken’s new book,constitutes the trademarked slogan, purchased by Fox News,proclaiming the “fair and balanced” view of thenetwork.

(There is so much stuff here to criticize that I must settledown and organize my thoughts. Give me a moment please … ok… wait … one more second.)

First, what does the lawsuit filed against Al Franken have to dowith Fox News and their integrity in reporting the news in a”balanced” manner?

The answer: Absolutely nothing.

Fox News Corp. can file a lawsuit against Oprah for makingpeople who watch her show cry, without it having any bearing on FoxNews Corp. and its reporting integrity. I want a specific examplefrom its reporting that rebuts its claim to be “fair andbalanced” before I rethink whether they present ideas equallyor not. This fallacious question is journalistic garbage as far asI’m concerned.

Mr. Mandyam’s further contention that, “It is almostas if Fox [News Corp.] is suing Mr. Franken, not so much for hisuse of the phrase, but, rather for his liberal views,” is notonly not supported with any evidence in his article, but it isinconsequential to his assertion.

Is it “almost as if” or IS IT? Is he arguing thatFox News is hypocritical in suing Al Franken, or is he arguing thatFox News is suing Mr. Franken because of his viewpoint and notbecause of his trademark infringement?

Mr. Mandyam makes no recognition of the fact that trademarkinfringement is a very serious issue in the America that I live in.When one political commentator, regardless of their idealisticorientation, uses a TRADEMARKED slogan to forge a profit forhimself with a novel, I think any eyebrows that aren’t raisedare on dead people. Give me a break!

The two entities, Al Franken and Fox News, are both supposednews commentary prophecies regardless of their viewpoint. They bothespouse their ideas of important news information and currentpolitical commentary. If Al Franken was opening a dieting centerand wanted to use the slogan “fair and balanced” Idon’t think Fox News would complain. However, Al Franken andFox are in the same business. If I want to go into the fast foodbusiness, I would expect a lawsuit from McDonald’s if Iwanted to plaster “We love to see you smile” all overmy restaurants.

It’s called a trademark, a copyright of a sort. I believethat Fox News is strengthening our country’s legal resolve byasserting this infringement on their trademarked slogan.

Excuse me Mr. Mandyam, but I contend that you should be praisingFox News for indirectly supporting your rights to sue persons whomight infringe on the entitlements of the American corporation.

“Fox claims it is fair and balanced. Why would a fair andbalanced network need to sue someone for taking a fair and balancedlook at its views?” This direct quote from Mr.Mandyam’s commentary is an outright lie. It’s blatantdisregard for truth is astonishing, and I’m surprised that itwas even allowed to run in last Friday’s newspaper.

Fox News was not suing Al Franken for writing his book or eventaking a look at its reporting styles and commentators. It wasstrictly suing for trademark infringement of its slogan used inanother political commentary entity.

Maybe Mr. Mandyam should do a little more research beforespouting off about his supposed factual information. Thisjournalistic fallacy is the equivalent of using a comment as if itwere a fact in the proclamation of something else.

Before we look at why Fox News needs to sue Al Franken, Ipropose that we take a look at why Jay Mandyam needs to use so muchblatant fallacy in his article. What do you think?

So to Mr. Mandyam, a “writer” who wants to condemnFox News Corp. and chastise them for their right to sue any personor entity that they perceive to infringe on their entitlements as aCorp., I say, “Whatever.”