Fox News's Special Report has a conservative slant to it (it was started by Brit Hume originally), but they do seek to present both sides of an opinion I think, in particular during the panel at the end of the show.Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS News Hour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.
Why is the thread ridiculous? It seems to provide interesting and relevant information. (PM me for more, I'm reluctant to post lest I bias the poll.)This thread is ridiculous, your cause is desperate
It took me a couple of minutes to find it from a webpage belonging to one of the authorsI can't access the actual study, but the summary did not say CNN, ABC, or PBS were more moderate, it cited specific programs on those channels that it sees as more moderate (just focusing on the news programs of those channels).
Because opinion polls have a lower value than scientific studies. I find it ridiculous that one would ignore a scientific study and decide to post a poll about Fox, because this is precisely the kind of methods which Fox would use/advocate/have no problem with.Why is the thread ridiculous?
Your cause amounts to trying to sort out a question by polling rather than scientific investigation. One of the main reproaches I have (PERSONAL OPINION) with Fox is that they constantly mix opinions with facts. Even worse, they often state opinions before trying to justifying them with isolated facts/anecdotes. This is backwards journalism.What do you mean by my cause?
I've read the entire study already (months ago -- when it came out I only read the abstract and maybe a dozen pages, but I came back later to finish it). Why do you claim that I'm ignoring it?Because opinion polls have a lower value than scientific studies. I find it ridiculous that one would ignore a scientific study and decide to post a poll about Fox, because this is precisely the kind of methods which Fox would use/advocate/have no problem with.
Once again, what is "my cause"?Your cause amounts to trying to sort out a question by polling rather than scientific investigation.
I think (?) this has been patched up by PM. I think there was some misunderstanding regarding the thread.So far CRG is only soliciting PERSONAL OPINIONs of PFrs. Why is it ridiculous for him to do so, but not for you (humanino) to express your own opinion on the subject?
I can't tell what side your on. The study you cited assigns the American media an average hypothetical ADA score of 62.6. A score greater than 50 would be defined as "more liberal". Therefore, the American media, according to your study, has at least a greater than 20% liberal bias.
People just like to use those words to describe anything they disagree with. It's obvious to most that the words "ideological extreme", "radical right", etc are just used to mean that someone is less Marxist/socialist than they are.You seem to want to say that Fox is ideologically extreme.
Do you know if the difference is statistically significant according to the study?Fox News, according to the study, does have a conservative bias, but it is less than the media's average liberal bias. That is to say, Fox (which is regarded as ideologically extreme in popular opinion) is in fact less biased than the average media outlet in the United States, though admittedly not by much.
I would say the credibility benchmark is a moving target.If there is a doubt whether a news organization is fair and balanced then it has already lost its credibility. Oddly for all its touting itself as fair and balanced (perhaps necessary in order to preserve some credibility) Fox News appealed and won the case of Steve Wilson & Jane Akre who were fired for refusing to broadcast a false version of their report on bovine growth hormone in milk, thus winning the right to broadcast lies. How much further from fair and balanced can you get? Is their audience made up primarily of people who watch because Fox News presents the news they want to hear instead of the truth?
I don't understand your moving target comment. Dan Rather was fired for failing to substantiate his claim that George Bush received special treatment leaving open the possibility that his report was false. That is in contrast to Jane Akre and Steve Wilson who had substantiated the truth of their report but were ordered not only not to report the truth but to report a lie instead.I would say the credibility benchmark is a moving target.
You really don't know the facts of the case, do you.I don't understand your moving target comment. Dan Rather was fired for failing to substantiate his claim that George Bush received special treatment leaving open the possibility that his report was false.