Fox News Network (FNN or "the Licensee" in the Bulletin) first claimed that the show is not factual but instead is her and her guests commentary. After claiming the attack was "ripe for critical analysis", they went on to reveal that for "critical analysis" you should read "ill informed claptrap" (Page 66)



FNN said that the series Justice with Jeanine Pirro is broadcast weekly and presents Judge Jeanine’s “legal insights on the news of the week, current high-profile cases,

and recent issues and trends in the world of crime and justice”. It does not generally deliver factual reports of news events and is built around Judge Jeanine’s “positions and commentary of the news”. According to the Licensee, Justice with Jeanine Pirro does not target a specific demographic but that rating statistics show it generally appeals to adults. The Licensee explained that the Programme provided “opinion and news analysis of current events” and although it relied “heavily on facts and research” the Licensee said that the thrust of the Programme was commentary. FNN also explained that Judge Jeanine is a licensed US attorney and former criminal prosecutor.

Judge Jeanine Pirro is taking on the toughest legal issues making headlines in the U.S. and around the globe. And she's not shy about taking on some of Washington's most powerful in her can't-miss Opening Statement! P.S. - did you guys know that the judge is also a fiction writer?

FNN said that Judge Jeanine and Mr Peterson “sought to understand the extent and nature of ‘no-go zones’ in the city of Paris”. The Licensee explained

that Judge Jeanine was “making a factual inquiry to provide the basis on which to develop her opinions and analysis on the ways in which the conduct and practices of the French

government and the Muslim communities of Paris may have given rise to the attacks on the Hebdo office” and both did not “intend for Peterson’s comments to be a full statement on the matter of no-go zones or a comprehensive assessment of what

they are, how they operate, and how or why they have developed”.

The Licensee said that Mr Emerson “gave no indication that what he described was an overstatement, false, or otherwise misleading” and that he “sought to state a problem, document its origins, and advance a potential solution”. The Licensee explained that following the broadcast, it “further investigated the

statements Emerson made and determined that they were not supported by proper facts”.

The last paragraph does not explain how an attorney and criminal prosecutor earns the title "Judge". I suppose they presume viewers will be aware that she is just shooting her mouth off with little or no contact with reality after they read Fox's site on the show Unfortunately their general claim about the nature of the show's format is rather at odds with their response about the fake "no-go zones" claims (page 67)They go on to explain that there was not enough time to develop the information fully. So much for her ability to "develop her opinions and analysis". Maybe she got further insight from her second interviewee, Emerson. Unfortunately no.Leaving aside that there are no "proper" or "improper" facts, just facts - this is Fox admitting they do not fact check what their guests claim. Remember this was at a time when there were some very incendiary comments going on and "Judge" Jeanine was "making factual inquiries".

Then we come to Fox's claim that the lies didn't matter because a) nobody in France was watching, b) British people would know they were telling lies and c) its viewers know they are just ranting RWNJs. (page )



The Licensee also said that Ofcom “presupposes offence” by the population of Paris, whereas the population of Paris would not form part of the Programme’s UK audience. The Licensee submitted that any potential for causing offence to the residents of Paris should not be taken into consideration by Ofcom. Further, the Licensee said that the comment about Birmingham would “in the mind of any UK viewer, have been so clearly inaccurate as to render all statements about no-

go areas in the [Programme] self-evidently unreliable (and indeed risible) and so incapable of being misleading or offensive”. The Licensee said that therefore it was not reasonable to expect that the likely potential UK audience would suffer material harm or offence. .... The Licensee said that the Programme is known for its “brassy host, strident opinions and sometimes biting remarks”. The Licensee said that “any potential offence was assuredly mitigated by the audience’s understanding that a passionate discussion on a foreign program[me] could contain statements that were hyperbolic.”

The Licensee also commented on Ofcom’s assertion in the Preliminary View that the Programme breached its audience’s trust. The Licensee said this was unlikely because the trust afforded by UK audiences to the Programme (a foreign television programme of “robust opinions rather than forensic academic character”) may be lower than that afforded [...] to “more traditional staples of UK current affairs (e.g. Panorama)”. The Licensee said that this lower expectation would mean that the misstatements in the Programme would not result in a breach of audience trust “so severe that it could mislead the audience or otherwise buttress a conclusion of a [Rule] 2.2 breach”.

Yes that is Fox News admitting they make claims so false the audience must know they are unreliable and they make them is such a way that people abroad know they are nonsense. About the only justifable mitigation is their comment that as it was broadcast at 2am London time, there would be few people watching, so they couldn't cause offence and it would be too late for them to get upset. They then make an extraordinary admission that their programming would not be acceptable if made by a British broadcaster but it's OK cos they are Fox and the British know they are cr*p:As you might expect, Fox played the "free speech" card and claimed they should not be censured for their garbage because of their Article 10 rights (free expression) under the European Charter of Human Rights. OfCom, as it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity has to take account of it so is well used to having to respond and used its normal boilerplate response that Article 10 also carries responsibilities and its code sets out those and the requirements they put on broadcasters (page 72)

While this will have little more effect than a slap on the wrist for Fox, it does mean that the position of Murdoch's Sky as a "fit and proper person" to hold a broadcasting licence is further undermined after the revelations of the hacking of cellphone voicemails.