News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[Wax]

Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?How can they claim they are they only non-corrupt network? What did Obama gave CNN? What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

 

[russ_watters]

"Fair and balanced" is an advertising slogan.

Gilette, on the other hand, really is the best a man can get and Wendy's really isn't fast food, but is good food fast!

How can they claim they are they only non-corrupt network?

Can you cite that claim for me please? I've never seen it.

What is that Obama gave CNN?

I'm not sure that's a complete sentence...

What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

For broad questions like that, the best place to start is often with the wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

 

[noblegas]

Glad foxnews is bringing john stossel aboard. At least they will bring in a conservative/libertarian journalist that doesn't agree with everything the republican party values. Both msnbc and Fox news are slanted; msnbc will defend the obama adminstration and fox news defended the bush adminstration.

 

[kyleb]

I don't pay much attention to any cable news, but I know MSNBC at least has one Republican in a prominent position on their network, Joe Scarborough.

 

[Wax]

"Fair and balanced" is an advertising slogan.

[/url]

So news stations can post up lies in advertising slogans?

 

[Jasongreat]

Fox News clearly picks a side when it comes to debates. How do you consider this fair and balance?


How can they claim they are they only non-corrupt network? What is that Obama gave CNN? What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

Ive never heard them claim another network to be corrupt. CNN doesn't seem too tilted one way or the other but let's not forget CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, they are all decidedly tilted to the democratic side. The belief in a non-biased media, be it fox or cnn or any of the others is false, heck the belief in a non-biased opinion is faulty.
And "fair and balanced" is just a catch phrase, kind of like a restraunt claiming their food is homemade, or a buisiness claiming the best burgers in the world. Do you really believe every slogan you hear?

 

[noblegas]

I don't pay much attention to any cable news, but I know MSNBC at least has one Republican in a prominent position on their network, Joe Scarborough.

Fox news did have alan colmes on their network.

 

[russ_watters]

So news stations can post up lies in advertising slogans?

Who decides that it is a lie and who makes the consequences for it? Why do you consider it more important than the other arrogant advertising slogans I listed?

 

[Wax]

Who decides that it is a lie?

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen.

 

[russ_watters]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity?

I didn't say that and no, I don't consider Fox to be "Fair and Balanced".

Answer my questions.

[edit] I didn't answer your question directly: No, "fair and balanced" is not a lie. It is not a fact-based statement, it is a value judgement - an opinion. Just like "best" or "good" in my other two examples.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen.

So are you suggesting Wax should be the media czar, censoring and editing every piece of information that is released to the public to ensure fairness?

Alternatively, who should fill that role?

 

[Jasongreat]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen.

With sean hannity you might have a point, but glenn beck has called out bush the same as he has called out obama, that seems fair and balanced to me. Did you believe CNN was fair and balanced when glenn was on their network, or were they just right wing hacks because he was on their network?

 

[russ_watters]

With sean hannity you might have a point, but glenn beck has called out bush the same as he has called out obama, that seems fair and balanced to me.

Not exactly. Bush was criticized by guys like Beck and Limbaugh for not being conservative enough.

 

[Jasongreat]

Not exactly. Bush was criticized by guys like Beck and Limbaugh for not being conservative enough.

He was still criticized. I thought this post was about just following a party line, not being objective. Then again I guess I have seen a few liberal pundits claiming obama isn't liberal enough. So I guess by my reasoning I will have to remove cbs,nbc,abc,pbs,msnbc from the non-critical category. sorry from rambling, i agree with you after all. Thanks for straightening me out Russ.

 

[Pinu7]

Fox news did have alan colmes on their network.

He hardly can be considered "liberal." Fox news promoted him to be a far lefty so conservatives actually believe Fox is balanced, when, in reality, he is just a moderate who is being over powered by Hannity.On a side note, Fox is news is conservative, but most of the rest of the media is liberal. Not surprising since most journalists are registered Democrats.
Also, http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=286090

 

[math_04]

Not exactly. Bush was criticized by guys like Beck and Limbaugh for not being conservative enough.

Yes, well Obama has not faced the criticism that Bush faced! Well at least they are frightened of Obama, that has got to be a good thing

 

[drizzle]

Yes, well Obama has not faced the criticism that Bush faced! Well at least they are frightened of Obama, that has got to be a good thing

that made me cry laughing

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So you actually believe their network is completely fair and balanced with Glenn Beck and Seen Hannity? Yeah...they seem to be the most fair and balance guys I've ever seen.

Please note that Hannity, O'Reilly, ect all have their own shows they are not actually on Fox News and nor are they reporters. They are affiliated with Fox News.


And before anyone wants to jump on me; I do not watch Fox News nor do I feel that Fox News is particularly neutral in their reporting.

 

[kyleb]

No, "fair and balanced" is not a lie. It is not a fact-based statement, it is a value judgement - an opinion. Just like "best" or "good" in my other two examples.

Are you suggesting Fox News does attempt to be fair and balanced, or suggesting there is nothing dishonest about claiming as much even not attempting to live up to the claim?

Please note that Hannity, O'Reilly, ect all have their own shows they are not actually on Fox News...

What channel are their shows on?

 

[russ_watters]

Are you suggesting Fox News does attempt to be fair and balanced

No. I said nothing of the sort. I don't have any idea what their real philosophy is, if they even have one.

Heck, maybe people are misreading the slogan! Maybe "Fair and balanced" means providing the conservative view to balance out the liberal news services for the purpose of fairness*. It doesn't really matter though: again, it is an advertising slogan. It isn't really useful to read into most advertising slogans, especially ones not making clear factual claims (drug advertisements are a clear exception).

...or suggesting there is nothing dishonest about claiming as much even not attempting to live up to the claim?

I don't know if they are trying to live up to it or not. Does any news company have such discussions or written policies? Do advertising people ever talk to production people? I really have no idea how the day to day operations of a news organization work.

What channel are their shows on?

Fox News is on Fox News. I think they also have the news broadcasts on the Fox local afiliates.

*One of the headlines on their website right now is: "Silent on Scandal: CNN.com & MSNBC.com tried but couldn't ignore the Van Jones scandal".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What channel are their shows on?

Ah, so Family Guy was fair and balanced then? The Simpsons? Smallville? If one show on Fox says that its fair and balanced then they are all supposed to be?

 

[kyleb]

Heck, maybe people are misreading the slogan! Maybe "Fair and balanced" means providing the conservative view to balance out the liberal news services for the purpose of fairness*.

Surely that would be better described as a case of them misphrasing their slogan? I mean "fair and balanced" does not rightly suggest such an attempt to provide contrast a you propose, while something along the lines if they called themselves "the fair balance" would suit that purpose.

It doesn't really matter though: again, it is an advertising slogan.

So if one advertised dried manure as "creamy and delicious", would you also suggest that not a lie but rather only a value judgement? And do you suggest that standard should apply universally aside from advertisements for drugs?

I don't know if they are trying to live up to it or not.

Can you cite any notable evidence to suggest they might? Even for as little as I see from them, I can cite plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary.

Ah, so Family Guy was fair and balanced then? The Simpsons? Smallville? If one show on Fox says that its fair and balanced then they are all supposed to be?

Does http://www.fox.com/" .

 

[russ_watters]

Surely that would be better described as a case of them misphrasing their slogan? I mean "fair and balanced" does not rightly suggest such an attempt to provide contrast a you propose, while something along the lines if they called themselves "the fair balance" would suit that purpose.

I don't really know. It is only a hypothetical and not really important. Just pointing out a possibility.

So if one advertised dried manure as "creamy and delicious", would you also suggest that not a lie but rather only a value judgement? And do you suggest that standard should apply universally aside from advertisements for drugs?

AFAIK, the standard only applies to claims of a clear factual nature. Even then it is difficult to prove/enforce. I've heard of a few of the "oxygenated water" ads being challenged, for example, but such things are rare AFAIK.

Can you cite any notable evidence to suggest they might? Even for as little as I see from them, I can cite plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary.

I just stated I don't know. I'm sure you can cite evidence of Fox's bias. So what? What's your point?

Kyleb, you are really arguing a usless line of thought here. You don't have to argue your way into a point about Fox's bias: I agree that Fox is biased. So now what?

 

[mgb_phys]

The do at least try and stand up for the multi-billion $ global corporation against evil governments.
Sky (the FOX news channel in Europe) are campaigning to get the EU monopoly regulators to ban BBC news as unfair competition

 

[russ_watters]

A primer on the concept of "false advertising": http://www.aboutfalseadvertising.com/index1_files/False%20Advertising%20Primer.pdf

Note, in particular, the section on "puffery".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does http://www.fox.com/" .

Fox News is a news show in the Fox Network. All of the shows I have mentioned, including Hannity O'Reilly ect, are shows on the same network. The only difference between the entertainment shows and the political commentary shows are that the political ones are 'affiliated' with Fox News.

Fox News uses the tag line "Fair and Balanced". Personally I have never seen the O'Reilly Factor before. Does this separate show use the tag line "Fair and Balanced" as well?

Is it really that hard to realize that they are separate shows? and that commentary shows discuss the news they do not report the news?

 

[russ_watters]

AFAIK, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of the network (it appears next to the name on the website). However, I don't think that should be taken to imply that everything on the network or website is pure news, as they do have a clearly labeled "opinion" section (for example) under which Glen Beck's name appears.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So to confirm

http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/

These are the shows on the Fox News Channel. This is separate from basic TV's Fox television network channel which people are apparently getting confused by.

It should be noted that
1) Not everything is billed as a news show
2) The Fox News Channel is generally billed as a channel for news-oriented shows, and has only shows that focus on topics in the news, if in an opinionated way.

The Fair and Balanced slogan is trademarked by the broadcasting station Fox News Channel, not by the Fox News show

 

[drankin]

So to confirm

http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/

These are the shows on the Fox News Channel. This is separate from basic TV's Fox television network channel which people are apparently getting confused by.

It should be noted that
1) Not everything is billed as a news show
2) The Fox News Channel is generally billed as a channel for news-oriented shows, and has only shows that focus on topics in the news, if in an opinionated way.

The Fair and Balanced slogan is trademarked by the broadcasting station Fox News Channel, not by the Fox News show

Fair and Balanced, towards the right.

 

[WhoWee]

With sean hannity you might have a point, but glenn beck has called out bush the same as he has called out obama, that seems fair and balanced to me. Did you believe CNN was fair and balanced when glenn was on their network, or were they just right wing hacks because he was on their network?

I like the blend of opinions with Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Dennis Miller and others.

Hannity is a Reagan man through and through.

O'Reilly makes an attempt at balance - but he calls them like he see's them. He's one of the few people on TV who isn't afraid to go head to head with Barney Frank. Yes, he's tough on Obama but it's because the rest of the media has laid down and he sees an opportunity to establish himself as truly fair and above the bias. On health care, he called for Obama to explain his plan for about 3 weeks prior to "the speech". His take was that he graduated from Harvard and couldn't understand the Bill. He also wrote a very favorable piece in Parade magazine a few months ago on Obama and took significant criticism from the Right.

Glen Beck is a totally different animal. He basically started the Tea Parties and set in motion the 9-12 march on Washington last weekend. He also put the heat on Van Jones leading to his resignation and is all over Acorn and the SEIU. Likewise, he doesn't openly support any Republicans and has spoken out repeatedly about runaway spending under Bush. He is also very consistent in recommending that the Tea Parties remain independent of both parties. Beck has connected with a lot of people and BOTH parties have taken notice. His books are best sellers and his radio show a major hit. Beck is a self educated, reformed drunk, and average guy - he's achieved more than he ever hoped to and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him. That makes him very dangerous to anyone that openly challenges him. I find the whole phenom very interesting.

With a little luck, the movement Beck started might just morph into a conservative small business party representative of the currently unrepresented, lobbyist free, tax paying middle (business) class.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

AFAIK, "Fair and Balanced" is the slogan of the network (it appears next to the name on the website). However, I don't think that should be taken to imply that everything on the network or website is pure news, as they do have a clearly labeled "opinion" section (for example) under which Glen Beck's name appears.

Sorry. I've been in a bad mood and my posts probably have not been very thoughtful.

I do not believe that there is any legal reason why a company motto/tag line must accurately represent all of the individual projects under its umbrella. The individual shows all have their own producers, sponsors, ect, and are responsible for themselves. If they do anything illegal on their own then it goes up the chain. Otherwise there is no down the chain legal responsibility. O'Reilly is not legally responsible for any claims made by Fox and Fox is not legally responsible for making sure that O'Reilly fits their company motto.

 

[mheslep]

Glen Beck is a totally different animal. He basically started the Tea Parties ...

You're mistaken. He may have publicized the 9/12 march.

 

[mheslep]

Ive never heard them claim another network to be corrupt. CNN doesn't seem too tilted one way or the other...

Please. Anderson Cooper started the vile 'teabag' cracks on the air. Yuk Yuk.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/04/15/cnns-anderson-cooper-its-hard-talk-when-youre-tea-bagging

 

[WhoWee]

You're mistaken. He may have publicized the 9/12 march.

Beck started something back around April called the 9/12 Project. The date is symbolic to heightened awareness after 9/11.

I commented that "He basically started the Tea Parties ..." because he used his radio show and TV show to encourage people to form groups - not that he was a designated leader.

 

[mheslep]

Beck started something back around April called the 9/12 Project. The date is symbolic to heightened awareness after 9/11.

I commented that "He basically started the Tea Parties ..." because he used his radio show and TV show to encourage people to form groups - not that he was a designated leader.

Multitudes of people encourage other people to form groups. Beck did not start or even inspire the Tea Parties of this past Spring, nor was he some kind of guiding force behind them. If he cheered them, well so did thousands of others and he happened to have a microphone.

 

[russ_watters]

Nor did Beck have anything to do with the march in Washington last weekend. That's discussed here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=336730

 

[Al68]

What sides of any issue has a CNN news caster picked?

This is just too easy. CNN continuously refers to health care "reform", and portrays the two sides as those in favor of health care "reform" and those against it.

If that bias isn't obvious, here's an analogy: Suppose that when discussing the "No Child Left Behind Act", a news station repeatedly portrayed the two sides as those in favor of "leaving children behind" and those against it.

Most would recognize the bias immediately, and that the news station was either deliberately taking sides or had an ideology that prevented them from recognizing the bias.

Any news source that depicts the current health care debate as those in favor of "reform" and those against it is obviously taking sides in the same way.

This is one example of thousands for CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS every week for decades. I know that the bias is difficult to recognize for those it favors, but it's just as obvious to the rest of us as the hypothetical for or against "leaving children behind" would be for anyone that bias was against.

If anyone wants more examples, there is no limit. But I can't be thorough, since it would be like counting grains of sand at the beach. This is the kind of bias that has been denied for years, possibly because it just isn't as obvious to those it favors.

 

[kyleb]

Kyleb, you are really arguing a usless line of thought here. You don't have to argue your way into a point about Fox's bias: I agree that Fox is biased. So now what?

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

 

[drankin]

I'm trying to figure out how you support your claim that it is anything less than dishonest for them to claim they are "far an balanced". Would you argue a statement like "water is dry" is a not a lie but simply a "value statement" too?

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

All news channels state what they consider facts, but the facts are simply a perception of facts from a point of view. As Al68 is saying, just because we don't like this health bill doesn't mean we are against "reform"! Most of us who do not like this bill want "reform".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point? "Fox Network has dishonest marketing!". So friggin what. Most marketing slogans are. To take it seriously and cry fowl is laughable. It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.

 

[Proton Soup]

good grief. why do you guys get so upset about Fox? it's pretty much the only right-leaning network on the air. most others lean left. MSNBC leans far left. CNN is pretty close to center. most all the political leanings of any of them comes out in editorial fashion, not straight news. and even in editorial shows where hosts lean one way or the other, they will invite commentary from representatives of opposing views.

 

[kyleb]

It's totally dishonest. And everyone knows that and like it anyway. What's your point?

I wasn't making a point there, I was asking a question about a point another poster made.

It is absolutely no different than saying you have the best steaks in town. A totally subjective statement.

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.

Besides even this, to sue for false advertising one must be a consumer of the product who was misled by the advertising and can demonstrate and quantify damages incurred as a direct result of the false advertising.

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

 

[Proton Soup]

Seems more like saying you have the best steaks in town while not making any observable effort to even serve a decent one.

totally subjective statement

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Did anyone suggest legal action here?

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

 

[kyleb]

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?

 

[drankin]

What's the point of saying they are guilty of false advertising then? Just to keep hand waving?

Exactly. I've been following this thread for a few days just amazed that it keeps going. To me this thread separates the subjective minds from the objective. The naive continue to cry fowl about an obvious marketing slogan as if some sort of moral crime has just been discovered. How dare a media outlet claim to be totally objective and then be successful to boot! Obviously, it's not the SLOGAN that makes the network successful. If one is going to fault the accuracy of the news (not the commentary), at least support it with the incriminating content.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Who are you accusing of saying Fox is guilty of false advertising? Who is doing the hand waving here?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345473&postcount=5
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2345483&postcount=9
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2347540&postcount=19
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2348076&postcount=22

So there is no discussion in these posts regarding claims made in advertising and their accuracy? Are we reading different threads or something? Are we going to start splitting hairs now? You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising? Kind of like saying you didn't mean that MrX murdered anyone only that it seemed he had dealt a lethal blow to the person with malice and intent.

 

[kyleb]

You were only saying you thought it was dishonest, not that it was false advertising?

Right, I see nothing honest about it, but nothing illegal either. I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I suppose my perspective depends on considering ethics to be the basis for law rather than the other way around.

Shouldn't you then feel that 'dishonest advertising' should be illegal?

 

[kyleb]

It seems you have mistaken me for an authoritarian. I don't believe anything should be illegal other than that which demonstrability infringes on the rights of others, and that is hardly the case here.