Does Fox News live up to the slogan "Fair and balanced"?
It's tough not to try to sway people...
No. A range of people, largely uneducated or who just don't care, get to hear what they want from them. But at least their existence assures that free speech is safe and sound, regardless of the consequences.
Journalism is supposed to limit itself to reporting what, who, when, where, how and why. Fox New isn't the only one that does it, but TV news generally makes the error of informing us of who is right and who is wrong. This is usually done with terminology, for example, if there is ever a war between the U.S. government's adversaries and the U.S. government's allies, we can be sure that it will be reported on TV in terms of "the guerrillas" versus "the freedom-fighters."
Fox News merely makes it too obvious by often using such unsophisticated language as: Unfortunately, some of the bad guys killed some of the good guys; however, fortunately, some of the good guys also killed some of the bad guys.
Even Bernard Goldberg, a conservative writer who complains about the "liberal media", cited Fox for doing this. In his book _Arrogance_, Goldberg wrote:
"Personally, some of Fox News 'fair and balanced' coverage was a little too rah-rah, flag-waving for my taste. I didn't need to hear Shepard Smith refer to the Iraqi soldiers as 'the bad guys.' But the truth is, I can't get too worked up over it." [page 230 of the hardcover first edition, 2003]
So the unknown, but neutral-sounding "Center for Media and Public Affairs" is more accurate than Fox, how, exactly?
Just because someone is reviewing the various networks doesn't make them any more or less biased than any of the networks they're reviewing.
S. Robert Lichter, the editor, is president of the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs and a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel.
Interesting results so far, although the poll is in no way closed...
Adding the "yes" and "in some ways/areas" categories, it's about evenly split. Should I make a poll of whoever the liberal version of Fox News is? Who is that?
And how did that fact affect the enumeration of positive/negative stories? Does a Fox News consultant count differently? Nonsense.
Just how would you do that? The closest you could come to that would be ABC news. That news network employs a former Clinton Communications Director as a news anchor!
2.5 million Americans watch Fox News, which means that 297.5 million Americans don't.
The squeakiest wheel gets the attention?
I think that they are all biased and I try to develope my opinion from the information that I find most credible. What more can I do?
MSNBC. Oblermann and Maddow, especially (although MSNBC does carry more balanced commentators, as well, such as Matthews and Scarborough).
It's tough for news organizations to maintain unbiased stances. CNN is pretty heavy handed in the way they do this, going to the point where their TV personalities have to agree not to contribute to any political campaigns.
I'll watch the view in the morning to get my dosage of extreme liberalism, and glenn beck in the afternoon to get my dose of extreme conservatism. There's no such thing as fair and balanced news.
good balance. :)
lmao - I like to watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report to get the most 'accurate' take on politics.
You posted it as a response to
LOL, I do the exact same thing!
Strange how some of the most balanced news comes from a comedian.
Its funny, but I figure that it only make sense when the most sobering opinions in regard to politics come from the cartoonists in my newspaper.
For about a six month period Fox should have included a GODWIN'S LAW ALERT before Glen Beck came on.
Is there yet an equivalent law stating "as the number of forum posts grows, the probability of someone calling someone else a racist approaches 1"?
If not, I hereby name it "Beck's/Jackson's Law".
Seriously, how many times have Glenn Beck and Jesse Jackson done that?
I don't know about a rascist, but I'm pretty sure that "You Sir... Are a communist!"
Separate names with a comma.