I am just shocked that conservative organizations want people to think their network of tools is balanced. How can ANYONE watch Bill O'Reily and then think, "This is fair and balanced coverage?" Faux News is nothing except a voice for the Repub party.

I imagine there was quite the epic battle between the Follow-Up tag and the Obvious tag.
The sea was angry that day my friends...

bitteroldman: I imagine there was quite the epic battle between the Follow-Up tag and the Obvious tag.
The sea was angry that day my friends...

I came here to say this. Personally, I think the Obvious tag should have had the edge, but that's just me.

I'm just glad I we have the wall street journal.

I have no problem with Fox being such a decidedly conservative news channel. After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets. But who are they fooling with that "fair and balanced" schtick? Besides their viewers, I mean.

Gee, the constant stream of "conservatives" screaming about how fair Fox is almost had me fooled.

alexanderplatz: I have no problem with Fox being such a decidedly conservative news channel. After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets. But who are they fooling with that "fair and balanced" schtick? Besides their viewers, I mean.

I agree.

One of the ways to fool Fox viewers: Got yer nose.
Another favorite: Look, a coin in your ear.

goletaal: I came here to say this. Personally, I think the Obvious tag should have had the edge, but that's just me.

Too bad we don't have a facepalm tag

bitteroldman: The sea was angry that day my friends...




Well played.

alexanderplatz: I have no problem with Fox being such a decidedly conservative news channel. After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets. But who are they fooling with that "fair and balanced" schtick? Besides their viewers, I mean.

Their viewers are the only ones that need fooling. Everyone else pretty much gets it.

This just in from the beef industry: Beef is delicious, nutritious, and will double your wang size overnight!

So it's basically the conservative version of the liberal "Pew Research Center for People and the Press," and its conclusions are just as reliable. Wow, color me shocked.

well, i'm sure conservatives will be in here to apologize for all the disparaging they did of other non-news sources now that they have more information on the subject. And of course now that they have this information in hand, they will make a better informed decision.

Mordant: Gee, the constant stream of "conservatives" screaming about how fair Fox is almost had me fooled.

Yeah, cue the:



as they denounce this denouncement.

it's not awkward. anyone who is stupid enough to watch fox isn't going to give two shiats about this

alexanderplatz: I have no problem with Fox being such a decidedly conservative news channel. After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets.

Really? Can you name any? I've never seen one.

helchose: I have no problem with Fox being such a decidedly conservative news channel. After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets.

Well, compared to Fox, everyone else is more liberal. If they are actually liberal news outlets, or just more liberal, thats up for debate.

Alphax: Really? Can you name any? I've never seen one.

Jew York Times, Clinton News Network, Communist Broadcasting Service. Do you see what I did there?

They have lots of 5th grade names for them. Just google "drive-by media." You'll actually be able to feel your brain cells dying as you read some of that crap.

wtf does liberal even mean? looking at change to make the lives of the citizenry better? well then none of the MSM (!!111) is very liberal. they're big businesses that are making quite a lot of money under the current system, thank you very much.

granted i don't watch that much, but i haven't seen any op-eds in the NYT (large corporation) or Washington Post (large corporation) calling for revolution or even major changes in our system of goernment. I haven't seen MSNBC (large corporation) or CNN (large corporation) advocating for massive wealth redistribution or the nationalization of business.

so what, exactly, does "liberal" mean? that they don't openly hate the gays or call for theocracy on-air?

MasterThief: So it's basically the conservative version of the liberal "Pew Research Center for People and the Press," and its conclusions are just as reliable. Wow, color me shocked.

Rote conservative response #3: They ALL do it!*

*any perceived evidence of bias is evidence of equal bias. Outright misrepresentation of facts is the same as bias. Therefore all sources of information are equally as unreliable, so I shall continue to believe what I am predisposed to believe.

last_ditch: so what, exactly, does "liberal" mean? that they don't openly hate the gays or call for theocracy on-air?

When your only viewpoint is thinly veiled fascism, everything else tends to look like Marxism.

MasterThief: So it's basically the conservative version of the liberal "Pew Research Center for People and the Press," and its conclusions are just as reliable. Wow, color me shocked.

So when you see a study by a Fox News analyst that thinks Fox News is peachy-keen, no red flags get raised?

What a shock.

The problem with news today isn't bias. It's this idea that we have to present events in an easy-to-swallow dose. People can't form educated opinions from the BS our news organizations pump out.

It would be better if they openly admitted their bias and sought to prove their interpretations of events with hard data. You can argue the truth, falsehood, or interpretation of hard data; you can't say that a news organization is wrongfully biased for focusing on one story or one aspect of a story as opposed to another. That's just the way media works. If we spent every second giving everyone's opinion on an event that affected thousands if not millions, we'd cover one story per year.

Whenever I turn on Fox News, it's not even the conservatism that stands out. It's the "Hard Copy"/"Entertainment Tonight" sensationalist style of presentation that just screams at me. Then when you watch all the conservative rhetoric, it makes sense.

Private foundation financial reports show that CMPA initially relied heavily on funding from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations. Since the early 1990s, however, its funding base has diversified to include more liberal foundations such as the Ford Foundation, Pew Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Kaiser Family Foundation.

...yet we have another flame Fox thread.

You distort, I deride.

21-7-b: it's not awkward. anyone who is stupid enough to watch fox favor one TV news network and not get information anywhere else isn't going to give two shiats about this

fixed

I'm a liberal. I would happily waterboard Roger Ailes. But I find the criticism about the funding pretty weak.

I think Media Matters gets it mostly right, but I have no doubt there funding is mostly from liberals (though not from Soros.) So why should liberals be okay with Media Matters and yet complain about this other organization?

If you want to criticize them, it should be for something other than funding issues alone.

It's always good to know who's funding the study, but it's more important to examine the methodology for bias.

Why does the White House need a press secretary when they have Faux News?

/really ... anyone shocked?
//didn't think so

They're cutting Paul out of the next debate. Back to your regularly scheduled neoconnory.

Linky (new window)

RoyBatty: I'm a liberal. I would happily waterboard Roger Ailes. But I find the criticism about the funding pretty weak.

I think Media Matters gets it mostly right, but I have no doubt there funding is mostly from liberals (though not from Soros.) So why should liberals be okay with Media Matters and yet complain about this other organization?

If you want to criticize them, it should be for something other than funding issues alone.

Media Matters clearly states what it is. From the site:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

It does not purport to be a "fair and balanced" news program. You are comparing apples to oranges.

USP .45

it's not awkward. anyone who is stupid enough to watch one TV news network and not get information anywhere else isn't going to give two shiats about this

fixed

i hope you don't mind if i re-post the original, and correct, version:

it's not awkward. anyone who is stupid enough to watch fox isn't going to give two shiats about this

your rather pathetic attempt to "fix" my post, unfortunately, missed the point.

alexanderplatz: After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets.

Yeah, and none are major outlets, not by a farking stretch. Not a single one.

/modern media = corporatist conglomerations
//you'd probably crap yourself all the way to bed if the news suddenly turned liberal
/summon mediaho *wiggles fingers*

Tor_Eckman, I am not comparing Media Matters to Fox, I am comparing Media Matters to the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University who performed the study.

A study released this month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University found that Fox News Channel's evening coverage was more "balanced" than that of the broadcast networks. However, the objectivity of the CMPA, which bills itself as a nonpartisan media watchdog group, is questionable, as the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch found that "nearly all its funding comes from conservative foundations."

Fox News Channel's coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. 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% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative - 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

How does the fact that conservatives paid for the study change the findings?

Are we assuming that the numbers are just made up? the study was conducted by a university.

Is there a political motive behind why someone would want to get these numbers out? Sure there is, but that does not change the numbers.

The study is also only about presidential candidates, editorial like Bill Oreilly would not be factored in unless it was specifically dealing with a candidate.

Fox obviously has biases, as do all the news channels. Anyone with half a brain can see through the bs and get the truth. Fox is the one conservative network out there and have a corner on that market, but this study just shows that the SHSHSoooMMMggggggg FFFAAUUUXX NNNEEEWWZZ crowd doesn't have it quite right.

thisisntnamtherearerules: How does the fact that conservatives paid for the study change the findings?

How does the fact that an Obama, Edwards, or Clinton supporter asked a question at the CNN YouTube debate change the fact that it was a valid question?

alexanderplatz: I have no problem with Fox being such a decidedly conservative news channel. After all, there are many, many liberal news outlets. But who are they fooling with that "fair and balanced" schtick? Besides their viewers, I mean.

We should. When news channels are giving their views as 'fact' and appealing to people who don't know better, then you create an uneducated and uninformed populace of people who start voting against their interests and start raising children who believe this crap. And the last thing we need in this world is more idiots to ruin it for everybody who lives in reality to be condescended to by a bunch of tinfoil hat fans who take pride in being fooled by anything with a whiff of paranoid martyrdom about it.

GAT_00: How can ANYONE watch Bill O'Reily and then think, "This is fair and balanced coverage?"

Bill O'Reilly doesn't have a news show on Fox. He has a show where he gives his opinions about subjects in the news. It's no more a news show than "The View" is a news show or "Oprah" is a news show. It's just an opinion show. You do recognize the difference between news and opinion don't you?

last_ditch: I haven't seen MSNBC (large corporation) or CNN (large corporation) advocating for massive wealth redistribution or the nationalization of business.

You haven't seen anyone calling for the nationalization of the nation's health care? Where have you been?

When they have to drill into you fair and balanced fair and balanced fair and balanced.. they're just farking not. If you don't know that yet you're a very "special" person indeed.

because it takes a non-partisan fair and balanced organization like huffpo. Once again though, never let facts get in the way of a democrat.

Fark Apologizing : Fox is to conservatives what basically the rest of the print and mainstream media sans Talk Radio [ which no one hears that doesn't want to ] is to he left.

Big Farking deal just because Fox is kicking every ones Arse and they don't like to hear any views different from their own.
You lefty's forget you are really a minority and with the internet your media no longer has a monopoly on the information age.

SUC IT LIBS !

I think its called freedom of speech and that doesn't mean it has to agree with leftist/ Stalinist / socialist views.

Nope I don't totally agree with any particular side but I can't be convensed socialism works cause after untold billions poverty is worse in this nanny state we have become.

Of course I'd much rather live here in poverty than elsewhere but if we just handed out the money spent to keep everyone in poverty there would not be any poverty.
Poverty is big business while we have to import illegals to work ! Go Figure !

Thats basically where we are at.

NewportBarGuy: bitteroldman: The sea was angry that day my friends...
Well played.

Is that a Titleist?

VonFlapjack Yeah, and none are major outlets, not by a farking stretch. Not a single one.

That may be true but the fact remains that a network has a right to have its own slant. Fox news is big because they have a lot of viewers. I wish they didn't, but that's how it is. The point is that Fox has a right to be slanted, and whining about it doesn't accomplish much. National Public Radio, which I support financially in my own modest way, is very much a liberal media outlet. They are not completely "objective." Sometimes they present a story with a lot of slant and bias and at times I find it quite objectionable. But their positive attributes outweigh their faults and so I support them, but they're not the only source of news for me.

Alien Robot
GAT_00: How can ANYONE watch Bill O'Reily and then think, "This is fair and balanced coverage?"

Bill O'Reilly doesn't have a news show on Fox. He has a show where he gives his opinions about subjects in the news. It's no more a news show than "The View" is a news show or "Oprah" is a news show. It's just an opinion show. You do recognize the difference between news and opinion don't you?

You realise that many 24 hour news channels are actually opinion channels that add in news to try to give their opinions more weight, right?

It's sad how the left thinks left of center like the huffington post is a non-partisan view and those that actually are split in the center are extreme partisans.

Desterion: Does Fox News have a journalistic bias towards American right-wing politics?

mrexcess: Desterion: Does Fox News have a journalistic bias towards American right-wing politics?

No, they just report the ABSOLUTE 100 PERCENT UNBIASED TRUTH.

Which is that liberals are poopyheads.

I'll take "Left wing news source denouncing a right wing news source" for 100 Alex.

The Answer Is: "Liberals and conservatives will scramble to denounce any source that tells them something they don't want to hear is as predictable as this daily event."

Contestant: "What is a sun rise."

Alex: "That is correct."