News Is Fox News Fair and Balanced ? (different than last poll)

[CRGreathouse]

Is Fox News "Fair and Balanced"? (different than last poll!)

Relative to other news programs, how would you rate Fox News?

 

[WhoWee]

Relative to other news programs, how would you rate Fox News?

Someone needs to say it - Fox has the most attractive female personnel - as a group.

 

[humanino]

This thread is ridiculous, your cause is desperate : in the other thread, Ivan provided for you a link to a published study showing that Fox was twice more biased than ABC, PBS and CNN, and biased in the opposite direction, compared to the average american voter.

edit
For future reference, the initial thread was here :
"News" for entertainment

Please everybody appreciate how Fox advocates now shamelessly value opinion polls above scientific studies... Thanks to the authors of this thread for the demonstration !

 

[CAC1001]

I can't access the actual study, but the summary did not say CNN, ABC, or PBS were more moderate, it cited specific programs on those channels that it sees as more moderate (just focusing on the news programs of those channels).

Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS News Hour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

Fox News's Special Report has a conservative slant to it (it was started by Brit Hume originally), but they do seek to present both sides of an opinion I think, in particular during the panel at the end of the show.

Two of the most balanced shows I think that discuss the issues are Fox News Sunday (usually their panel consists of righties, lefties, and centrists, for example a few weeks ago Maura Liasson compared Nancy Pelosi to Winston Churchill on the program (definitely not a conservative opinion!), also Chris Wallace usually interviews politicians from both parties)), and Inside Washington, which usually has a couple of lefties, a centrist occassionally, and a rightie (Charles Krauthammer). These are not hard news shows however (or I don't think they are?).

 

[CRGreathouse]

This thread is ridiculous, your cause is desperate

Why is the thread ridiculous? It seems to provide interesting and relevant information. (PM me for more, I'm reluctant to post lest I bias the poll.)

What do you mean by my cause?

 

[humanino]

I can't access the actual study, but the summary did not say CNN, ABC, or PBS were more moderate, it cited specific programs on those channels that it sees as more moderate (just focusing on the news programs of those channels).

It took me a couple of minutes to find it from a webpage belonging to one of the authors
A measure of media bias

 

[humanino]

Why is the thread ridiculous?

Because opinion polls have a lower value than scientific studies. I find it ridiculous that one would ignore a scientific study and decide to post a poll about Fox, because this is precisely the kind of methods which Fox would use/advocate/have no problem with.

What do you mean by my cause?

Your cause amounts to trying to sort out a question by polling rather than scientific investigation. One of the main reproaches I have (PERSONAL OPINION) with Fox is that they constantly mix opinions with facts. Even worse, they often state opinions before trying to justifying them with isolated facts/anecdotes. This is backwards journalism.

I do not claim that the study Ivan provided is perfect. I just claim that moving forward would be to discuss the study, its means of measurement and/or implications. Polling is a step backwards. I would also be interested in other scientific studies.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because opinion polls have a lower value than scientific studies. I find it ridiculous that one would ignore a scientific study and decide to post a poll about Fox, because this is precisely the kind of methods which Fox would use/advocate/have no problem with.

I've read the entire study already (months ago -- when it came out I only read the abstract and maybe a dozen pages, but I came back later to finish it). Why do you claim that I'm ignoring it?

Your cause amounts to trying to sort out a question by polling rather than scientific investigation.

Once again, what is "my cause"?

 

[humanino]

I have stated what I wanted to state, and I believe clearly enough.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I have stated what I wanted to state, and I believe clearly enough.

I'm sending a PM.

 

[CAC1001]

It took me a couple of minutes to find it from a webpage belonging to one of the authors
A measure of media bias

Thanks

 

[mheslep]

So far CRG is only soliciting PERSONAL OPINIONs of PFrs. Why is it ridiculous for him to do so, but not for you (humanino) to express your own opinion on the subject?

 

[CRGreathouse]

So far CRG is only soliciting PERSONAL OPINIONs of PFrs. Why is it ridiculous for him to do so, but not for you (humanino) to express your own opinion on the subject?

I think (?) this has been patched up by PM. I think there was some misunderstanding regarding the thread.

 

[talk2glenn]

It took me a couple of minutes to find it from a webpage belonging to one of the authors
A measure of media bias

I can't tell what side your on. The study you cited assigns the American media an average hypothetical ADA score of 62.6. A score greater than 50 would be defined as "more liberal". Therefore, the American media, according to your study, has at least a greater than 20% liberal bias.

Fox News, according to the study, does have a conservative bias, but it is less than the media's average liberal bias. That is to say, Fox (which is regarded as ideologically extreme in popular opinion) is in fact less biased than the average media outlet in the United States, though admittedly not by much.

Does this help or hinder your cause? I can't tell. You seem to want to say that Fox is ideologically extreme. The study suggests, relative to American media generally, it is in fact more moderate than the average.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Does this help or hinder your cause?

I hope that we can make the pursuit of correct knowledge the goal here.

 

[Al68]

You seem to want to say that Fox is ideologically extreme.

People just like to use those words to describe anything they disagree with. It's obvious to most that the words "ideological extreme", "radical right", etc are just used to mean that someone is less Marxist/socialist than they are.

I notice the same posters who misuse those terms consistently spout Marxist propaganda themselves, often practically quoting Marx, seemingly without even realizing it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Fox News, according to the study, does have a conservative bias, but it is less than the media's average liberal bias. That is to say, Fox (which is regarded as ideologically extreme in popular opinion) is in fact less biased than the average media outlet in the United States, though admittedly not by much.

Do you know if the difference is statistically significant according to the study?

 

[drankin]

Fox News is unbalanced, but I don't care. I prefer to watch it as opposed to most other media organizations which are equally unbalanced IMO. I believe most people understand this. For someone to take offense at this poll is rediculous IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

I voted "Unbalanced unlike most news programs, and I watch Fox News irregularly (a few times a month)"...however, I don't think that charcterization is quite accurate, for two reasons:

1. Fox News is a network, not a news program.
2. "Most news programs" is a very tough thing to judge. If it is intended to be compared with ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, then it is certainly more biased. If it is intended to be compared to MSNBC in an entirely separate class of network, then they are about equal.

One of the big dangers here is in comparing the Fox network to (for example) the CBS Evening News and then ignoring the other "news" on CBS. IE, the bias of 60 Minutes is far stronger and the reporting more tabloid-y than that of the Evening News. Conversely, I've seen a number of people in here who know better refer to Glen Beck as an "anchor".

 

[skeptic2]

If there is a doubt whether a news organization is fair and balanced then it has already lost its credibility. Oddly for all its touting itself as fair and balanced (perhaps necessary in order to preserve some credibility) Fox News appealed and won the case of Steve Wilson & Jane Akre who were fired for refusing to broadcast a false version of their report on bovine growth hormone in milk, thus winning the right to broadcast lies. How much further from fair and balanced can you get? Is their audience made up primarily of people who watch because Fox News presents the news they want to hear instead of the truth?

 

[WhoWee]

If there is a doubt whether a news organization is fair and balanced then it has already lost its credibility. Oddly for all its touting itself as fair and balanced (perhaps necessary in order to preserve some credibility) Fox News appealed and won the case of Steve Wilson & Jane Akre who were fired for refusing to broadcast a false version of their report on bovine growth hormone in milk, thus winning the right to broadcast lies. How much further from fair and balanced can you get? Is their audience made up primarily of people who watch because Fox News presents the news they want to hear instead of the truth?

I would say the credibility benchmark is a moving target.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58S5GK20090929
" (Reuters) - A New York state appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former TV newsman Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS Corp in which Rather claimed he was made a scapegoat in a scandal over a 2004 report on then-President George W. Bush's military record."

 

[CRGreathouse]

russ -- those are fair criticisms. Feel free to start your own poll, if you like.

 

[Gokul43201]

I picked "Unbalanced unlike most news programs, and I watch Fox News irregularly (a few times a month)", but I really mean "Unbalanced unlike most news programs, and I used to watch Fox News irregularly (a few times a month)". I don't watch TV anymore (unless I'm visiting someone or at a pub - both pretty rare), so can not say very much about the present state of TV news. I interpreted "News programs" along the lines of Russ' clarification - that is, I compared it with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and MSNBC and found it more biased than most of them.

 

[skeptic2]

I would say the credibility benchmark is a moving target.

I don't understand your moving target comment. Dan Rather was fired for failing to substantiate his claim that George Bush received special treatment leaving open the possibility that his report was false. That is in contrast to Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who had substantiated the truth of their report but were ordered not only not to report the truth but to report a lie instead.

The two cases are not at all similar and hardly represent a moving target.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand your moving target comment. Dan Rather was fired for failing to substantiate his claim that George Bush received special treatment leaving open the possibility that his report was false.

You really don't know the facts of the case, do you.

 

[skeptic2]

I never realized how biased the US mainstream media was until I watched the invasion of Baghdad on both US and Mexican news broadcasts. All the American reporters were embedded with the troops and their reports mirrored the point of view of the US military.

The Mexican reporters also reported the US's point of view but in addition showed the destruction of the city while it was being destroyed and interviewed people on the street who had lost family or had been seriously injured.

It was clear the military had learned its lesson from the Vietnam war how objective reporting can turn public opinion against the war.

 

[Al68]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that after decades of leftist propaganda passing itself off as news completely unchecked, now that it's only most networks, instead of all networks, with "strong left-wing bias", there's an uproar? That's both hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

 

[Al68]

I never realized how biased the US mainstream media was until I watched the invasion of Baghdad on both US and Mexican news broadcasts. All the American reporters were embedded with the troops and their reports mirrored the point of view of the US military.

The Mexican reporters also reported the US's point of view but in addition showed the destruction of the city while it was being destroyed and interviewed people on the street who had lost family or had been seriously injured.

Uh, U.S. media outlets did that, too. But how is interviewing friends and family of injured/killed an "opposing point of view"? Were there opposing points of view regarding the fact that people were injured/killed, or that they had friends/family? Or that the friends/family didn't like them being injured/killed? That makes no sense.

And you don't seriously expect the U.S. military itself to not have a pro-U.S. military bias, do you?

 

[WhoWee]

I never realized how biased the US mainstream media was until I watched the invasion of Baghdad on both US and Mexican news broadcasts. All the American reporters were embedded with the troops and their reports mirrored the point of view of the US military.

The Mexican reporters also reported the US's point of view but in addition showed the destruction of the city while it was being destroyed and interviewed people on the street who had lost family or had been seriously injured.

It was clear the military had learned its lesson from the Vietnam war how objective reporting can turn public opinion against the war.

Just out of curiosity, how do those Mexican news organizations report on violence in the streets of Mexico - and along the US border?

 

[skeptic2]

Al68, perhaps I'm wrong but I don't remember seeing any US reporters in Baghdad during the bombing. There were reporters from other countries there.

The US reporting was very sanitized showing the war more as a video game than war. I meant to contrast that with the Mexican reporting that showed the horrors of war. Of course I expect the US military to have a pro-US bias and so must have all the embedded reporters which is my point that the reporting was very biased.

WhoWee, Mexican news is very good about everything except the Mexican government. Reporting about street violence and drug wars is another matter. They did used to report those things but after many, many reporters were killed for reporting drug violence, the reporting has be cut way back.

 

[russ_watters]

If there is a doubt whether a news organization is fair and balanced then it has already lost its credibility.

I don't consider any news organization to be fair and balanced, but that doesn't have all that much to do with their credibility (or lack thereof).

Oddly for all its touting itself as fair and balanced (perhaps necessary in order to preserve some credibility) Fox News appealed and won the case of Steve Wilson & Jane Akre who were fired for refusing to broadcast a false version of their report on bovine growth hormone in milk, thus winning the right to broadcast lies. How much further from fair and balanced can you get? Is their audience made up primarily of people who watch because Fox News presents the news they want to hear instead of the truth?

Losing the case means the jury believed their claims were false. The portion that was appealed was the whistleblower protection, which they initially won because they (the reporters) believed Fox violated a law, which would get them protection whether they were right or not. On appeal, it was decided that the reporters were citing a law that didn't apply and thus had nothing on which to base a whislteblower lawsuit. But that judgement did not address the meat of the reporters' claim as to whether Fox actually did order them to falsify a report. It only decided that whether Fox did or not was irrelevant to the fact that the case had no merrit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

Beyond that, the idea that a news outlet can't report lies if it wants seems like an obvious violation of the First Amendment to me. It's really too bad no one has directly challenged the FCC on that, but perhaps this ruling was an end-around that issue.

 

[mugaliens]

I think it's hilarious that those who are most apt to say Fox news is unbalanced are those who rarely, if ever, watch it.

I selected "Unbalanced but similar to other news programs, and I watch Fox News regularly (daily or weekly)."

No news program is entirely balanced. Furthermore, I would submit that when news agencies try to be balanced, they usually go overboard, or go about it the wrong way, such as with "equal time" or "equal space" on the issues, even when the split on the issue might be 90%/10% among the general populace. That approach itself is biased.

 

[Hepth]

I just noticed this today, there was an AP article about global warming that was repeated in many places:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/11/30/tech-cancun-un-climate.html
http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/f29d8da...onference/id-d0c127e2c011458e8487634f2c362cb4
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/30/climate-change-scorching-heat-weather-agency/#content

as well as others.

Now I read through some of them, and they all appear almost word for word the same EXCEPT Fox News's version. They change words, and add some stuff:

I.E.
AP :
Scientists say the warming trend is caused mainly by industrial pollution accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. Negotiations conducted under UN auspices have been trying to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep temperatures from rising to levels likely to have disastrous consequences.
Fox:
Some scientists say the warming trend is caused mainly by industrial pollution accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. Negotiations conducted under U.N. auspices have been trying to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep temperatures from rising to levels likely to have disastrous consequences.

Then immediately after:
Fox:
Others argue that the connection between carbon emissions and climate change remains unproven -- and that until the science is settled, public policy and the literally billions of dollars at stake should not be spent.

Which wasn't in the original article.

Several parts of the world experienced freakish or extreme weather this year, the WMO said.

From AP, becomes from Fox:
This year witnessed freakish weather, both heat and extreme cold, the WMO said.

"government planners should prepare for a warming world."
From AP, becomes from Fox:
"government planners should plan for a warming world."


I know it's small changes, but that's all it really takes to change some of the ideas of the original article. Is this common practice?

 

[mheslep]

I know it's small changes, but that's all it really takes to change some of the ideas of the original article. Is this common practice?

You are assuming the AP article is some kind of ground truth? Why? FN, and most news outlets I assume, acknowledge the wire services as a source, that doesn't mean the AP is the only source.

For one of those cases:

AP:
Scientists say
Fox:
Some scientists say

which is more precise, simply as matter of English usage? The former leaves open the idea that the AP knows the opinion of all scientists, an impossible pretense.

 

[jeffray]

I think it's hilarious that those who are most apt to say Fox news is unbalanced are those who rarely, if ever, watch it.

How is that "hilarious?" When I (rarely) watch Fox News, I always notice the same, obvious conservative bias. Why would I waste my time tuning in anymore? You say that as if everyone in this category has never watched Fox one time and is simply basing their opinions on preconceived ideas of whether Fox is fair or not.

 

[Hepth]

To mheslep:

No i mean, is it common practice to take an article nearly verbatim, but make small slight changes. I don't think the AP article is COMPETE or CORRECT, but all that means is that if Fox didn't agree with what they wrote shouldn't they have just written their own article?

It seems weird to modify something like this while still attributing it to the original distributor, I guess is my point. If it had said :Associated Press, Edited by Fox News. Then I'd think "Oh ok, they felt some things were left out and added them."
But, to be honest, I read the article first on Fox News and I felt surprised an AP article would say things like the "Others argue" paragraph. So I looked for the article elsewhere and noticed these changes.

Isn't that something like plagiarism? But not really. I don't know the term for it. Its as if I completely copied The Lord of The Rings, but changed "Frodo" to "Prodo", and still claimed it was by Tolkien.

 

[humanino]

Why?

Why do you fail to realize that this is part of an agenda ? In particular, there is a very important addition :
"Others argue that [...] billions of dollars at stake should not be spent."
It would be quite a position for "scientists" to take. It is not a scientific statement, but a political proposal. Fox News has the pretense to re-define what science does ?

Your own National Academy of Science in their 2010 proceedings states :
"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
This is quite a level of agreement amongst scientist. Maybe Fox News should make it more precise by saying that the minority of less than 3% of scientists still in doubt has a "relative climate expertise and scientific prominence [...] substantially below that of the convinced researchers" (still your Academy) ?

 

[WhoWee]

"News" is packaged and re-packaged every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_agency

 

[Dembadon]

I think it's hilarious that those who are most apt to say Fox news is unbalanced are those who rarely, if ever, watch it.

...

Have the programs changed significantly in the past month? How often does one need to "check-in" in order to make an accurate assessment?

 

[Hepth]

"News" is packaged and re-packaged every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_agency

Ok, that makes sense then. I figured as much but wasn't sure on how widely this was known.

So from a Conservative standpoint, are there any "News Sources (AP, Reuters, Etc)" that Fox News should be able to pull from, and like the "left" media, use without editing in such a way? I ask this because the other news organizations did not modify AP's original cable, only Fox had. I assume this will be argued as because AP is a liberal news agency or something and so CBC and others don't have to modify it; which is fine. But there seems to be a problem if there is no one else to "Trust".

EDIT: And for clarification, every time I mention Fox News, I'm really talking about their internet news rather than their TV station. At least in MY posts. I can't stand the TV channel, as I despise ANY opinion show or column. They just make me angry.

 

[WhoWee]

Taking a step back and looking at the parent company of Fox might be helpful - sorry for a wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

 

[mheslep]

To mheslep:

No i mean, is it common practice to take an article nearly verbatim, but make small slight changes. ...

From the wire services yes, and not just slight, except for quoted material. Here's the same story from Time.

The brutal heat waves that killed thousands of Europeans in 2003 and that choked Russia earlier this year will seem like average summers in the future as the Earth continues to warm, the U.N. weather agency said Tuesday.
... ...

and then they felt the need to insert this paragraph from noted climate expert Hugo Chavez.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez called recent extreme weather swings there an example of climate change. The country suffered a severe drought early this year, and now is in the midst of deadly floods occurring past the traditional end of the rainy season.
"These are the big climate changes, the big disturbances that make the dry seasons, the wet seasons unpredictable," Chávez said Monday on state television.

... ...
The European Union said Tuesday it has mobilized euro2.2 billion ($2.9 billion ) this year, and is on track to meet its pledge of euro7.2 billion over three years in "fast track" financing. U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing said Monday Washington has allocated $1.7 billion for 2010.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2033876,00.html
How far the once superb, colossal creation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce" has fallen.

 

[humanino]

...

Your arguments are remarkable : "others do worse, so we do not need to improve".

 

[mheslep]

Why do you fail to realize that this is part of an agenda
?

That, when read as "why don't you think as I do", or "stop questioning my position", answers itself.

In particular, there is a very important addition :
"Others argue that [...] billions of dollars at stake should not be spent."
It would be quite a position for "scientists" to take. It is not a scientific statement, but a political proposal. Fox News has the pretense to re-define what science does ?

Your own National Academy of Science in their 2010 proceedings states :
"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
This is quite a level of agreement amongst scientist. Maybe Fox News should make it more precise by saying that the minority of less than 3% of scientists still in doubt has a "relative climate expertise and scientific prominence [...] substantially below that of the convinced researchers" (still your Academy) ?

Well the sentence says "Others", chasing the sentence on "Negotiations conducted under U.N. auspices". Even so, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf" . And 'others' that do indeed agree with the technical tenets of the last IPCC, nonetheless take positions that spending vast sums on Cap and Trade type schemes are not worthwhile given other world problems, or unlikely to succeed in attempting to stop a 2-3 degree C rise over 100 years.

 

[mheslep]

Your arguments are remarkable : "others do worse, so we do not need to improve".

I said no such thing.

 

[humanino]

That, when read as "why don't you think as I do", or "stop questioning my position", answers itself.

Please forgive my insistence, but it's not me, it is your own Academy of Science on a scientific question.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf"

That is a private letter. It is quite different from a false statement on the most important network. Besides, you are doing it again anyway : "if others do it, it's fine if we do it".

 

[humanino]

I said no such thing.

Yes you did, you justified Fox distortion by mentioning another distortion.

 

[Hepth]

I don't think he's really calling it a "distortion" but rather a "commonplace augmentation of news in effort to create a more audience-specific article" and that its not necessarily a BAD thing, but a COMMON and ACCEPTED thing; and so giving reference to another article as example should actually be expected, in order to back up his assertion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Your arguments are remarkable : "others do worse, so we do not need to improve".

I read his post as disagreeing with the assertion "other news organizations did not modify AP's original cable, only Fox had" (or simply stating that this does not generalize to most cases). It's not clear that there's anything wrong with modifying wire reports.

 

[mheslep]

I read his post as disagreeing with the assertion "other news organizations did not modify AP's original cable, only Fox had" (or simply stating that this does not generalize to most cases). It's not clear that there's anything wrong with modifying wire reports.

Exactly. In addition, I grant that media sources make errors, large and small, some careless and some because of bias. That is all a different matter from how they choose to go about repackaging wire reports. My objection in this particular thread is to the suggestion that some how FN has any kind of monopoly on errors because, as far as I can tell, FN covers stories and angles that previously were willfully ignored by legacy media.