Fox News, Fair and Balanced. And Baptist.

[Guest]

Fox News Reporter Lauren Green repeatedly questioned Muslim and religious scholar Reza Aslan on his bonafides to write a book on Jesus, which helped propel the author's book Zealot:The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth towards the top of the bestseller lists.

How does her treatment of a Muslim author compare with her treatment of a Christian author writing about Muslims? In 2011, Green interviewed Barry Vann, a professor at Southern Baptist University of Cumberland, about his book Puritan Islam: The Geoexpansion of the Muslim World. .

Curiously, the question of why a Christian should write a book about Islam never came up.

Perhaps a key to Green's seemingly contradictory standards can be found in her remarks to a October 13, 2007 remarks to the Baptist Press Collegiate Journalism Conference:

Because God's standards are the only absolute standards of truth, journalists do not need to leave their faith out of their professional lives, Green said. In fact, there is a dangerous myth among secular people that "you have to check your Christianity at the door basically before you become a journalist," she said.

In reality, journalism cannot be excellent unless it accounts for God's law and His absolute standards, she said.

Fox News: Fair and Balanced. And Baptist.

[_EAllusion]

I discussed the Dr. Aslan interview on another board. I agree with the consensus that it is the archtypical Fox News interview. If you wanted to timecapsule one piece to represent what Fox News is all about, that one is on the short list.

The are several ways in which the interviewer did not properly prepare for the hatchet job she was sent to do, but the key one that makes it so entertaining to watch is seemingly being unaware of how frequent of a media personality Dr. Aslan is. His perfectly composed responses are great and are probably aided from extensive practice doing media interviews. Not anticipating this was very shortsighted.

[_ldsfaqs]

And if any of you were actually familiar with the book, how it's nothing more than Muslim anti-christian propaganda, full of falsehoods and lies (nothing more than Muslim bigoted "beliefs" about Christianity and Christ), not based in any sort of historical fact, you would understand the point of the question.

The guy is nothing more than a "hack", and it's no wonder the Left love him so much.

[_EAllusion]

And if any of you were actually familiar with the book, how it's nothing more than Muslim anti-christian propaganda, full of falsehoods and lies (nothing more than Muslim bigoted "beliefs" about Christianity and Christ), not based in any sort of historical fact, you would understand the point of the question.

The guy is nothing more than a "hack", and it's no wonder the Left love him so much.

Have you read the book ldsfaqs?

[_krose]

Have you read the book ldsfaqs?

He watched a YouTube diatribe about it. That's even better.

[_subgenius]

Is there some sort of journalism law that i am unaware of? the sort that says journalism must be fair and balanced?

[_krose]

Is there some sort of journalism law that i am unaware of? the sort that says journalism must be fair and balanced?

Is it unreasonable to point out that a certain organization, which is constantly claiming to be fair and balanced, is anything but?

[_EAllusion]

Is there some sort of journalism law that i am unaware of? the sort that says journalism must be fair and balanced?

Is there some sort of internet law that states you cannot criticize an organization for shoddy journalism or hypocrisy?

[_subgenius]

Is there some sort of journalism law that i am unaware of? the sort that says journalism must be fair and balanced?

Is it unreasonable to point out that a certain organization, which is constantly claiming to be fair and balanced, is anything but?

fair and balanced is their trademark...and its applications, likely by your admission, is relative....subjective.
I mean, are we to measure "fair and balanced" by your opinion as it echoes people like you?
Not likely
You may cite examples that would seem to contradict the notion of fair and balanced, but they could easily be dismissed as not qualifying as "fair" or "balanced".
For example...in the above example...there is an erroneous attempt to equate "equal" with "fair and balanced" when looking at the two interviews....why? There is no evidence that would conclude that both authors should be asked the same questions...after all, they were two different authors writing about two different subject. Yes, their subject matter could be categorized in a broad sense...but realistically they were different. In reality, it was fair that both authors go access to air-time and it was balanced that their subjects, as considered by some, were 'opposite'.
Ultimately who cares, i don't even watch Fox...which is what you should do...and the people that do watch Fox don't care what you think about Fox...so why are you complaining? other than to accentuate your sense of entitlement that has been festering in your gut for so long.

So many people, who believe, and exclaim, that all things are relative, suddenly demand objectivity...its ironic.