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

[WhoWee]

You have to watch Beck to understand him.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30208/
Read the entire interview and notice how he mixes in ELF. He has a unique style that works for him. He talks to the audience as though he's sitting at the kitchen table and makes the political issues relevant to the average person.

By comparison, Rick Sanchez often sounds - well (how about) "pissy"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/rick-sanchez-grills-rick_n_253389.html

I'll use a marketing analysis. Sanchez does a hard sell - a one call close. Beck has a SPIN selling technique - he probes and monitors the pulse of his audience. He explains his topics in great detail (even uses a chalk board and other graphics) and builds relationships. Beck has a consistent product and provides support after the sale.

Customers are more likely to stay loyal to Beck and only buy from Sanchez when he has a special offer.

I personally keep a news channel on at all times in my office.

For years it was tuned into CNN. As their programming changed, and instead of reporting I started to hear (very Liberal) opinion based reports from Carol Costello and Soledad O'Brien, I switched to Headline News.

I enjoyed Robin in the morning and found their weather reports adequate while traveling. But, other than a Glenn Beck show predicting economic troubles ahead (he called it on his Headline News show), last August/September Headline News economic and election coverage was pathetic. Until then, I wouldn't even turn Fox on - partly because I didn't want to see Geraldo and mostly because I had always heard they were biased and slanted pro-Bush. I have never been a Bush supporter.

I was surprised to find that Fox was reporting stories that I couldn't find elsewhere. Cavuto understands the financial markets and interviews a diverse group of guests. While I had viewed it once or twice before, Hannity and Colmes proved itself to be one of the best shows on TV leading up to the election.

I also started watching Bill O'Reilly and was surprised to find, while definitely conservative, he does maintain a balanced forum. I was also glad to see Dennis Miller and counter-arguments by Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, Marc Lamont Hill and others.

By comparison, the Wolf B. and Anderson C. CNN political panels appeared so biased during the election they made my teeth hurt. At this point, I think John Stewart (Comedy) is more fair and balanced than CNN, MSNBC, and NBC.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At the risk of wrecking a perfectly good political discussion with the injection of facts, I would suggest that anyone who is interested in media bias read the http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm" .

The introduction is a hoot:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public. Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush in 1992, nearly double the rate of journalists.

What they determined is, not surprisingly, that different media outlets had different political slants. What was surprising was that the degree of these slants was not terribly large. Two of the most left-leaning outlets were, again, not surprisingly, the New York Times and CBS Evening News. These were significantly more conservative than the average Democrat in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Joe Lieberman. Two of the most right leaning were, again not surprisingly, the Washington Times and Fox News. These were significantly more liberal than the average Republican in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Susan Collins. The average outlet they studied ended up at about the same place on the political spectrum as John Breaux.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, how many so-called liberal news agencies have intentionally started a political movement like Beck's 12 nonsense? That isn't even news. It is political activism. It is downright terrifying that so many people here can't tell the difference. He is not an anchor. He is an activist. It isn't news. It is propoganda [with tears included].

Russ, this business happened yesterday. It is ridiculous to ask why no law suits have been filed yet.

I have often revealed my preferred news sources. I don't recall you ever revealing your sources, Russ. It is pretty easy to guess given your position on issues, but why don't you fess up.

Also, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any right-wing radio?

Also, do you condemn Fox news for their false claim or not? Cut the hyperbole and answer a direct question for a change; yes or no?

To say that people watching Beck aren't Fox fans is absurd. Clearly we have Beck fans, for starters.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

blitzer's alright. kind of an alex trebek type.

sanchez is worse than fluffy. my deep hatred for the man began when i saw him interviewing victims who had lost their homes in a big fire (think it was cali) and was trying to manipulate them into having an emotional outburst in front of the camera.

and so now Sanchez is doing what? the rivalry with people bigger than you are to try and boost your own ratings by riding their coattails? Keith Olbermann likes to do that with Bill O'Reilley. still, either no one knows, or cares, who Olbermann is. he'll never be a Maddow.

I have never seen anything quite that bad, but I agree that he [Sanchez] is a sensationalist. By no means do I consider him to be a quality news anchor. I only keep CNN on for the headline news, less Blitzer. I do like Wolf Blitzer. You say Alex Trebek, I say fair and balanced and not sensational. He is a true professional and he never cries for the camera. He never yells at the camera. And he never injects personal opinions about partisan subjects.

You really can't compare Fox to CNN. You have to compare the anchors. It is possible that Fox has some good anchors, but in my many attempts to give Fox a chance I was always disappointed. It is a propoganda channel. The proof is that they have people like Beck. Here is a key test: Even Beck calls himself an entertainer.

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. As for Anderson Cooper, imo he is mostly a human interest fluff reporter. He has done good stuff, but he is almost always going for the emotional content. I stopped watching AC360 long ago because of the fluff.

However, to take shots at Sanchez for reporting the Fox advertising lie is absurd. Of course he was mad. Fox lied about CNN's reporting. Why would you defend that? They should be sued and I hope CNN sues them.

When Dan Rather was tricked into making a false claim, it cost him a 40 year career. So much for the liberal media.

 

[WhoWee]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

George Stephanopoulos- now there's a guy with no political leanings - a real fair and balanced journalist. Don't get me wrong, I like George - from his book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uRCVwv87nkMC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Stephanopoulos,+Tsongas,+Dukakis,+and+Clinton&source=bl&ots=aZE-liZ387&sig=65yynQgKKecxtxzW_VxZfFqJ8wg&hl=en&ei=EzS1StChGY7IMJPEzNcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[Proton Soup]

Who here watches the PBS News Hour; Washington Week; Meet the Press; This week with Stephanopolis? Those are quality news programs.

Note also that PBS anchors are the preferred option for Presidential debate moderators. Gee, I wonder why.

Meet the Press has always been a quality program.

Stephi was a political advisor to Clinton.

PBS has a definite liberal slant, they're just boring. kind of a secular religious left.

I have never seen anything quite that bad, but I agree that he [Sanchez] is a sensationalist. By no means do I consider him to be a quality news anchor. I only keep CNN on for the headline news, less Blitzer. I do like Wolf Blitzer. You say Alex Trebek, I say fair and balanced and not sensational. He is a true professional and he never cries for the camera. He never yells at the camera. And he never injects personal opinions about partisan subjects.

You really can't compare Fox to CNN. You have to compare the anchors. It is possible that Fox has some good anchors, but in my many attempts to give Fox a chance I was always disappointed. It is a propoganda channel.

just because you agree with it, or it has less emotional content, doesn't mean it isn't slanted or isn't propaganda. you can inject partisanism just by what questions you decide to ask or not ask, or what subjects you cover and omit.

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news. As for Anderson Cooper, imo he is mostly a human interest fluff reporter. He has done good stuff, but he is almost always going for the emotional content. I stopped watching AC360 long ago because of the fluff.

However, to take shots at Sanchez for reporting the Fox advertising lie is absurd. Of course he was mad. Fox lied about CNN's reporting. Why would you defend that? They should be sued and I hope CNN sues them.

When Dan Rather made a false claim, it cost him a 40 year career. So much for the liberal media.

i love when they send Cooper out in the field to some dangerous situation. he always looks so uncomfortable. they should have kept that punk on late-nite.

i'm taking shots at Sanchez for being Sanchez. I'm sure you can read. I've hated him for a long time.

Rather had one foot out the door anyway. He had ample opportunity to correct/retract, he just didn't want to. Rather is gone because of his own hubris and thinking he can do anything he wants because he's Dan-freaking-Rather.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Meet the Press has always been a quality program.

Although, I must admit that it has lost its edge since Russert died. Cripes, when he died I actually cried.

Stephi was a political advisor to Clinton.

However, he is always fair and balanced. He even allowed Liz Cheney to rant and be rude, rather than embarrassing her as he should have done. George Will is there almost every week for the right. If not, he has some hard-core conservative to take his place. The panel discussions almost always have two righties and two lefties, like the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. Krugman is a semi-regular.

PBS has a definite liberal slant,

A bit, but by far they are the most balanced of any news source on television. Again, who do the Presidential candidates want for impartial moderators? PBS anchors.

kind of a secular religious left

That is absurd and I challenge you to provide an example.

they're just boring. .

And there you have it in a nutshell. A quality news program is boring. That is the heart of the problem and why we have Fox. Propoganda sells far better than real news and quality programming. QED.

Btw, you are the second Beck fan to tell me that PBS is boring, over just the last few weeks. That is also a comment made by many Fox viewers. But what really got me was when a Limbaugh fan told me that PBS's Frontline is not trustworthy. Now THAT is downright hysterical!

 

[Proton Soup]

Although, I must admit that it has lost its edge since Russert died. Cripes, when he died I actually cried.



However, he is always fair and balanced. He even allowed Liz Cheney to rant and be rude, rather than embarrassing her as he should have done. George Will is there almost every week for the right. If not, he has some hard-core conservative to take his place. The panel discussions almost always have two righties and two lefties, like the Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman. Krugman is a semi-regular.



A bit, but by far they are the most balanced of any news source on television. Again, who do the Presidential candidates want for impartial moderators? PBS anchors.



That is absurd and I challenge you to provide an example.



And there you have it in a nutshell. A quality news program is boring. That is the heart of the problem and why we have Fox. Propoganda sells far better than real news and quality programming. QED.

Btw, you are the second Beck fan to tell me that PBS is boring, over just the last few weeks. That is also a comment made by many Fox viewers. But what really got me was when a Limbaugh fan told me that PBS's Frontline is not trustworthy. Now THAT is downright hysterical!

look, I'm not even going to address the rest of what you said now, because i am not a beck fan. i think he's emotionally unstable, in fact. and i actually listen to NPR often when I'm driving. haven't listened to limbaugh in years, and most of you doofs complaining about him don't listen either, you just parrot what you hear somewhere else. seriously, just go listen to whatever makes you the least uncomfortable and stop whinging about whatever anyone else watches.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At the risk of wrecking a perfectly good political discussion with the injection of facts, I would suggest that anyone who is interested in media bias read the http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm" .

The introduction is a hoot:



What they determined is, not surprisingly, that different media outlets had different political slants. What was surprising was that the degree of these slants was not terribly large. Two of the most left-leaning outlets were, again, not surprisingly, the New York Times and CBS Evening News. These were significantly more conservative than the average Democrat in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Joe Lieberman. Two of the most right leaning were, again not surprisingly, the Washington Times and Fox News. These were significantly more liberal than the average Republican in the Senate: about at the same place in the political spectrum as Susan Collins. The average outlet they studied ended up at about the same place on the political spectrum as John Breaux.

What matters is how they determine slant. Do they consider only the subject or do they include delivery and personal bias; do they include crying for the camera on a weekly basis? Do they include fear mongering? How can you comparse a channel that blatently engages in political activism, to one that simply reports the news? Even based only what you say, the study is almost certainly too limited to be of use.

I don't need a study to tell me what I see and hear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that CNN has raised the ante. I just saw a new ad claiming that "Fox News is distorting, not reporting", and watch CNN... etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I will offer this as my only complaint about The News Hour. The essayist Anne Taylor Fleming is a hard-left X-hippie whom I completely ignore now. She only does occasional stories, perhaps one every two weeks or so and mostly human interest stories, but I find her to be sappy trite left and infinitely ignorable.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems that CNN has raised the ante. I just saw a new ad claiming that "Fox News is distorting, not reporting", and watch CNN... etc.

I'm in favor of a marketing and competition - hopefully they'll both become a little more balanced. This feels a little like the "Cola Wars" or "Where's the Beef".

It's a bit trickier for CNN - they have to pretend they're looking down upon Fox (even though ratings say otherwise) and make sure they don't become the "Liberal" brand.

At the end of the day, cable wins and broadcast loses (even more viewers).

 

[WhoWee]

I think Obama is making a mistake tomorrow - selecting Univision over Fox. He taped interviews with CBS, NBC, ABC, Univision, and CNN regarding health care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090918/pl_politico/27300

 

[LewisEE]

If we look at the Univision/FNS snub at face value, apparently Al Punto's show gets better ratings than Wallace does. So the White House can claim that they simply want to reach more voters. The number comes from Univision itself so who knows its truth, but still.

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/18/al-punto-versus-fox-news-sunday/

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't need a study to tell me what I see and hear.

Taking anecdotal experience over a statsitical study doesn't sound like a very scientific position to me. Nor does deciding the study must be flawed because its conclusion doesn't agree with your initial opinion.

I'll bow out now. As I feared, injecting actual facts into this discussion would not be appreciated.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So, how many so-called liberal news agencies have intentionally started a political movement like Beck's 12 nonsense? That isn't even news. It is political activism. It is downright terrifying that so many people here can't tell the difference. He is not an anchor. He is an activist. It isn't news. It is propoganda [with tears included].

Russ, this business happened yesterday. It is ridiculous to ask why no law suits have been filed yet.

I have often revealed my preferred news sources. I don't recall you ever revealing your sources, Russ. It is pretty easy to guess given your position on issues, but why don't you fess up.

Also, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or any right-wing radio?

Also, do you condemn Fox news for their false claim or not? Cut the hyperbole and answer a direct question for a change; yes or no?

To say that people watching Beck aren't Fox fans is absurd. Clearly we have Beck fans, for starters.

When has Beck ever been a News Anchor? I believe he just does an opinion show yes?

I listen to Rush on occasion. He is pretty ridiculous, sometimes even funny to listen to.

I don't watch TV news, I listen to news and commentary on the radio. The radio station I listen to is a Clear Channel station and Fox News affiliate. If there were a liberal news radio station I might listen to it but the only non-conservative station I know of is NPR and they don't cover much of my local news. As I mentioned before I do not find the news I get to be very slanted or biased. Even the conservative talk show hosts I listen to tend toward moderate on most issues and try to present the facts as facts regardless of their own opinions.

Case in point, the ACORN videos were reported about on the station I listen to. The reporting and commentary I got on the matter was apparently fair, balanced, and detailed enough that I knew what was going on better than our friend Wax who was complaining of Fox's alleged unbalanced reporting in this matter. Not only that but in the case of Kaelke the hosts I listen to practically cheered her actions, stood up for her, and ridiculed the silly 'documentary director' dressed like he was going to a halloween party.

So I don't really know what they are like on TV or what they are like anywhere else but from my actual experience listening to Fox News on the radio they fairly well live up to their motto.

 

[kyleb]

"Water is dry" is a fact-based statement.

Surely you don't mean it is a statement based in fact? A "falsehood-based statement" seems a more fitting description to me. However, in pondering the concept of "value statements" you expressed, I wondered; considering some fluids demonstrate wetness beyond that of water, could not "water is dry" be excused as such a statement? More generally, I'm simply interested in understand what grounds your "not a lie" claim is founded in.

In any case, did you have a look at any of the reading materials I provided about false advertising?

I didn't, and didn't even understand what prompted you to post it, as I was never suggesting there was anything illegal here. As for puffery with the worst stakes in town, of course it isn't illegal to claim the opposite, but I'm still at a loss as to how one could not classify it as dishonest. You suggest it is a subjective matter, but I don't follow your argument there. This being Physics Forums, I'm guessing you've read Einstein, and his lightning bolts hitting a train come to mind. Saying one bolt hit before the other is clearly a subjective matter, but would you argue that claiming there was no lighting to be seen is a subjective matter too? And if not, how is that any different from claiming one has the best stakes in town when not making any attempt to do anything of the sort?

People are searching for a point in your posts, kyleb. If you're not suggesting a remedy for this, then you're just arguing to be argumentative:

You think it is dishonest. Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree completely. Now what?

There is no reason to be searching here, I explained to Drankin previously in the post you quoted from; I wasn't attempting to make any argument, but rather looking to better understand the one you made. If you chose to reverse your argument, then I'd still be curious as to why you made it in the first place, and then also curious as to brought you to change your mind. That said, I do suggest that calling a spade a spade in itself is a remedy for much of the troubles of our world.

Are you saying in the first that it is not, in fact, illegal and in the second that you believe it should be illegal??
...

So then you think that ethics are the basis of our laws, but you don't think they should be?

You got the first part right in each case, but I'm at a loss as to how you've read the latter parts into what I've said, as I've never said anything to suggest anything of the sort.

Taking anecdotal experience over a statsitical study doesn't sound like a very scientific position to me.

Citing a a couple of conservatives who attempted to made the liberal media argument look scientifically founded though an exceedingly narrow and dubious statistical analysis nearly half a decade ago doesn't sound very relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[WhoWee]

If we look at the Univision/FNS snub at face value, apparently Al Punto's show gets better ratings than Wallace does. So the White House can claim that they simply want to reach more voters. The number comes from Univision itself so who knows its truth, but still.

Source: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/18/al-punto-versus-fox-news-sunday/

I wasn't aware of Univision's reach. It seems Obama should have done 6 interviews and not snub anyone who is interested.

 

[Al68]

Most anchors on CNN are benign and simply report the news.

Would you call continuously referring to Obama's health care plan as "reform" and labeling opponents as against health care "reform" benign and simply reporting the news?

This kind of obvious bias (going on for decades) is what has been called "liberal bias". It's "unstated assumption" propaganda.

Isn't it the news anchors that are expected to be unbiased, not the pundits?

You have a problem with a political "entertainer" being biased while admitting it, but not with biased news anchors pretending not to be? Sounds backwards to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The first in a list of Beck lies and distortions. [I don't even need to watch Beck for these to come to light through simple quotes]
.

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html

We have a former President who says if you’re opposed to the President’s health care, you’re racist.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622972

So there you go. Twist the words, change the words, make up a lie, generalize the statement to the point of absurdity, change the intent or meaning of a statement, and you have a typical Beckism - brainwashing step number one.

To say that racism plays a signifant role in the intense animosity towards Obama, is not to say that all opposition, or all opposition to health care reform, is rooted in racism. Carter does think it played a role the inappropriate outburst of one Congressman from a State with a long history of intense racism.

Beck lied.

 

[dlgoff]

I just saw this thread and wanted to say; Since President Obama was elected and FOX went nuts, I never watch any of their programs.

 

[WhoWee]

The first in a list of Beck lies and distortions. [I don't even need to watch Beck for these to come to light through simple quotes]
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622972

So there you go. Twist the words, change the words, make up a lie, generalize the statement to the point of absurdity, change the intent or meaning of a statement, and you have a typical Beckism - brainwashing step number one.

To say that racism plays a signifant role in the intense animosity towards Obama, is not to say that all opposition, or all opposition to health care reform, is rooted in racism. Carter does think it played a role the inappropriate outburst of one Congressman from a State with a long history of intense racism.

Beck lied.

Ivan, are you sure YOU are not twisting Carter's words? Was Carter talking about the comments of a single man - or the entire movement against Obama policies?

 

[nuby]

The first in a list of Beck lies and distortions. [I don't even need to watch Beck for these to come to light through simple quotes]
.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/carter.obama/index.html


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622972

So there you go. Twist the words, change the words, make up a lie, generalize the statement to the point of absurdity, change the intent or meaning of a statement, and you have a typical Beckism - brainwashing step number one.

To say that racism plays a signifant role in the intense animosity towards Obama, is not to say that all opposition, or all opposition to health care reform, is rooted in racism. Carter does think it played a role the inappropriate outburst of one Congressman from a State with a long history of intense racism.

Beck lied.

This is funny because this is exactly how illogical people think... This must really appeal to all the Glenn Beck fanatics..

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ivan, are you sure YOU are not twisting Carter's words? Was Carter talking about the comments of a single man - or the entire movement against Obama policies?

This was the impression that I got and as far as I am aware that outburst occurred during a speech about healthcare reform and was in response to a comment made about said plan, unless of course he just decided to shout out because he's a bigot redneck who's rallying the klan. I have to wonder who is doing the twisting here.

 

[BoomBoom]

Would you call continuously referring to Obama's health care plan as "reform" and labeling opponents as against health care "reform" benign and simply reporting the news?

This kind of obvious bias (going on for decades) is what has been called "liberal bias". It's "unstated assumption" propaganda.

What word would you use for healthcare "reform"? I suppose you'd prefer healthcare "socialism" eh?

Wow, that rampant "liberal media bias" is just out of hand! [sarcasm]

 

[Proton Soup]

What word would you use for healthcare "reform"? I suppose you'd prefer healthcare "socialism" eh?

Wow, that rampant "liberal media bias" is just out of hand! [sarcasm]

you could call it a "plan". or a "bill".

and from the sounds of it, it may also end up being a "mandate".

 

[Wax]

Here's another one.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/Fox_producer_rallied_tea_party_protesters.html

Fox producer rallied tea party protesters

On Friday, Fox News boasted in a print ad that other network missed the tea party protest on 9/12, despite the fact that CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS were all there covering it. (CNN shot back in an ad of their own).

But it turns out that while Fox was covering the protest, a Fox producer, at one point, rallied the crowd to cheer while Griff Jenkins was on camera. Media Matters caught this clip a few days back, but now Fox confirms that it was, indeed, a staffer.

Fox's Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton told Huffington Post that "the employee is a young, relatively inexperienced associate producer who realizes she made a mistake and has been disciplined."

While the other networks have covered tea party events around the country, Fox has focused far more on the story both this past week and around April 15. Back then, Fox's competitors and journalism-watchers questioned whether the network had blurred the line between journalism and advocacy when covering the tea party protests.

The behind-the-scenes clip, and how it looked on the air are below. I've also put in a request to Fox for comment, and will update if I hear back.

 

[Al68]

What word would you use for healthcare "reform"? I suppose you'd prefer healthcare "socialism" eh?

Wow, that rampant "liberal media bias" is just out of hand! [sarcasm]

I would use the word reform for reform, not for Obama's proposal, since that would be preposterous.

Using the word reform to describe more government economic control instead of less is obvious bias. And claiming that people who are against Obama's plan are against "reform" is just hatespeech.

Which network describes people who want to completely deregulate health insurance as "in favor of reform" and those that oppose such deregulation as "against reform"?

 

[BoomBoom]

Using the word reform to describe more government economic control instead of less is obvious bias. And claiming that people who are against Obama's plan are against "reform" is just hatespeech.

Really? "Hatespeech"? ...ummm, just wow!

Which network describes people who want to completely deregulate health insurance as "in favor of reform" and those that oppose such deregulation as "against reform"?

None that I know of. Deregulation would just exacerbate our current mess and make it more costly and wasteful...why would anyone call that "reform"?

 

[Al68]

Deregulation would just exacerbate our current mess and make it more costly and wasteful...why would anyone call that "reform"?

Because they disagree with your opinion about deregulation, as many do. Many of us want free market reform in the insurance industry.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the most regulated industry in America is the one with the most complaints? Government regulation makes things more costly and wasteful.

But my point in this thread isn't that I'm right, it's that the news networks are clearly taking the side of those that consider "reform" to be more regulation over those that consider "reform" to be deregulation. And they refer to those that favor free market reform as against reform.

No one identifies themselves as "anti-reform". Calling them anti-reform is either hateful or ignorant.

Why would you not call it bias for a news network to take your side over mine? Would you call it bias if they instead took my side over yours, and called your side "anti-reform"?

 

[BoomBoom]

No one identifies themselves as "anti-reform". Calling them anti-reform is either hateful or ignorant.

Then I guess you feel the same way about the term "pro-life"? I mean, really, who would be "anti-life"? ...must just be more "hatespeech".

...just a silly argument IMO.

 

[Al68]

Then I guess you feel the same way about the term "pro-life"? I mean, really, who would be "anti-life"?

Yes, I do. Calling someone "anti-life" or "anti-baby" would be either hateful or ignorant. And if a news network did it, it would be obvious bias. Good analogy!

And, I'd bet that since the bias would not be in your favor, you would recognize it.

And it would be a silly argument, and another classic example of faulty logic.

Calling people "anti-reform" is the type of propaganda known as "unstated assumption". The argument that more regulation is "reform" is assumed to avoid actually having to make a case that it's true.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Using the word reform to describe more government economic control instead of less is obvious bias. [/B]

Just because it isn't the kind of reform that you want doesn't meant that it's not "reform." Health care reform is a generic term for changes to the health care system; it could apply equally well to deregulation, but at the moment it usually refers to Obama's plan because that's the plan that's getting debated in Congress right now. Your statement is an example of why media bias thrives -- people want to hear words that reflect how they feel, not words that just reflect the facts.

And claiming that people who are against Obama's plan are against "reform" is just hatespeech.

I agree that broadly labeling opponents of Obama's plan as "anti-reform" would be inaccurate (though certainly not hatespeech). Did you have some particular examples of this in mind? Most of what I found on a Google search were blogs and op-eds... I couldn't even find any examples of this on the NYTimes site.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just because it isn't the kind of reform that you want doesn't meant that it's not "reform." Health care reform is a generic term for changes to the health care system; it could apply equally well to deregulation, but at the moment it usually refers to Obama's plan because that's the plan that's getting debated in Congress right now. Your statement is an example of why media bias thrives -- people want to hear words that reflect how they feel, not words that just reflect the facts.

I believe that's his whole point. As framed by most people in the current debate if you are against the plan proposed by the Democrats then you are against health care reform.

I agree that broadly labeling opponents of Obama's plan as "anti-reform" would be inaccurate (though certainly not hatespeech). Did you have some particular examples of this in mind? Most of what I found on a Google search were blogs and op-eds... I couldn't even find any examples of this on the NYTimes site.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="against+health+care+reform"&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3g-m7
Try "against health care reform". I would also agree that 'hatespeech' is a rather strong term though it certainly vilifies the democrats opponents.

 

[SpaceTiger]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="against+health+care+reform"&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g3g-m7

Yes, those are the blogs and op-eds I was referring to. Criticizing an editorial for being unbalanced is like criticizing a scientific paper for being unemotional. The issue of media bias isn't about what people are saying in debates and editorials, it's about how the news is being presented.

 

[WhoWee]

Forget about Fox coverage for a minute. We know they are taking a hard look.

Can anyone find a critical report on Health Care from the other big media? Something that weighs the arguments being presented, perhaps that comments on Obama's 15 (or 17?) million adjustment to the number of uninsured or on the comments he made to Univision regarding insurance coverage for "illegal aliens" on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, or the Washington Post?

If you believe Fox is far right, then who is balanced and who is far left - based upon their reporting?

 

[Al68]

I agree that broadly labeling opponents of Obama's plan as "anti-reform" would be inaccurate (though certainly not hatespeech).

This was my point. Maybe "hatespeech" is a strong word, but it does stir up hatred, turning even family members against each other.

Did you have some particular examples of this in mind? Most of what I found on a Google search were blogs and op-eds... I couldn't even find any examples of this on the NYTimes site.

I'm not talking about op-eds and blogs. They are no more expected to be unbiased than the examples given about Fox programs with Beck, Hannity, etc. There's nothing wrong with expressing a point of view, but those examples aren't hiding or denying their bias. It's not like Hannity is secretly a conservative while pretending to be an unbiased objective journalist.

I was referring to the straight news, and not just the exact word "anti-reform". We hear on the network TV news about "opponents of health care reform" constantly.

Like you said, reform means different things to different people, and if the news networks were constantly referring to Obama and his supporters as "opponents of health care reform" because they're against free market reforms, then it would be my side that "failed" to see the claimed bias.

 

[BoomBoom]

Can anyone find a critical report on Health Care from the other big media?

If you believe Fox is far right, then who is balanced and who is far left - based upon their reporting?

I don't think a non-biased news source should be neither crital or supportive. They should just report the facts. Generally, the news presents the debate ocurring in reference to the healthcare plan...this includes statements for and against the plan. AFAIK, they all include both. It somewhat reduces the "newsworthiness" of the debate though when it turns into ridiculous positions such as "death panels" and the like, but still they are reporting on the debate that is happening both with the ledgislators and the public.

My main problem with all the American media is their "tabloidish" nature and their obsession with whatever the "story of the day" is...and they are all guilty of that.

We all know that FNC is a proponent of the right and attacks the left, while MSNBC is left and attacks the right. The rest I believe are fairly central. PBS and BBC, IMO, and the most unbiased sources that report actual news of importance instead of the crap the rest of them shovel on a daily basis.

 

[seycyrus]

...They should just report the facts...

Depends on the type of story. If it is "fire kills 10 people", simply the facts will suffice. But if the story is something with more meat to it, say "NASA revamps space program despite internal criticism." I would like to see representatives of both sides, giving their viewpoints.

I claim that Fox does a better job of making sure that they have both sides present than CNN or MSNBC.

Could be just my opinion, but it is an opinion based on direct observation. Whereas, in my experience, FNC detractors proudly proclaim that they have never watched more than a minute or two (unless it's a piece ridiculing fnc posted on the web)

 

[drankin]

I don't think a non-biased news source should be neither crital or supportive. They should just report the facts. Generally, the news presents the debate ocurring in reference to the healthcare plan...this includes statements for and against the plan. AFAIK, they all include both. It somewhat reduces the "newsworthiness" of the debate though when it turns into ridiculous positions such as "death panels" and the like, but still they are reporting on the debate that is happening both with the ledgislators and the public.

My main problem with all the American media is their "tabloidish" nature and their obsession with whatever the "story of the day" is...and they are all guilty of that.

We all know that FNC is a proponent of the right and attacks the left, while MSNBC is left and attacks the right. The rest I believe are fairly central. PBS and BBC, IMO, and the most unbiased sources that report actual news of importance instead of the crap the rest of them shovel on a daily basis.

And that's all fine. But people listen to what they want to listen to. And their media of preference may call it news. It's impossible to cover all sides to an issue. The bias of a particular media outlet might pick two of this sides and cover it as if it were ALL the sides. That's when everyone else gets pigeon-holed to a particular side that they aren't part of. There are those that do not want any reform, but there are more people who want reform, just not Obama's reform. I'd narrow it down to at least three sides to this issue.

Tabloids call their crap news too. All news outlets have a perspective (bias) whether intentional or not.

 

[Hepth]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But that's not what happened. Sure, everyone's always complained about the system, and a few people may have tried to do something about it in both directions, but always on a small scale compared to today. Small changes shouldn't be considered reform. But now, there is a HUGE push from one side for changing a system already in place. While the right may counter with, "well we wish it was much less regulated" that opinion and desire doesn't carry the same weight.

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure republicans/conservatives/fox watchers/ etc have, by now, associated themselves with the "anti-reform" title and view it, for the most part, as a good thing (and use it as such). Which is fine. In public if you ask a general population republican voter if he is anti-refrom he'll most likely say yes (this is a presumption though I think its pretty accurate). Because they view no-change as better than change in the wrong direction.

I'm sure they'd much rather have more deregulation as reform, but as it sits in the current state, less change is better. (in their opinion, not mine).

Semantics...

 

[Hepth]

As for foxnews.com, their current headliner is about "Despot Housewives" an inside look at "tyrannical leaders'" spouses while their husbands are at the UN summit.

CNN is about the summit.
BBC is about the summit.
MSNBC is about china and the summit.
nytimes is about the summit.

are ones i just looked at.

I don't mind foxnews's content their much when its on-topic, but more often than not is MORE about something that I barely consider newsworthy and more for ratings. But they're all, to an extent, culprits of that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But that's not what happened. Sure, everyone's always complained about the system, and a few people may have tried to do something about it in both directions, but always on a small scale compared to today. Small changes shouldn't be considered reform. But now, there is a HUGE push from one side for changing a system already in place. While the right may counter with, "well we wish it was much less regulated" that opinion and desire doesn't carry the same weight.

So because Obama came in and said he wanted this done ASAP and Obama happens to be a Dem then it is a Dem issue and the Reps working on healthcare plans along side their counterparts are probably best described as 'anti-reform' because Obama is not one of their's?

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure republicans/conservatives/fox watchers/ etc have, by now, associated themselves with the "anti-reform" title and view it, for the most part, as a good thing (and use it as such). Which is fine. In public if you ask a general population republican voter if he is anti-refrom he'll most likely say yes (this is a presumption though I think its pretty accurate). Because they view no-change as better than change in the wrong direction.

I have not heard any conservatives take an 'anti-reform' stance personally. I have heard about plans being worked on by reps in congress and a desire for healthcare reform but without a public option. I have not heard anyone say they think things out to stay just the way they are.

 

[Proton Soup]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
...
Semantics...

yes, semantics. because the debate really isn't about reform of the industry. the primary debate is over whether to provide universal health insurance coverage.

 

[Al68]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.

Yes, but the two sides are not pro-reform and anti-reform. Anti Obama Plan is not anti-reform.

Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But that's not what happened.

Uh, where have you been? You don't think Republicans have pushed to deregulate for decades? I never thought I'd hear anyone actually make that claim.

But the media doesn't report such efforts as "reform", they are reported as "in an effort to please insurance companies...", etc.

Reform objectively means "to improve or change to a better state". Calling more regulation "reform" is taking the position that more regulation is "better" than less regulation. The media has consistently taken this obviously biased position on health care for years.

Why do so many people try to deny the obvious? Is media bias really that hard to detect when it's in your favor?

If the media consistently labeled Democrats' objections to deregulation as "anti-reform", would such bias be undetectable, too?

 

[burningbend]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

Clear Channel has liberal oriented stations. Liberals don't often listen to any news radio other than NPR though so just about any news radio you listen to is going to be conservative. If you switch over to the popular FM morning shows though you will find that they are predominantly liberal, and they predominantly discuss entertainment news.


These corporate owners are interested in making money. If that means liberal oriented programming then they do it.

Notice also that 11% is awefully small of a market share compared to most other media industry leaders.

 

[WhoWee]

They REAL DEBATE is about what to do about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When Obama talks about a health care crisis threatening the economy - this is what he's referring to - not who has health insurance.

He needs to raise money to pay for all of his spending.

He HAS to raise taxes across the board (not just on the "rich") and needs passionate public support.

If he can channel ALL of the insurance premiums through the Government and pay for individual health insurance (at a 20% discount - greatly reduced agent commissions - similar to Medicare Advantage) at a "super group" rate, force everyone to participate and tax the "Cadillac" plans - he will raise a lot of cash for the Government.

It's a big game and Fox is the only ones even close to focusing on the real story.

 

[seycyrus]

...
I don't mind foxnews's content their much when its on-topic, but more often than not is MORE about something that I barely consider newsworthy and more for ratings. But they're all, to an extent, culprits of that.

I could throw down a similar analysis regarding other websites having fluff while fox had the "nity-gritty". One has to consider the dynamic evolution of the site. Fox might have had their serious content up for over an hour and then switched it over, while the others were just beginning to cover the story.

This brings back a recent phone conversation between myself and an a liberal friend. We were shouting at each other about the content of fox v. cnn websites ("No dummy, above THAT picture to the right...) reading the headlines out loud to each other...

After a few moments, it became clear we weren't looking at the same front pages. Are the sites different in different regions? Or did we just have our sites setup in different ways?