Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

 

[Nicodemus]

I have to. It's all just different flavors of junk media to me. One has to learn how to read between the lines regardless of media outlet.

You won't hear me arguing with that: I don't drink soda, but it makes a dandy cleaner when you let it react with baking soda. I think some fat coke-head marketed it as, "OxyClean", and left out the soda.

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

 

[Nicodemus]

You have choices for both soft drinks and news outlets.

I need to know: do you keep missing the point I'm making on purpose, or do you just do this as online for fun? If I wanted to play, 'top the other guy's metaphor', I'd trot on down to BC and talk to a Jesuit.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I responded to the original post, which has nothing to do with Chris Mathews, or presidential leadership, transformational or not. You then responded in a way that makes little sense if you were actually responding to me; I just said that the big three cable networks are trash to open, then made a joke about our former idiot president and soon-to-be-former dictator of Egypt. I don't know what you're talking about, except that you seemed to want to debate where I was just responding to the first post.

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

 

[Nicodemus]

I must have misunderstood? In post 236 you responded to Proton's comment about Chris Matthews in response to my post:

"Originally Posted by Proton Soup
omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze "

Your response was:
"Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p "

Sorry.

Yeah, but I was just making a joke about Mubarak exuding strength, the rest I could care less about. Really, Fox News is clearly biased, so is MSNBC, and CNN seems to leave bias up to each anchor. I wouldn't recommend ANY of them as a means to get news, only coverage of breaking events where assets ont he ground matter more than anything else.

This is also the link to nations having interests and not friends: it doesn't matter if Mubarak is truly a great man, it only matters how he serves American interests. No need to be sorry, this seems like a genuine misunderstanding, and really it seemed like it from the beginning.

 

[mugaliens]

I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.

What? "Tastes great; less filling" isn't a suitable standard for TV hoopla?

 

[WhoWee]

Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX?

 

[drankin]

Fox reported this AM that 20-some Republicans have written a letter to the White House for clarification on a $400+ Billion source of revenue in the President's new budget - that appears to be a new GAS TAX?

Is their an article online?

 

[WhoWee]

Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources

"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.

"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."

 

[Ryumast3r]

Fair and Balanced - seems to be working?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...20/poll-fox-oreilly-most-trusted-news-sources

"Poll: Fox, O'Reilly Most Trusted News Sources"
In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile.

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable.

"This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," he adds.

But at the liberal Media Matters, Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt says the public's trust in Fox is disturbing. A regular Fox critic, he says the poll reveals that "Fox News viewers trust the information that Fox gives them."

Which makes it even more hilarious when Fox news says anything about "Mainstream media ____" since... in america... they are obviously a good chunk of the mainstream media.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most

This will be reported as "almost three-quarters of Americans don't trust Fox."

 

[Char. Limit]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

 

[Ryumast3r]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

I'd say trust a news source as far as the news goes, not the commentary. When they say "something happened in Libya" I'd say it's reasonable to believe "Something happened in Libya" - it's when they start saying "This is why, this is what it will cause, this is what will happen, etc" that you need to throw anything they say out the window.

Of course, even what stories they choose to run is a bias as well, so it's best to look at several sources (not just news corporations, but people, trusted friends, whatever) and get as good of an idea of what's going on around you as possible.

Of course, me saying this is my biased opinion.

 

[CAC1001]

Fox News serves as a good conservative counter to the rest of the media IMO. I think they did a very excellent job with the Republican debate that took place in South Carolina, as they asked the candidates some tough questions. They didn't toss them softballs at all. For example, they asked Rick Santorum about his comment that women belong in the kitchen (or something like that).

 

[xxChrisxx]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.

So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.

I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.

I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.

 

[amwest]

The problem with 'news' is that, news it really just a list of facts, but people are (in general) too stupid to for their own conclusions from facts alone.

So rolling news channels sell analysis and comment.

I'd rather like a news channel that simply gave a list of interesting things that happened during the day. Shame there'd only be about 3 viewers, as people prefer being told what to think, shouting and drama, and gaudy idents and studios.

I also hate how 24 hour channels, stir it, and whip up doom and gloom where none exists.

to your first point, it's sad but before public education most people we taught by the classical education system (grammer, logic, rhetoric) now we use the prussian system, which is argued to be more for indocternation than logical thinking.
2nd statement of yours, you have one its CSPAN! you get to judge for yourself what the politicians mean! (although they've started doing more cominatry)
3rd statement, but how else would we have known that the world was going to end on may 21?

 

[Al68]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

Of course every news source is biased, as every person is biased. But biased is not the same as untrustworthy.

The other major news networks have proven themselves untrustworthy not just because they were biased, but because their bias resulted in fraudulent misrepresentations of politicians and political issues, presented as honest (and unbiased) journalism. Their deception is what made them untrustworthy.

 

[hootsh]

I think the safest news stations are the ones that are suspected the most of being biased, like Iranian news stations for example, people are accusing Iran of defending Syria; the station (when covering Syrian revolution) always offer BOTH sides of the story, instead of other stations where they offer only the protesters side, in a situation like this it is clear that the protesters are right of course, but I'm talking about things in general.
When it comes to covering protests in Iran, you could just switch to another news station...etc.

I say the more a station is notorious for being biased towards a subject, the better that station will be, because they'll strive to prove otherwise, also the viewers will be aware that not everything said is 100% neutral.

 

[hillzagold]

If you trust a news source then you're a loon. Every news source has their bias, a view of the world that they want to get out. It is literally impossible to find an unbiased news source.

But there are degrees of bias. Fox News is about 50 degrees too biased for a decent person's taste.

If I follow the LA Times, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Wired magazine, or Fisherman's Quarterly, I can expect some exaggeration. With Fox, I can expect them to start slinging insults left and right.

 

[russ_watters]

You consider MSNBC and Wired to be less biased than Fox? Really?

MSNBC in particular seems to have made a concerted effort to be the anti-Fox. They regularly attack Fox directly.

 

[hillzagold]

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see your point, but maybe it is because you didn't see mine: I'm saying that MSNBC seems to make a concerted effort to be the anti-Fox and one manifestation of that is that they directly attack Fox (a lot).

In any case, you didn't answer the question, but I guess that's a "yes". Ok...

 

[hillzagold]

My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias?

 

[russ_watters]

My point is simple, what are their other manifestations? If they cover a chemical plant explosion or a massive California wildfire or a Chicago parade for the arts, how else will they express bias?

It is very difficult for a media outlet to show bias when reporting on non-political issues (though it does crop up in unexpected stories sometimes)! I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

[WhoWee]

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

Care to support with a link?

 

[hillzagold]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation

That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.OK, is it your turn to show MSNBC's bias, and how it's just as harsh as Fox's bias?

 

[Al68]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation

That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.

LOL, are you kidding with this? Using Media Matters as a source to substantiate a claim of Fox News bias? And Fox news is biased because they use the term "illegals" to refer to illegal aliens, instead of the left wing media preference for the fraudulent term "undocumented"?

I only checked your first link. If you wanted anyone to bother with the rest, you should have been a little less absurd with the first one.

On second thought, that first link was so preposterously funny I might have to check the others when I get the chance. Was your post intended as sarcasm or satire?

 

[russ_watters]

Awesome. I didn't realize the bias was so out in the open on that issue. I've been annoyed by the use of the loaded term "undocumented", but had no idea it was borne of a conscious effort to bias the reporting to be softer on people who are here illegally. I had no idea there was an actual "style book" for AP reporting which includes codification of the bias.

In any case, that doesn't appear to me to have anything to do with the request. While I'm still not sure what you meant by this:

Do they only attack Fox? Because Fox does not only attack MSNBC, and Fox does not only attack other media sources.

...the mediamatters link is just about bias, not about media outlets attacking each other.

 

[WhoWee]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105280006
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310027
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105310006
http://mediamatters.org/research/201105270026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation

That last one has to be my favorite. This is hardly a conclusive list, in fact those Media Matters links are all from this month.


OK, is it your turn to show MSNBC's bias, and how it's just as harsh as Fox's bias?

From you first link:

"Special Report's Bret Baier Uses Loaded Term "Illegals"
May 28, 2011 4:03 pm ET — 96 Comments
Fox News' Bret Baier, using the word "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants in the United States, said that a U.S. Supreme Court decision would have the effect of "penalizing businesses for hiring illegals." However, prominent media outlets and journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals," noting that it "skew the public debate on immigration issues.""

(my bold)
Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?

 

[hillzagold]

LOL, are you kidding with this? Using Media Matters as a source to substantiate a claim of Fox News bias? And Fox news is biased because they use the term "illegals" to refer to illegal aliens, instead of the left wing media preference for the fraudulent term "undocumented"?

I only checked your first link. If you wanted anyone to bother with the rest, you should have been a little less absurd with the first one.

On second thought, that first link was so preposterously funny I might have to check the others when I get the chance. Was your post intended as sarcasm or satire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.

...the mediamatters link is just about bias, not about media outlets attacking each other.

I said Fox goes beyond attacking other media outlets. I don't think anyone will say Fox doesn't attack other media outlets, so I found Fox attacks on different subjects.

Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?

It's biased because it's not neutral. Take a poll with two different questions, each using a different word, and see if you get significantly different results. Consider calling someone a solder or a killer, a teenager or a student, a man who is experienced or old.




Are any of you going beyond my first link, or posting MSNBC attacks? I thought a forum like this knew how to hold a debate with any semblance of dialectic.

 

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.

Why? What does that have to do with your comment about Fox attacking media outlets? Please explain the relevance of that link.

I said Fox goes beyond attacking other media outlets. I don't think anyone will say Fox doesn't attack other media outlets, so I found Fox attacks on different subjects.

Is English your native language? I'm not sure you understand what the word "attack" means. This is really weird. Did you forget what you were claiming/arguing about? Did you misspeak and are now trying to cover it with misdirection? Please explain the relevance of that link.

Are any of you going beyond my first link, or posting MSNBC attacks? I thought a forum like this knew how to hold a debate with any semblance of dialectic.

No, I haven't gone beyond the first link. Based on how irrelevant the first link was, I didn't see any reason to go on to the second. Do the other links have any more relevance to your comment about Fox attacking other media outlets? I want an explanation as to what your point is: I won't fall for misdirection games.

 

[Al68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Photo_manipulation
You're embarrassing yourself. Defend this, if you can.

LOL. Yeah, I'm embarrassing myself. :uhh:

And seriously, why on Earth would you think I should defend Fox News? I never claimed they were unbiased, or were perfect in any way.

But from what I hear, the latest polls show they are the most trusted source around. Of course, given the Marxist propaganda that passes for their competition, that isn't really saying much.

 

[WhoWee]

It's biased because it's not neutral. Take a poll with two different questions, each using a different word, and see if you get significantly different results. Consider calling someone a solder or a killer, a teenager or a student, a man who is experienced or old.

Let's see - all soldiers have not engaged in battle or killed people and all killers are not soldiers, all teenagers are not students and likewise all students are not teenagers, all experienced people are not old and all old people are not experienced. However, all people who entered the US border illegally ARE illegal...no this is different...isn't it?

 

[Ryumast3r]

From you first link:

"Special Report's Bret Baier Uses Loaded Term "Illegals"
May 28, 2011 4:03 pm ET — 96 Comments
Fox News' Bret Baier, using the word "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants in the United States, said that a U.S. Supreme Court decision would have the effect of "penalizing businesses for hiring illegals." However, prominent media outlets and journalists' associations have denounced the use of the term "illegals," noting that it "skew the public debate on immigration issues.""

(my bold)
Why don't we analyze the criticism? Media Matters takes offense to the word "illegals" to describe people who have illegally entered the US? How is the use of this word biased?

Illegally, while technically true, is... really a loaded word. Entering this country is not really that illegal, in fact, it's about as illegal as a traffic ticket, in fact, a lot of people would consider it a lot less illegal than a traffic ticket. You couldn't even fine people for coming over illegally until recently because of arizona/couple other states. The only "punishment" for entering our country illegally was deportation, which doesn't really waste their money, it wastes ours.

LOL. Yeah, I'm embarrassing myself. :uhh:

And seriously, why on Earth would you think I should defend Fox News? I never claimed they were unbiased, or were perfect in any way.

But from what I hear, the latest polls show they are the most trusted source around. Of course, given the Marxist propaganda that passes for their competition, that isn't really saying much.

Defend "Marxist propaganda." You are really pushing it there since really hardly any of it reaches any level close to Marxism. Socialism =/= Communism.

That post was pretty sensational, and a fine piece of propaganda. What MSNBC, CNN, etc do is rhetoric, I would agree. Seeing as rhetoric is any argument defending any point of view, they do spew out a lot of it, as does Fox.

In my personal opinion, MSNBC is a pretty solid bias left, however Fox news is super-biased right.

A nice poll was done in late 2010 showing just how misinformed people who watch Fox are:

"In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs (the worst it did was have little effect, though many say it had a positive effect)
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit (at the time, CBO estimates were saying it wouldn't)
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse (poorly worded question, though the GDP was picking up at the time, job losses were still occurring)
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring (Scientists say it's occurring, even if it's not man made. That is fact)
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout (Hello dubyah)
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP (50-50 split)
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear) (and btw, he was)"

Those are pretty big issues to be misinformed on, especially Climate Change, and income taxes. IMO, Fox has some explaining to do.

My point with this is that you cannot claim that MSNBC, CNN, etc are spreading "Marxist Propaganda" and at the same time claim that Fox News is about as close to perfect as it can get. IMO, if MSNBC is spreading "Marxist Propaganda" then Fox News is spreading "Nazi Propaganda."

 

[Vanadium 50]

That seems to me to indicate that Fox News watchers handle trick questions poorly. Yes, the 1st auto bailout was under President Bush. But President Obama's was five times larger and involved nationalizing GM. We know now that the health reform law will increase the deficit, and that the CBO numbers came from having ten years of taxes and six years of benefits. "They didn't get the wrong answer they were supposed to get" is a unique argument. My income tax rates have gone up - although the federal piece has gone down. Climate change has become indelibly linked with man-made climate change. And finally, the argument that the stimulus legislation caused less job loss than there would have been without it may well be true, but it is certainly unprovable - and asking people to hold one side of an unprovable proposition lest they be labeled "stupid" seems profoundly unfair to me.