Fox offers slant, nothing more

November 26, 2011 by  

Regardless of the court’s determination, the media seems to insist on forming its own opinion. A recent Fox story, published on, attempted to downplay an interesting story in St. Cloud, Minn.

Fox’s news story was incredibly interesting, if a little vague; in fact, the entire publication revealed not very much. It is rare to see this kind of thing in the U.S. media. Sometimes, a slant can effectively end a scoop before anyone can decide if they’re interested. That’s what might be happening in St. Cloud.

Suzanne James, a psychologist, was under review by the state board. Fox spoke of this matter:

“It took them three years before they decided to restrict her license,”

What they didn’t mention, however, was why the psychologist was ever under investigation at all.

As far as the story’s writer, Tom Lyden, is concerned:

“The Minnesota Board of Psychology knew all about James. Some of the documents read like scenes from the X-Files.”

The only reason Fox gave for James’s investigation was, ‘she believed her clients’ delusions.’ They were moot, of course, about what exactly the clients’ delusions were, and certain ‘extremist’ groups in St. Cloud are looking into poster printing, banner printing and other print services to increase local awareness about what they’re calling a ‘hardcore local cover-up.’

To add to the confusion, Fox added an incredibly subjective quote from James’s husband, the meaning of which is unclear at best: “Licensing boards have been captured by the people [whom] they’re regulating:

“They are protective of the professional rather than the public,”

Whether one believes in the paranormal or not, media vagueness arouses paranoia for the skeptical. On a smaller scale, it arouses paranoia in everyone else, too.