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

[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?