Is Fox News Fair and Balanced ? (different than last poll)

[Hepth]

To mheslep:

No i mean, is it common practice to take an article nearly verbatim, but make small slight changes. I don't think the AP article is COMPETE or CORRECT, but all that means is that if Fox didn't agree with what they wrote shouldn't they have just written their own article?

It seems weird to modify something like this while still attributing it to the original distributor, I guess is my point. If it had said :Associated Press, Edited by Fox News. Then I'd think "Oh ok, they felt some things were left out and added them."
But, to be honest, I read the article first on Fox News and I felt surprised an AP article would say things like the "Others argue" paragraph. So I looked for the article elsewhere and noticed these changes.

Isn't that something like plagiarism? But not really. I don't know the term for it. Its as if I completely copied The Lord of The Rings, but changed "Frodo" to "Prodo", and still claimed it was by Tolkien.

 

[humanino]

Why?

Why do you fail to realize that this is part of an agenda ? In particular, there is a very important addition :
"Others argue that [...] billions of dollars at stake should not be spent."
It would be quite a position for "scientists" to take. It is not a scientific statement, but a political proposal. Fox News has the pretense to re-define what science does ?

Your own National Academy of Science in their 2010 proceedings states :
"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
This is quite a level of agreement amongst scientist. Maybe Fox News should make it more precise by saying that the minority of less than 3% of scientists still in doubt has a "relative climate expertise and scientific prominence [...] substantially below that of the convinced researchers" (still your Academy) ?

 

[WhoWee]

"News" is packaged and re-packaged every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_agency

 

[Dembadon]

I think it's hilarious that those who are most apt to say Fox news is unbalanced are those who rarely, if ever, watch it.

...

Have the programs changed significantly in the past month? How often does one need to "check-in" in order to make an accurate assessment?

 

[Hepth]

"News" is packaged and re-packaged every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_agency

Ok, that makes sense then. I figured as much but wasn't sure on how widely this was known.

So from a Conservative standpoint, are there any "News Sources (AP, Reuters, Etc)" that Fox News should be able to pull from, and like the "left" media, use without editing in such a way? I ask this because the other news organizations did not modify AP's original cable, only Fox had. I assume this will be argued as because AP is a liberal news agency or something and so CBC and others don't have to modify it; which is fine. But there seems to be a problem if there is no one else to "Trust".

EDIT: And for clarification, every time I mention Fox News, I'm really talking about their internet news rather than their TV station. At least in MY posts. I can't stand the TV channel, as I despise ANY opinion show or column. They just make me angry.

 

[WhoWee]

Taking a step back and looking at the parent company of Fox might be helpful - sorry for a wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

 

[mheslep]

To mheslep:

No i mean, is it common practice to take an article nearly verbatim, but make small slight changes. ...

From the wire services yes, and not just slight, except for quoted material. Here's the same story from Time.

The brutal heat waves that killed thousands of Europeans in 2003 and that choked Russia earlier this year will seem like average summers in the future as the Earth continues to warm, the U.N. weather agency said Tuesday.
... ...

and then they felt the need to insert this paragraph from noted climate expert Hugo Chavez.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez called recent extreme weather swings there an example of climate change. The country suffered a severe drought early this year, and now is in the midst of deadly floods occurring past the traditional end of the rainy season.
"These are the big climate changes, the big disturbances that make the dry seasons, the wet seasons unpredictable," Chávez said Monday on state television.

... ...
The European Union said Tuesday it has mobilized euro2.2 billion ($2.9 billion ) this year, and is on track to meet its pledge of euro7.2 billion over three years in "fast track" financing. U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing said Monday Washington has allocated $1.7 billion for 2010.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2033876,00.html
How far the once superb, colossal creation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce" has fallen.

 

[humanino]

...

Your arguments are remarkable : "others do worse, so we do not need to improve".

 

[mheslep]

Why do you fail to realize that this is part of an agenda
?

That, when read as "why don't you think as I do", or "stop questioning my position", answers itself.

In particular, there is a very important addition :
"Others argue that [...] billions of dollars at stake should not be spent."
It would be quite a position for "scientists" to take. It is not a scientific statement, but a political proposal. Fox News has the pretense to re-define what science does ?

Your own National Academy of Science in their 2010 proceedings states :
"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
This is quite a level of agreement amongst scientist. Maybe Fox News should make it more precise by saying that the minority of less than 3% of scientists still in doubt has a "relative climate expertise and scientific prominence [...] substantially below that of the convinced researchers" (still your Academy) ?

Well the sentence says "Others", chasing the sentence on "Negotiations conducted under U.N. auspices". Even so, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf" . And 'others' that do indeed agree with the technical tenets of the last IPCC, nonetheless take positions that spending vast sums on Cap and Trade type schemes are not worthwhile given other world problems, or unlikely to succeed in attempting to stop a 2-3 degree C rise over 100 years.

 

[mheslep]

Your arguments are remarkable : "others do worse, so we do not need to improve".

I said no such thing.

 

[humanino]

That, when read as "why don't you think as I do", or "stop questioning my position", answers itself.

Please forgive my insistence, but it's not me, it is your own Academy of Science on a scientific question.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf"

That is a private letter. It is quite different from a false statement on the most important network. Besides, you are doing it again anyway : "if others do it, it's fine if we do it".

 

[humanino]

I said no such thing.

Yes you did, you justified Fox distortion by mentioning another distortion.

 

[Hepth]

I don't think he's really calling it a "distortion" but rather a "commonplace augmentation of news in effort to create a more audience-specific article" and that its not necessarily a BAD thing, but a COMMON and ACCEPTED thing; and so giving reference to another article as example should actually be expected, in order to back up his assertion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Your arguments are remarkable : "others do worse, so we do not need to improve".

I read his post as disagreeing with the assertion "other news organizations did not modify AP's original cable, only Fox had" (or simply stating that this does not generalize to most cases). It's not clear that there's anything wrong with modifying wire reports.

 

[mheslep]

I read his post as disagreeing with the assertion "other news organizations did not modify AP's original cable, only Fox had" (or simply stating that this does not generalize to most cases). It's not clear that there's anything wrong with modifying wire reports.

Exactly. In addition, I grant that media sources make errors, large and small, some careless and some because of bias. That is all a different matter from how they choose to go about repackaging wire reports. My objection in this particular thread is to the suggestion that some how FN has any kind of monopoly on errors because, as far as I can tell, FN covers stories and angles that previously were willfully ignored by legacy media.

 

[Hepth]

Exactly. In addition, I grant that media sources make errors, large and small, some careless and some because of bias. That is all a different matter from how they choose to go about repackaging wire reports. My objection in this particular thread is to the suggestion that some how FN has any kind of monopoly on errors because, as far as I can tell, FN covers stories and angles that previously were willfully ignored by legacy media.

I had just noticed ONLY Fox doing this for this one specific report. I subsequently asked about how common it was, as I figured something like this, if "wrong" by any means, would have been noticed much earlier. As I see that its standard reporting fare, I don't thing Fox is to blame at all for the modification of said wire.

On the other hand, its an obvious interjection of blatant opinion into an otherwise sound news article. While I agree that "Scientists" as opposed to "Some scientsts" is a valid change, well, both are misleading. The first implies that "all" do, while "some" implies that "many, but not majority" do. When it fact it should say "Nearly all scientists" or "Overwhelming majority of scientists" as wasn't the numbers of dissenters in the single digit percentile. So technically both articles have some slant in that point of view. Fox just changed it from left slant to right slant.

Ah the media...

 

[WhoWee]

I had just noticed ONLY Fox doing this for this one specific report. I subsequently asked about how common it was, as I figured something like this, if "wrong" by any means, would have been noticed much earlier. As I see that its standard reporting fare, I don't thing Fox is to blame at all for the modification of said wire.

That's why I posted the News Corp link above - in case anyone wants to compare the comparable stories across all News Corp media?

 

[mugaliens]

Which wasn't in the original article.

You mean Fox is actually doing more investigative reporting than merely repeating what's on the AP wire? Oh, heaven forbid! Can't have any reporting not sanctioned by the AP! (shudder)

Is this common practice?

It is among the better news agencies, the ones where the reporters actually find some if not most of their own content.

 

[Hepth]

You mean Fox is actually doing more investigative reporting than merely repeating what's on the AP wire? Oh, heaven forbid! Can't have any reporting not sanctioned by the AP! (shudder)

Well, no need to don an insulting tone. This isn't the Fox News web comments where one has to jump to overly obtuse sarcasm in order to be defensive. Though I'd be hesitant to call these changes "investigative reporting". The comment about AP doesn't really make much sense given the context of this topic, where Fox DID use AP's wire with only very slight changes. If you're going to somehow now claim that AP is an unusable source then why do they consistently use it?

It is among the better news agencies, the ones where the reporters actually find some if not most of their own content.

So NOT Fox then? As this is a demonstration of them NOT finding their own content, but mildly changing another reporter's rather than have an independent reporter at the conference? I'm not sure I see your argument in this case.

 

[mheslep]

I had just noticed ONLY Fox doing this for this one specific report. I subsequently asked about how common it was, as I figured something like this, if "wrong" by any means, would have been noticed much earlier. As I see that its standard reporting fare, I don't thing Fox is to blame at all for the modification of said wire.

On the other hand, its an obvious interjection of blatant opinion into an otherwise sound news article. While I agree that "Scientists" as opposed to "Some scientsts" is a valid change, well, both are misleading. The first implies that "all" do, while "some" implies that "many, but not majority" do. When it fact it should say "Nearly all scientists" or "Overwhelming majority of scientists" as wasn't the numbers of dissenters in the single digit percentile.

Well I'll grant any such news article is 'misleading' if one attempts to draw precise conclusions from it. "Nearly all scientists" is still wrong. The correct phrase would have to be nearly all "climate researchers most actively publishing in the field", which then prompts the question about how narrow the field is, etc. Not so easy to write a news article. I think 'Some scientists' is a fair shot for the venue.

 

[skippy1729]

Fascinating, the winner (so far) is people who watch Fox once a year or less but know that is less balanced that the other news providers. I think this poll tells more about the people responding to it than it tells about Fox news. I watch Fox and MSNBC. They both have a bias but Fox is much more balanced. I don't keep a running count but I see many more liberals on FOX than conservatives on MSNBC.

Skippy

 

[mugaliens]

Astute observation, Skippy. :) It's quite common for humans to loathe or fear that with which we're unfamiliar.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fascinating, the winner (so far) is people who watch Fox once a year or less but know that is less balanced that the other news providers. I think this poll tells more about the people responding to it than it tells about Fox news. I watch Fox and MSNBC. They both have a bias but Fox is much more balanced. I don't keep a running count but I see many more liberals on FOX than conservatives on MSNBC.

Skippy

I watched enough Fox for a time to see that it is not a reputable news organization. There is no reason to continue watching once this determination is made. Likewise, I know that Richard Hoagland is a nut, so I have no need to follow his continuing saga. You seem to suggest that it is worth spending time on Hoagland as long as I tune into the Sunday morning evangelicals for my science.

It is sad that this is seen as some kind of balance.

I watch neither Fox or MSNBC. And it only takes a few minutes of viewing to remind me of why I watch neither.

 

[cobalt124]

I voted "Unbalanced but similar to other news programs, and I watch Fox News rarely (yearly or less)" - I've never watched it effectively. I don't need to to make a judgement because I've made it by reading the threads about it, so my rule of thumb not to touch anything owned by Rupert Murdoch applies here. There's bias in the lot of them, so to make the best of a bad job I would always choose publicly funded news broadcasting that was accountable to the public, and minimise the politics, power playing and profit making in news broadcasting.

 

[rethunk]

Why would anyone even include:
"Unbalanced unlike most news programs, and I watch Fox News regularly"
on the poll? No one's going to tick that except to be perverse!

 

[xxChrisxx]

All American news channels are hilariously biased one way or the other (well, some more than others). They also seem to spend rather a lot of the time sniping at each other.

NBC vs Fox seems the most common.
EDIT: I voted to be perverse.

 

[cobalt124]

Which leads us back to the thread "News as Entertainment" (if it still bothers anyone anymore, me included). We just seem to be entertaining ourselves at the expense of knowing what our elected governments are up to.