Non partisan media study finds Fox News most balanced in covering election.

...?

Like most "conservatives" I question the need for any other media at all when we have Fox to bring us a consistent and predictable point of view. Just remember that consistency is the key.

A compass that points south or a clock that is always exactly 11 hours off are both still useful.

No need to discredit something that's already been exposed^.

Nice try at preemptive disinformation, though.

According to their methodology, they watched the first 30 minutes of one one hour show on a 24-hours news network, and declared it the most balanced?

That sample size seems a bit small.

They're fair and balanced because they want Hillary AND Giuliani to win.

/yup yup its true

FTFA:

Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

I love that. It is like they couldn't believe it themselves!

/still don't believe it
//probably should actually read the article

It's balanced because I say it is. Now shut up and get me a beer.

And it's because it's funny.

Head of the CMPA: Dr. Robert Lichter.

His other job? Media analyst for FOX News.

Discrediting the source isn't bad when the source has reason to not be reliable.

HansensDisease: No need to discredit something that's already been exposed^.

Nice try at preemptive disinformation, though.

FTW

Nice catch!

House of Tards: Head of the CMPA: Dr. Robert Lichter.

His other job? Media analyst for FOX News.

Discrediting the source isn't bad when the source has reason to not be reliable.

Somehow I knew we'd find something like this to be the case.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by S. Robert Lichter
...
S. Robert Lichter - President. Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel

"This just in, I taste delicious!"
--Bag Filled With Poop

NONE of the networks are questioning anything being done by the Fifth Reich. None of them look at conflicts of interest in government or even their own news reporting. None of them are truly examining the candidates voting records or main campaign contributors (who the candidate will be beholden to when the dust clears). TV is no place to get your news.

Fox news, we report, you deride

I don't think MSNBC or CNN even know that Republicans are having a primary. Somebody should tell them.

House of Tards: Head of the CMPA: Dr. Robert Lichter.

His other job? Media analyst for FOX News.



Subby =

MFL: I don't think MSNBC or CNN even know that Republicans are having a primary. Somebody should tell them.

I think you need to turn on your farking TV and STFU.

For all you idiots out there,

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a media watch organization.

On its website, CMPA claims to be politically neutral: "The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media. CMPA election studies have played a major role in the ongoing debate over improving the election process." [1]

However, as shown below, CMPA's claim to be non-partisan is incompatible with the fact that nearly all its funding comes from conservative foundations.

CMPA also runs the Statistical Assessment Service as a front organization.


proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations. The funding information, covering 1986-2002, lists the following donors:

* Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $267,000 from 5 donations
* Earhart Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations
* Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations

Staff

* S. Robert Lichter - President. Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel [6], and a former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute [7].

uh sure no bias here

sources:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?573

They're basing their criteria solely on how evenly time was spread out on mentioning each candidate. This is interesting, but all it tells us is that FOX may be spending a good deal of time attacking specific candidates while lauding others.

If... somehow... we could work Bush, Britney and pitbulls into this thread... it could be a perfect flamewar.

Non partisan media study finds Fox News most balanced in covering election. Libs everywhere get into discredit source mode

Wow. Epic FAIL.

Verrai: They're basing their criteria solely on how evenly time was spread out on mentioning each candidate. This is interesting, but all it tells us is that FOX may be spending a good deal of time attacking specific candidates while lauding others.

Actually, the (grr) pdf that gives the whole press release mentions %positive vs. negative for both sides.

...which leads me to believe the researchers were drinking.

KernLead: If... somehow... we could work Bush, Britney and pitbulls into this thread... it could be a perfect flamewar.

Bush and Britney...two enter...one leaves...it's TERRAWRDROME!

I love the way people keep touting the "paid media analyst" thing for Lichter, while not noticing that Fox pays a number of folks for the same job (getting on the air and talking about things, his specialty just happens to be "the media.")

Susan Estrich holds a similar job (except with much more airtime and a lot better paycheck), and she's hardly a right-winger, except to the more crazy Left.

Then we have the post above from larsinio, which makes a big point about this group's funding. Whoopee. There are a LOT of leftist organizations which get regular cites on Fark which have similar funding issues from groups like the Tides Foundation or that Soros bastard, but we're supposed to pretend they're fair...

I am non partisan when it comes to boobies. And I can tell you that no boobies are better than some. Now listen to me while I fondle some boobies.

TFA is about Special Report with Brit Hume - not "Fox News."

Special Report is a great newscast which is - dare I say it - fair, balanced and informative. These generic attacks on Fox News don't apply specifically to Brit Hume's newscast.

Somehow I doubt most commentators in this thread have watched Special Report.

TFA: On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly - 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates - 49% negative vs. 51% positive, producing a perfect 50-50 for all candidates of both parties.

This is a little vague.

thenateman: TFA is about Special Report with Brit Hume - not "Fox News."

Special Report is a great newscast which is - dare I say it - fair, balanced and informative. These generic attacks on Fox News don't apply specifically to Brit Hume's newscast.

Somehow I doubt most commentators in this thread have watched Special Report.

BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!111!

Classic.

thenateman: TFA is about Special Report with Brit Hume - not "Fox News."

Special Report is a great newscast which is - dare I say it - fair, balanced and informative. These generic attacks on Fox News don't apply specifically to Brit Hume's newscast.

Somehow I doubt most commentators in this thread have watched Special Report.

Oh god, seriously, I'm laughing my ass off. Thank you, you've made my day.

DeadZone: According to their methodology, they watched the first 30 minutes of one one hour show on a 24-hours news network, and declared it the most balanced?

That sample size seems a bit small.

They were comparing evening news broadcasts, not the opinion shows afterwards.

NBC, ABC, and CBS don't have any. CNN has nutcase Lou Dobbs. MSNBC has liberal Olbermann. Fox News has a gazillion of Republican pundits. But that's not what they cared about.

But it makes me wonder which half hour show they watched. Brit Hume or Shepard Smith? Brit Hume is pretty selective about which stories he airs, and Shepard Smith sounds like a human tabloid.

Libs? Discredit source mode?

As far as I can tell there is no credit to dis.

Lets spare a moronic flame war and face the fact that Fox is no way close to balanced reporting.

You don't have to discredit the source. The study is based on Fox News being X% less negative in coverage of Republican candidates. The GOP field is so obviously disastrous this year that only Fox could depict the likes of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson as something to cheer about.

Good. These pathetic news channels can fight all they want over who is more reliable. While they're duking it out, I'll get my news from other sources.

Special Report is a great newscast which is - dare I say it - fair, balanced and informative. These generic attacks on Fox News don't apply specifically to Brit Hume's newscast.

Somehow I doubt most commentators in this thread have watched Special Report.

But Brit Hume isn't a democrat like every other newscastor on TV. He's obviously a hack.

TFA is about Special Report with Brit Hume - not "Fox News."

Special Report is a great newscast which is - dare I say it - fair, balanced and informative. These generic attacks on Fox News don't apply specifically to Brit Hume's newscast.

Somehow I doubt most commentators in this thread have watched Special Report.


I've seen it. Brit HUme has a good resume from his days of being a whitehouse correspondent for ABC. That being said, he still is a highly opinionated corporateer, hes just much more subtle than most of the "cast" of fox "news".

Crooks and Liars posts many many many false/highly spun things he says all the time.

Brit Hume is no Jim Lehrer, hes at best a bastard child of Charlie Gibson and Roger Ailes.
Jim Lehrer, now theres a newscast. So professional that news is seperated from commentary. Brit Hume is connected to professionalism in journalism, much like Chris Wallace is related to Mike Wallace.But Chris Wallace certainly aint no Mike Wallace.


/people dont know what news reporting used to be like, or should be like

helix400: Shepard Smith sounds like a human tabloid.

I hate Shepard Smith, with those wee beady eyes, and that smug grin...

MFL: Special Report is a great newscast which is - dare I say it - fair, balanced and informative. These generic attacks on Fox News don't apply specifically to Brit Hume's newscast.

Somehow I doubt most commentators in this thread have watched Special Report.

But Brit Hume isn't a democrat like every other newscastor on TV. He's obviously a hack.

Don't really care about him not being a domecrat, but it doesn't help that he is married to Kim Schiller Hume, washignotn chief and vice pres of Fox news.

cirby: There are a LOT of leftist organizations which get regular cites on Fark which have similar funding issues from groups like the Tides Foundation or that Soros bastard, but we're supposed to pretend they're fair...

So you're making the argument that this source isn't biased by pointing out that it is biased?

It's an interesting gambit, I'll give you that.

being called the most balanced cable news station is a lot like being called the tallest midget.

The point of news is not to be "balanced" by giving equal time to two sides. The point of news is to find the truth.

Attached to every story, crappy reporters always attach the "...but some allege that everything I just reported is a lie..." without regard for truth. This is not being balanced, it's being lazy.

Well, let's think about it...

The Republican candidates are attacking each other, and as they go, Fox News goes.

And they're automatically going to attack the Democratic and 3rd Party candidates.

In other words, they're attacking everybody.

So yeah, I suppose that IS fair in a very dark, twisted sort of way.

Did they ever consider in their comparison of positive vs. negative comments on the candidates that just maybe all the candidates are terrible and deserve the negative comments?

HitInTheJunk
Attached to every story, crappy reporters always attach the "...but some allege that everything I just reported is a lie..." without regard for truth. This is not being balanced, it's being lazy.

You know, I love how so many people say 'don't tell me how to do my job,' then turn around and feel that they know how to do journalism.

Hey, farkhead, you know what? Reporters do that because if they didn't, jerks like you would whine and complain that "OMG!!11! Your not bein' fair! Yous ain't given the (conservative/liberal/libertarian/insert some other insane group's opinion here) side! Yur so biased"

STFU and GBTW, and don't tell reporters how to do their job.

Mastervader: HitInTheJunk
Attached to every story, crappy reporters always attach the "...but some allege that everything I just reported is a lie..." without regard for truth. This is not being balanced, it's being lazy.

You know, I love how so many people say 'don't tell me how to do my job,' then turn around and feel that they know how to do journalism.

Hey, farkhead, you know what? Reporters do that because if they didn't, jerks like you would whine and complain that "OMG!!11! Your not bein' fair! Yous ain't given the (conservative/liberal/libertarian/insert some other insane group's opinion here) side! Yur so biased"

STFU and GBTW, and don't tell reporters how to do their job.

It is being lazy. If you don't want people to think you are lying back up your report with facts or you are just a dumbass hack. Nobody just reports facts anymore.

HansensDisease: No need to discredit something that's already been exposed^.

Nice try at preemptive disinformation, though.

Look, you can do that to your source as well. (new window) This is fun!

LMAOROFL you just keep thinking that