News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[loseyourname]

It costs money to run a television station. As such, it is the goal of Fox News, and every other news station, to make money, not to be a watchdog for the people. If you want a watchdog, look to media outlets on the internet, and small presses, that don't require much money to run and so actually look to be watchdogs. Don't expect it from a television station; any television station.

 

[edward]

It costs money to run a television station. As such, it is the goal of Fox News, and every other news station, to make money, not to be a watchdog for the people. If you want a watchdog, look to media outlets on the internet, and small presses, that don't require much money to run and so actually look to be watchdogs. Don't expect it from a television station; any television station.

Some of the internet sources are great, but often do not have a source for their opinions. So they are just that, opinions.

 

[solutions in a box]

Are you saying Fox news is being forced to say things against it's will?

No, but fox news employees are told what the will and will not report. And they are told by management executives, not by the news directors.

Rupert Murdock is all about making money and at the same time twisting the news the way he wants it twisted.
He has found a proftable niche with the conservatives and he is not about to allow anything to be reported on his network that will interfere with that.

 

[Townsend]

Bias is monitored and quantified by several groups, and here are some more stats in addition to those I've posted above (did you catch the stats above?):

I don't understand how anyone can claim to quantify things like this. I think it's ridicules to try and measure...not only that but how can something that is biased itself take an honest measure of something elses biases?

It's not the conservative slant that bothers me so much.

Then what are you complaining about?

The media is supposed to play the role of "watch dog" and provide accurate information to the public.

Thats like saying someone is suppose to be altruistic...They are not suppose to be anything except what they want to be and they cannot be everything to everyone so they are what they are to those who want what they are selling.

In view of FOX News' ties to Republicans and support of the Bush administration, it fails in the role of watch dog. That they broadcast misinformation is an even greater disservice to the American people. FOX News fails in it's role of promoting democracy. What could be worse?

Democracy's only purpose is to ensure liberates are protected from the government. Beyond that I could careless about it so there are a lot of things that are much worse than that...

 

[Townsend]

No, but fox news employees are told what the will and will not report. And they are told by management executives, not by the news directors.

Employees having to do what they are told to do by the people who sign their paycheck bothers you now?

Rupert Murdock is all about making money and at the same time twisting the news the way he wants it twisted.

It is his prerogative and I believe he has every right to conduct his business the way his is conducting it.

He has found a proftable niche with the conservatives and he is not about to allow anything to be reported on his network that will interfere with that.

Can you blame someone for protecting their interest?

 

[SOS2008]

I don't understand how anyone can claim to quantify things like this. I think it's ridicules to try and measure...not only that but how can something that is biased itself take an honest measure of something elses biases?

Then what are you complaining about?

Thats like saying someone is suppose to be altruistic...They are not suppose to be anything except what they want to be and they cannot be everything to everyone so they are what they are to those who want they are selling.

Democracy's only purpose is to ensure liberates are protected from the government. Beyond that I could careless about it so there are a lot of things that are much worse than that...

We've had debate about Political Science and use of the scientific method in this field. One can only do the best, and I have provided data to that end. It would be refreshing to see others doing the same in support of their positions.

FOX has a right to a conservative bias, but then they should promote themselves accordingly. And when a story is found to be inaccurate, they should retract it--like other news organizations do. Do you have a problem with this?

Back to main topic, the problems with profits and competition is addressed in at least one source provided above. That the media can't be relied upon for these reasons does not mean we should be accepting of the problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It costs money to run a television station. As such, it is the goal of Fox News, and every other news station, to make money, not to be a watchdog for the people.

That's really too bad since it is the point of having a free press.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I see Fox News much like the Celestine Prophecies or the National Enquirer: People believe it because they want to believe it.

 

[Townsend]

We've had debate about Political Science and use of the scientific method in this field. One can only do the best, and I have provided data to that end. It would be refreshing to see others doing the same in support of their positions.

I see data but what am I to make of it? Is the best one can do in quantifying such things good enough to base laws on that suppress freedoms? I don't think it is and I should hope anyone who actually cares about liberty would take this position as well. To the best of our knowledge we can say almost anything and it is a very slippery slope kind of argument.

FOX has a right to a conservative bias, but then they should promote themselves accordingly.

According to whom? Again we get into the area of personal opinion...

And when a story is found to be inaccurate, they should retract it--like other news organizations do. Do you have a problem with this?

Sort of...I mean morally I think retracting a story is the right thing for them to do but I don't want to impose my morals on others. So strictly speaking I believe it is up to them. If they want to tell complete lies then so be it. If people are too stupid to check with other sources then so be it.

Back to main topic, the problems with profits and competition is addressed in at least one source provided above. That the media can't be relied upon for these reasons does not mean we should be accepting of the problem.

Of course it does because any possible solution to the problem is only a much worse problem.

 

[Townsend]

I see Fox News much like the Celestine Prophecies or the National Enquirer: People believe it because they want to believe it.

Exactly!

If something is clearly BS and people still believe it then there is nothing that can or should be done to fix it.

 

[loseyourname]

Some of the internet sources are great, but often do not have a source for their opinions. So they are just that, opinions.

I'm referring to factual reports. As far as I'm concerned, nobody's opinion is news. I have about 80 RSS feeds on my computer that give me more stories faster than every TV station combined. They also allow me the freedom to read over the story at my own pace, taking time to look up other sources and give careful consideration to what I'm reading. You really can't get any of this with TV. Generally, I only watch TV news if I'm actually looking to be entertained. The political discussion they host are often quite exciting to watch, whether or not I agree with what is being said.

 

[Tide]

This is comical! Not a single person in the whole world is forced to watch the broadcasts of some private companies such as FOX, CNN, CBS or whatever and you're discussing banning what you don't like to hear (even if you DON'T tune in!) - or don't like others choosing to tune in? Amazing!

If there are any relevant questions about FNC one of them should be "Why don't they have a Science & Technology segment?" While I'm at it, why can't you do something about your commentators pushing the intelligent design drivel? Are you listening, Mr. Ailes? :)

But I suppose that just balances CNNs global warming mantra.

 

[Townsend]

Amazing!

Isn't it though...I first read this thread and I was

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is one aspect of this that makes me wonder: The last election has caused great doubt in my mind as to whether or not the US system can work an longer. In fact, in my estimation it has failed. It may well be that the corruption of the neo-cons now, and later, others to be sure, have and will continue to undermine beyond the point of no return, the essence of democracy - an informed citizenry. The golden years of integrity in the news media are over. So what do we do now with infotainment? And who has the time to sort out so many lies?

 

[loseyourname]

False nostalgia, Ivan. Look back to the days when New York was run by Tammany, Chicago was run by gangsters, the LAPD did whatever it wanted to and asked no questions. Look at the early days of press sensationalism, especially at all the Hearst papers. Everything you're concerned about has happened before, and much worse than now. There never were any "Golden Years" and we are certainly not moving in the direction of more corruption over anything but a very narrow span of time.

 

[SOS2008]

I see data but what am I to make of it?

1) Open your eyes, 2) read the data, 3) evaluate it, 4) draw conclusions (like Pop Tart instructions? ) This is an academic forum.

This is comical! Not a single person in the whole world is forced to watch the broadcasts of some private companies such as FOX, CNN, CBS or whatever and you're discussing banning what you don't like to hear (even if you DON'T tune in!) - or don't like others choosing to tune in? Amazing!

If there are any relevant questions about FNC one of them should be "Why don't they have a Science & Technology segment?" While I'm at it, why can't you do something about your commentators pushing the intelligent design drivel? Are you listening, Mr. Ailes? :)

But I suppose that just balances CNNs global warming mantra.

No one in this thread is advocating the banning of FOX News. If I repeat this over and over again, will it catapult the propaganda?

IMO there needs to be both conservative and liberal news to achieve balance, but personally I think it is more affective when presented round-table style. Nonetheless, as I've said, the problem isn't that FOX News is conservative, rather that it promotes itself as "fair and balanced" which has been documented as untrue. Even false stories in the Enquirer have been exposed resulting in law suits. The comparison is made in this weblog:

But let’s say Fox—the ratings leader in cable news for seven straight quarters—has 50 percent of the bodies available at CNN, but the same 24 hours of news to fill. We would expect that difference to show up somehow in the news formula. How? Well, you can repeat yourself more often. This brings marginal costs for a minute of recycled news closer to zero. But dilution is a bad solution because we then have less reason to watch you. So how do you do news that costs less per hour, and gives viewers more reason to watch? Gross says:

"It wasn’t that they were toeing some political line… it was that the facts of a story just didn’t matter at all. The idea was to get those viewers out of their seats, screaming at the TV, the politicians, the liberals — whoever — simply by running a provocative story."
----------
Now remember Fox News Channel’s lineage, which is entertainment. Why do the searchlights remain in the news logo at Fox? Top left corner: go look. What is that? It’s imagery handed down from Twentieth Century Fox, the fabled Hollywood studio.

CBS, NBC, ABC (entertainment companies too) gave birth to news divisions at a time when “public service, at a loss if necessary” was a serious starting point— and for hard-headed, practical reasons. Imagine: the threat of government regulation and even—so wild, this part—losing your license if you gave really terrible service in news. Don’t laugh. That was a big deal then (early 1960s).

By the time Fox came into the game (1990s) these were not serious threats. So the birth certificate lists Hollywood and Politics (via Ailes), parents. The baby is Fox journalism. High minded public service was not, as it is said, present at the creation. If you don’t understand why that is a point of pride at Fox, then you don’t get what the operation is about. This gives Fox a different feel, an edge, and the edge is the subject of Gross’s letter.

Simply by running a provocative story. Almost all Murdoch properties identify themselves to us by means of the oldest marketing strategy there is: shock and awe, hype and miracle, outrage and scam, the language of screaming headlines. It’s not just information with more excitement pumped into it (although that is true too) but also excitement as information. Get those viewers out of their seats. It’s the wow effect. It’s the tabloid mind. It’s the blare. (Fox is louder than other networks, volume wise. Ever notice that?) It’s the hype level per unit of information. There’s swelling music on all news networks; when it swells to extremes it’s Fox. All networks employ eye candy. If everyone who can be eye candy is eye candy, then it’s probably Fox.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/11/01/gross_fox.html

Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability.

 

[Townsend]

1) Open your eyes, 2) read the data, 3) evaluate it, 4) draw conclusions (like Pop Tart instructions? ) This is an academic forum.

Ok...lets look at the data and see what conclusions we can make...

I'll repeat your data here so no one has to look back to get it.

Reports, polls and studies
A report released in August 2001 by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, titled "Fox: The Most Biased Name in News", which states that, despite his claims to the contrary, The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly is conservative; and compared guests on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume with those on
CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports:

......white...male...Republican...conservative
Hume (Fox)...93%...91%...89%.....71%
Blitzer (CNN)...93%...86%...57%......32%
----------
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. On the other hand, it found Fox more transparent about its sources.

Ok...now we can clearly see that Fox news is reporting mostly pro conservative points. I don't see anything more or less than just that...

So Fox says that they are fair and balanced...What does that mean? There is not one specific meaning since like most of the English language, it can mean different things to different people.

To me it means that the news they are reporting is being presented in a "Fair and Balanced" way. Not that they are presenting both sides of the story or that they are covering all points of view.

So from my point of view you would really need to proved that the way in which the news is being reported is NOT being reported in a fair and balanced way. Which gets into opinions...

Of course in some people's opinion "Fair and Balanced" means they are reporting all points of view...To me if that is the message you want to convey then you say just that, because it is possible report all sides of the story and still not be fair and balanced. For example MM's documentary was neither fair and balanced nor did it present all point of views and even if he took the time to present his documentary from all point of views, it would not be fair and balanced because it would be a story with his slant on it...

So your data is meaningless unless you can prove that your interpretation of the meaning of "Fair and Balanced" is the correct one that we should accept.

 

[Townsend]

Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability.

It never was a public service to being with so there is nothing lost...

 

[Townsend]

No one in this thread is advocating the banning of FOX News.

The title of the thread is advancing the idea of banning FNC...

If I repeat this over and over again, will it catapult the propaganda?

You can repeat as long as you like but clearly there are people here who are in fact advocting the banning of FNC. If that was not the case then the title of this thread would not be, "Should Fox News be Banned."

 

[SOS2008]

The title of the thread is advancing the idea of banning FNC...


You can repeat as long as you like but clearly there are people here who are in fact advocting the banning of FNC. If that was not the case then the title of this thread would not be, "Should Fox News be Banned."

The title is posed as a question that is not reflected by the actual content of the thread, but I guess you fell for it like FOX's "fair and balanced" tag line. Or maybe I missed someone's post "advocating the banning of FNC" and you could point this out with a direct quote in which this is stated.

 

[loseyourname]

IMO there needs to be both conservative and liberal news to achieve balance, but personally I think it is more affective when presented round-table style.

Personally, I think that only factual reports constitute news, and that the facts should be presented without any slant to begin with. Giving equal time to the two most popular forms of bias isn't my idea of ideal journalism.

Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability.

Another case of false nostalgia. Just take a closer look at history. Jefferson had affairs with his slaves. Lincoln suspended the writ of habaeas corpus. Roosevelt lied to take us to war with Spain so that we could acquire colonial possessions. Harding appointed every single friend he ever had to cabinet positions even though none were qualified. Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling. And it gets far worse when you consider more local levels of politicians. Part of the reason they were able to do this and get away with it is that nobody was able to find out. The major difference between now and then is that now it is a lot more difficult to engage in questionable behavior as a government official without the story leaking out over some outlet or other. The availability of information is one of the defining features of the present age.

So go ahead and lament the demise of the press all you want. The fact remains that media are more of a watchdog now than they have ever been.

 

[Townsend]

The title is posed as a question that is not reflected by the actual content of the thread, but I guess you fell for it like FOX's "fair and balanced" tag line. Or maybe I missed someone's post "advocating the banning of FNC" and you could point this out with a direct quote in which this is stated.

I see...you're running out of arguments so you resort to denigrating the individual instead the argument. I love you too, sos...

 

[SOS2008]

Personally, I think that only factual reports constitute news, and that the facts should be presented without any slant to begin with. Giving equal time to the two most popular forms of bias isn't my idea of ideal journalism.

Agreed that just the facts without any spin would be nice.

Another case of false nostalgia. Just take a closer look at history. Jefferson had affairs with his slaves. Lincoln suspended the writ of habaeas corpus. Roosevelt lied to take us to war with Spain so that we could acquire colonial possessions. Harding appointed every single friend he ever had to cabinet positions even though none were qualified. Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling. And it gets far worse when you consider more local levels of politicians. Part of the reason they were able to do this and get away with it is that nobody was able to find out. The major difference between now and then is that now it is a lot more difficult to engage in questionable behavior as a government official without the story leaking out over some outlet or other. The availability of information is one of the defining features of the present age.

So go ahead and lament the demise of the press all you want. The fact remains that media are more of a watchdog now than they have ever been.

True that questionable behavior has always existed and that technology has allowed more awareness of public official's activities. But as stated in the quote in my last post, there used to be higher standards in the news industry. Also there is increased competition and profitability (as you originally pointed out).

Dan Rather lost his job over a report that could not be proven factual, yet Bill O'Reilly gets away with it on almost a daily basis because FOX executives encourage it to keep ratings high. I realize people think the stories in the Enquirer are real, but the number of people who think FOX News is real if frightening. I guess it gets back to the poor education in this country. Still "buyer beware" is a sad scenario in regard to the news.

 

[edward]

I am somewhat surprised that people who claim that they never watch Fox news, would claim to be aware of Fox news tactics. Making comparisons of Fox news to anything in the past, especially anything prior to the "information age" is oranges and apples.

A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[8]

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq.

Quote from:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

 

[loseyourname]

I am somewhat surprised that people who claim that they never watch Fox news, would claim to be aware of Fox news tactics. Making comparisons of Fox news to anything in the past, especially anything prior to the "information age" is oranges and apples.

The point being made is not specific to Fox News. I'm only responding to this lament that people have for the "good 'ol days" of responsible journalism wherein people were informed and able to keep their government from doing bad things. Those days never existed. It is much more difficult today for any politician to get away with corruption and lying than at any time in the past, mostly because information is so freely available and disseminated through such a wide variety of sources; very quickly, too.

As to your study, are you claiming a direction of causation here? Are people supporting the war because they watch Fox News? Or are people who support the war simply more likely to watch Fox News? People have believed the lies of politicians for thousands of years and have supported irresponsible actions for just as long. Fox didn't create a market of poorly informed conservatives who will criticize nothing that Bush does; they simply tapped into that market.

 

[loseyourname]

Look at the statements I've responded to by bringing up the past, Ed:

"The golden years of integrity in the news media are over."

"Bye bye to public service, hello to profitability."

Neither statement is specific to Fox News, unless you're trying to tell me they're the only news outlet on the market that occasionally spreads misleading information.

 

[edward]

As to your study, are you claiming a direction of causation here?

It wasn't my study

But the University of Maryland's study did show that those who depended on Fox news for their primary source of information did in fact have a higher percentage of people who believed the misinformation about the war.

This can be dissected a thousand ways and nothing will change the facts here.

 

[loseyourname]

It wasn't my study.

But the University of Maryland's study did show that those who depended on Fox news for their primary source of information did in fact have a higher percentage of people who believed the misinformation about the war.

This can be dissected a thousand ways and nothing will change the facts here.

Do you see what I'm saying, though? Showing a correlation between two events does nothing to tell which caused the other. You cannot say that people believe misinformation about the war because they watch Fox News. Not from this data alone.

There are other hypotheses that could explain this data. Among them:

1) People who are gullible and stupid are more likely to watch Fox News.

2) People who watch Fox News are largely Republican, and want to believe good things about a Republican administration, and so are more likely to believe in falsities that paint the administration in a positive light.

3) People who largely rely on a single source of information are often misinformed in general.

There are plenty of other possible hypotheses as well. If you're going to put forth one over the other, you'll need further evidence to make your case.

There is one more thing that the study (at least the portion you've quoted) does not address. That is other kinds of misinformation. Showing a correlation between false beliefs about the war and the watching of Fox News is nice, but what about other false beliefs? Are Fox viewers more likely to believe these than people who mostly view other cable news networks?

Another thing to address would be to find out how many people actually have their opinions changed based on news reports of any kind. Are beliefs actually shaped by the news, or do people simply use the news to confirm beliefs they already hold for one reason or another, believing the stories that make their case and ignoring those that do not? Are Fox viewers any more likely to engage in this form of selective reasoning than viewers of other stations?

I know I'm being a real lawyer here, and people hate lawyers, but there is a reason our legal system is so exacting. Intuitive connections are not always correct. As with science, we need to be more rigorous when building a case of any kind.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I’m not advocating banning FOX News. My comments are in reference to existing laws and regulatory agencies.

I never accused you of wanting Fox News banned SOS.

First are the laws regarding truth in advertising:

http://www.poznaklaw.com/articles/falsead.htm

On what basis does FOX News substantiate their claim of “fair and balanced” news? In fact there is immense documentation to the contrary.

The issue I have here is that One: Going after Fox legally for false advertising, especially without any damages except to say that it offends you that they use that tag line, is asking the government to decide what is fair and balanced in the news. Like I said previously, I do not want our government making such decisions. and Two: Do you really want our government spending millions of dollars to make an inquiry for the sole purpose of making Fox change it's tag line? Look through some commercials and ads and tell me just how many of the tag lines you see that stand up to criticism. Should I sue Miller because they advertise that their beer tastes great when in fact it tastes like watered down monkey piss?

Regarding privacy and active versus passive inflow of media into American homes, here’s an article in the SF Chronicle criticizing Bush for signing the Do-Not-Call bill:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/02/EDGAM21ROV1.DTL

Ummmm... I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with this or how it refers to any legal definition of "active vs. passive inflow of media".
I did see this though that doesn't seem to jive with your argument...

"In applying the First Amendment to commercial speech, the Supreme Court has rejected the highly paternalistic view that the government should be involved in assessing the value of, and determining, what consumers should and should not hear,"

The Supreme Court has said it is not constitutional for the government to dictate to publishers and newspapers about what is and is not acceptable to print (with exception of libel laws). However, the government regulates and licenses broadcasters (which involves physical property):
http://www.benton.org/publibrary/piac/sec2.html

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/journalism.html

Otherwise the FCC does not intervene, if even then. But it seems to me that reports by the insider Fox News producer, Charlie Reina would qualify. There are those against such regulations, and those for it:

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326926CLP0603_03?prevSearch=authorsfield:(Raphael,C)

I'm not sure how to achieve balance between the "watchdog" role of the media and serving the public interest, which also includes promoting democracy via an informed public.

So what you are saying is that there already is regulation of the nature I object to and that it is failing, as I predicted it would, because an influencial media outlet who happens to have the right political alignments is going unpunished.
Perhaps a better question to ask would be: How many media outlets are being unfairly penalized due to these regulations? or What are these people doing if not penalizing the people who ought to be penalized? (getting hard-ons over Janet Jackson's exposed mam, whining about homosexuals being portrayed on public broadcast television, things like this maybe?)

 

[SOS2008]

I never accused you of wanting Fox News banned SOS.

I know, and a Yankee Dime to you.

The issue I have here is that One: Going after Fox legally for false advertising, especially without any damages except to say that it offends you that they use that tag line, is asking the government to decide what is fair and balanced in the news. Like I said previously, I do not want our government making such decisions. and Two: Do you really want our government spending millions of dollars to make an inquiry for the sole purpose of making Fox change it's tag line? Look through some commercials and ads and tell me just how many of the tag lines you see that stand up to criticism. Should I sue Miller because they advertise that their beer tastes great when in fact it tastes like watered down monkey piss?

False advertising is not the same as libel in regard to damages--it just has to be untrue, and the tag line has been documented as untrue. I don't view beer to be as important as accurate information to the public under the guise of news.

Ummmm... I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with this or how it refers to any legal definition of "active vs. passive inflow of media".

It's hard to find information on advertising methods online, but what I'm trying to get at is that some forms of media are invasive to the privacy of one's home -- a position supported by Bush in the Do-Not-Call bill. And part of the difference is purchasing a telephone (or TV -- i.e., private property) and paying the phone company (or cable or satellite company -- i.e., utility bill) and having some control of that.

So what you are saying is that there already is regulation of the nature I object to and that it is failing, as I predicted it would, because an influencial media outlet who happens to have the right political alignments is going unpunished.

And that's good?

Perhaps a better question to ask would be: How many media outlets are being unfairly penalized due to these regulations? or What are these people doing if not penalizing the people who ought to be penalized? (getting hard-ons over Janet Jackson's exposed mam, whining about homosexuals being portrayed on public broadcast television, things like this maybe?)

I'm not aware of any media outlets being penalized. I think you're referring to Parents Television Council. Claims are that these complaints were artificially generated, and if so, these can't be taken seriously.