If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Today's episode of "No Sh*t, Sherlock": Fox News and MSNBC may have been biased You submitted this with a Ric Romero headline   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 58
    More: Obvious, Project for Excellence in Journalism  
•       •       •

961 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2012 at 8:54 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 08:49:43 AM  
Hey, at least my headline had proper punctuation between sentences.
 
2012-11-21 08:56:08 AM  
CNN's just upset that their absolutely-desperate-for-any-attention-whatsoever bias hasn't been accepted by the general viewing public.
 
2012-11-21 08:57:08 AM  
You submitted this with punctuation.
 
2012-11-21 08:58:58 AM  
Shepherd Smith and Rachel Maddow are the only two people worth watching on those networks.

/Chris Wallace infrequently
 
2012-11-21 08:59:58 AM  
In before Both Stations Are Bad, So Watch Fox®
 
2012-11-21 09:01:11 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-21 09:01:19 AM  
MSNBC is totally not biased because they have that old republican guy on in the morning. Therefore it can't be a liberal station. It's the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" excuse.
 
2012-11-21 09:01:31 AM  
CNN is biased too, towards sensationalism and a false "fair center" and they wonder why nobody watches them anymore.

Conservatives think any news where the anchors aren't lighting each others hairs on fire with derp is liberal and so only watch FOX, and everyone else who wanted real news sees the false attempts at finding a middle ground for "fairness" on CNN and decide they might as well watch the liberal leaning shows which in reality are closer to the actual "center"
 
2012-11-21 09:02:06 AM  
The study indicates Fox News' negative coverage of Obama grew from 47% in the first four weeks of October to 56% in the final week

Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...
 
2012-11-21 09:02:12 AM  
I must say, I do appreciate FoxNews for allowing us the entertainment of watching Karl Rove lose his shiat on election night.
 
2012-11-21 09:05:10 AM  
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-21 09:05:52 AM  

WTF Indeed: MSNBC is totally not biased because they have that old republican guy on in the morning. Therefore it can't be a liberal station. It's the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" excuse.


www.csmonitor.com
Black Colmes agrees.
 
2012-11-21 09:08:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I must say, I do appreciate FoxNews for allowing us the entertainment of watching Karl Rove lose his shiat on election night.


That really was a nice election night gift. Thanks, Roger.

What's really nice is that they're keeping power to the derp shields at max, so further confusion and meltdowns are almost guaranteed.
 
2012-11-21 09:08:49 AM  

Headso: The study indicates Fox News' negative coverage of Obama grew from 47% in the first four weeks of October to 56% in the final week

Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...


That's a damn good point. 44% of Fox's Obama stories positive? Pretty hard to believe.
 
2012-11-21 09:10:52 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I must say, I do appreciate FoxNews for allowing us the entertainment of watching Karl Rove lose his shiat on election night.


Turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back oonnnnnnn!
 
2012-11-21 09:14:35 AM  

EyeballKid: WTF Indeed: MSNBC is totally not biased because they have that old republican guy on in the morning. Therefore it can't be a liberal station. It's the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" excuse.

[www.csmonitor.com image 600x400]
Black Colmes agrees.


Hey, he's not just the Black Colmes; he's the Hispanic one too.
 
2012-11-21 09:16:05 AM  

Headso: Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...


By Fox standards, if they refer to him as "The President" instead of "The Kenyan Usurper and also ten Hitlers," then it's positive.
 
2012-11-21 09:18:13 AM  
I just found MSNBC!

I've beem meaning to watch them, but I was too lazy to find them.

Channel 128? wtf? Conservative conspiracy!
 
2012-11-21 09:18:48 AM  
Big difference between FOX and MSNBC...

When Obama botched the first presidential debate, MSNBC conceded to it. They didn't spin it. They didn't make excuses for it. They were, right along with the rest of us libs, wondering if Obama was just tripping balls, or if he jerked off beforehand or whatever. They may be biased, but not beyond the point of distorting an observable reality.

FOX News, on the other hand, will shamelessly spin easily verifiable facts. Biden handed Paul Ryan his ass, and the narrative was that Biden was too mean, possibly senile, and the moderator was in the tank for Obama.
 
2012-11-21 09:22:00 AM  

basham: Headso: The study indicates Fox News' negative coverage of Obama grew from 47% in the first four weeks of October to 56% in the final week

Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...

That's a damn good point. 44% of Fox's Obama stories positive? Pretty hard to believe.


And what constitutes negative coverage? Does it include simply reporting the things that came out of Romney's face during the campaign? Is reporting factually on the 47% comments given equal weight as lunatic birther sh*t on Fox?
 
2012-11-21 09:25:23 AM  
In before "the only reason why this is really a problem in either case is because of the widespread fear that human beings can do nothing more than blindly believe and act on everything they are told by a nationally syndicated news network."

Way before.
 
2012-11-21 09:25:50 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Headso: Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...

By Fox standards, if they refer to him as "The President" instead of "The Kenyan Usurper and also ten Hitlers," then it's positive.


My local affiliate ALWAYS refers to him as 'Mr. Obama', NEVER 'President Obama'.
 
2012-11-21 09:26:32 AM  

Zerochance: FOX News, on the other hand, will shamelessly spin easily verifiable facts. Biden handed Paul Ryan his ass, and the narrative was that Biden was too mean, possibly senile, and the moderator was in the tank for Obama.


Most telling for me was the FOX producer that came out and said something along the lines of "We know it's bullshiat. But fact-checking is bad for ratings."

That should be FOX's tagline. How anyone can watch that channel, when they freely admit to bullshiatting them, is beyond me.
 
2012-11-21 09:28:05 AM  
not a fan of any of the 24/7 news/entertainment channels.

CNN - pure crap

MSNBC - crap with liberal commentary

FOX - straight up GOP propaganda all day long/ Fake Obama scandal generator.
 
2012-11-21 09:28:23 AM  
There is no such thing as unbiased media. People have a problem with how Fox blatantly lies and intentionally misinforms viewers. And let's face it, at times Fox borders on being right wing propaganda
 
2012-11-21 09:28:26 AM  

MFAWG: Fluorescent Testicle: Headso: Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...

By Fox standards, if they refer to him as "The President" instead of "The Kenyan Usurper and also ten Hitlers," then it's positive.

My local affiliate ALWAYS refers to him as 'Mr. Obama', NEVER 'President Obama'.


Did they call Mitt "Governor Romney"?
 
2012-11-21 09:30:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I must say, I do appreciate FoxNews for allowing us the entertainment of watching Karl Rove lose his shiat on election night.


Would have been better had he gone all Budd Dwyer on the air.
 
2012-11-21 09:31:27 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MFAWG: Fluorescent Testicle: Headso: Does someone know what that stat means? are they saying that 44% of the stories were actually positive/neutral? I never saw a story that wasn't negative on there about Obama, maybe if you weighted all the copy on the website like it had the same prominence I guess you could find some stories buried about him doing mundane things and call them neutral...

By Fox standards, if they refer to him as "The President" instead of "The Kenyan Usurper and also ten Hitlers," then it's positive.

My local affiliate ALWAYS refers to him as 'Mr. Obama', NEVER 'President Obama'.

Did they call Mitt "Governor Romney"?


Yup, and Gingrich was usually 'Former Speaker'.
 
2012-11-21 09:32:44 AM  
All the news channels are terrible.

They don't make money by providing news. They make money by providing an audience for advertisers.

That simple fact will inevitably drive them towards bias, sensationalism, and infotainment.

Do not watch this shiat. Fox is the worst, but shiat is shiat and MSNBC and CNN still qualify.
 
2012-11-21 09:33:17 AM  

MFAWG: My local affiliate ALWAYS refers to him as 'Mr. Obama', NEVER 'President Obama'.



The 'standard' way -- i.e. the way I heard NPR explain it once, after lots of listeners asked why they kept saying "Mr. Bush" -- is the title or honorific is mentioned just the first time. After that it's either Mister/Mrs./Miss or simply the surname for the rest of the piece.
 
2012-11-21 09:34:23 AM  
Wow, MSNBC is biased? The hell you say!

"The place for politics" != "Fair and Balanced"
 
2012-11-21 09:34:42 AM  
Fox News' motto is "Fair and Balanced." MSNBC's is "Excelsior!" or "Onward, Comrades" or some such thing. MSNBC makes no pretence of being anything else but a liberal propaganda outlet. Fox pretends to be unbiased, then delivers a totally biased message. I think there's a big difference between being a propaganda outlet which owns up to being a propaganda outlet and one that delivers propaganda while pretending to be "fair and balanced."

I watch CNN when I want to see the news. I watch MSNBC when I want the liberal slant on things. I watch Fox News when I've eaten bad fish and need to induce vomiting.
 
2012-11-21 09:39:32 AM  
MSNBC also had zero positive news stories about Jerry Sandusky after the conviction. Not saying they aren't bias but not positive/negative litmus tests on every issue is not a good litmus test.

The litmus test should be regarding errors/untruths reported (deliberately or accidentally). If the errors predominately favour one side over the other, that is a much more accurate measure of bias.
 
2012-11-21 09:41:55 AM  
www.adweek.com
Dropped from MSNBC for being too liberal, so he's probably getting a kick out of this.
 
2012-11-21 09:47:31 AM  
Cancel cable, never complain about it again.
 
2012-11-21 09:49:46 AM  

Serious Black: Shepherd Smith and Rachel Maddow are the only two people worth watching on those networks.

/Chris Wallace infrequently


Thisity this this this.

WTF Indeed: MSNBC is totally not biased because they have that old republican guy on in the morning. Therefore it can't be a liberal station. It's the "I can't be racist because I have a black friend!" excuse.


(1) I'm pretty sure Scarborough got called a RINO at somepoint over the last 4 years.
(2) He hosts a damn 3 hour morning show. Juan Williams is a "contributor" who, to the best of my knowledge, appears maybe once a day for 15 minutes.

So you're right and wrong at the same damn time somehow...
 
2012-11-21 09:56:20 AM  
in terms of bias, comparing msnbc to fox is like comparing a grain of sand to the sahara farking desert.

sure, msnbc has a few liberal pundits on in the evening, but its reportage is pretty down-the-middle. fox, on the other hand makes no difference between news and opinion. it has one goal and one goal only: to propagate the message of the GOP.
 
2012-11-21 09:58:29 AM  
I'm sure there was a lot of negative coverage of Hitler at one time.
Doesn't mean it was biased.
 
2012-11-21 09:59:38 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I'm sure there was a lot of negative coverage of Hitler at one time.
Doesn't mean it was biased.


But, it was the very first time a right-winger used the term "liberal biased" when they meant "Jew-run." Oh, but it was far from the last...
 
2012-11-21 10:03:44 AM  

EyeballKid: But, it was the very first time a right-winger used the term "liberal biased" when they meant "Jew-run." Oh, but it was far from the last...


It doesn't mean "Jew-run" anymore. Now, it means "Ni-*bong*-run."
 
2012-11-21 10:04:38 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: EyeballKid: But, it was the very first time a right-winger used the term "liberal biased" when they meant "Jew-run." Oh, but it was far from the last...

It doesn't mean "Jew-run" anymore. Now, it means "Ni-*bong*-run."


honestreporting.com
 
2012-11-21 10:05:31 AM  

clambam: MSNBC makes no pretence of being anything else but a liberal propaganda outlet.



In my opinion "propaganda" isn't the best word. While they obviously have a liberal point of view, have plenty of Democratic Party politicians and party officials' numbers in their rolodexes, and are almost always friendly to Democratic candidates, they're not the Democratic Party's 'house organ' in the same way that FNC is for the GOP.

For Rachel Maddow's show in particular -- the only MSNBC show I watch on a regular basis -- I think a better comparison would be to what the Rush Limbaugh program used to be in the early days of national syndication, before his sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom during the 1992 campaign. She's sort of a point-of-view tugboat. She speaks about her favorite issues in a compelling manner and hopes to pull the public debate her way (all the while realizing that the debate is kind of a vector sum) rather than taking her cues from party apparatchiks and what they've decided is going to be the talking point du jour.
 
2012-11-21 10:58:43 AM  

mrshowrules: MSNBC also had zero positive news stories about Jerry Sandusky after the conviction. Not saying they aren't biasED but not positive/negative litmus tests on every issue is not a good litmus test.

The litmus test should be regarding errors/untruths reported (deliberately or accidentally). If the errors predominately favour one side over the other, that is a much more accurate measure of bias.

 

Grrrr.
 
2012-11-21 11:00:35 AM  

Lochsteppe: mrshowrules: MSNBC also had zero positive news stories about Jerry Sandusky after the conviction. Not saying they aren't biasED but not positive/negative litmus tests on every issue is not a good litmus test.

The litmus test should be regarding errors/untruths reported (deliberately or accidentally). If the errors predominately favour one side over the other, that is a much more accurate measure of bias. 

Grrrr.


If that was the only error you saw, you weren't looking hard enough. It was horribly written.
 
2012-11-21 11:04:29 AM  

mrshowrules: Lochsteppe: mrshowrules: MSNBC also had zero positive news stories about Jerry Sandusky after the conviction. Not saying they aren't biasED but not positive/negative litmus tests on every issue is not a good litmus test.

The litmus test should be regarding errors/untruths reported (deliberately or accidentally). If the errors predominately favour one side over the other, that is a much more accurate measure of bias. 

Grrrr.

If that was the only error you saw, you weren't looking hard enough. It was horribly written.


That was the only part that triggered my post-grammatic stress disorder.
 
2012-11-21 11:32:51 AM  
True media biases:

MSNBC - slightly left
NPR - "boring" slider jacked way way up
CNN - bow to our corporate overlords
Fox - WHARRGARBL
 
2012-11-21 12:26:15 PM  
My husband was kind of on the fence re: Fox vs. MSNBC--thought they were equally biased and just refused to watch either. Then he watched the election coverage on Fox because he likes Lou Dobbs (to be fair, he hasn't watched Dobbs in years and had no clue Dobbs was a Birther and a xenophobe). He likens his experience of watching Fox that night to George C. Scott watching his daughter in Hardcore.

But at least he got to see Rove's meltdown live and says that was worth it.

/Gave up on American Media during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.
//I get all my news from BBC, NPR, and here
///Listened to election run-up & coverage on BBC. You would swear they were reporting from a completely different reality than our "news" agencies.
 
2012-11-21 12:48:06 PM  
.
 
2012-11-21 01:32:59 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Now, it means "Ni-*bong*-run."


www.i-mockery.com
 
2012-11-21 01:34:21 PM  

DemonEater: MSNBC - slightly left
NPR - "boring" slider jacked way way up Smooth and Smarmy.
CNN - bow to our corporate overlords
Fox - WHARRGARBL


FIFTY

hi-BALL!
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report