Study: Fox Is the Most Fair and Balanced Thus Far in Prez Campaign

[HAL 9000 96]

pretty much why i don't pay any attention to npr, gary.

Yeah more of this...

[GaryC 7]

" I mean really, you can't see the left slant in the news from everyone but Fox? "

Left slants and liberalism, such a dirty concept, no?... brought to you by Gary or was it Fox?

Like I said, what I see on any major media co is the same BS. Take it as you will my friend.

Leaning right and conservatism, such a dirty concept, no? Brought to you by Maviwaro or was that CNN?

You see you dumb that sounds?

[Cassie 8]

I don't watch any of them anymore. I got fed up pretty quickly when I first moved here when all I got was fluff and no real news. Too many talking heads, "experts", and incessant reporting on non-news items (I find it disgusting that Britney freaking train wreck Spears gets more air time and attention -- I swear, put the world's paparazzi on finding Bin Laden to get a recent pic, and they'd find him in a week!).

I don't hate Fox News, Gary, I just find it amusing that they (and supporters such as yourself) constantly have to trumpet how fair and unbiased they are, it's almost like "if I say it often enough, I'll eventually believe it".

(And if you slap a "liberal" label on me for that comment, I'll be severely ticked off)

[Ban Hammer 14,636]

pretty much why i don't pay any attention to npr, gary.

Yeah more of this...

you said it, not me

[GaryC 7]

pretty much why i don't pay any attention to npr, gary.

The shame is that our tax money supports it.

[Ban Hammer 14,636]

I don't watch any of them anymore. I got fed up pretty quickly when I first moved here when all I got was fluff and no real news. Too many talking heads, "experts", and incessant reporting on non-news items (I find it disgusting that Britney freaking train wreck Spears gets more air time and attention -- I swear, put the world's paparazzi on finding Bin Laden to get a recent pic, and they'd find him in a week!).

I don't hate Fox News, Gary, I just find it amusing that they (and supporters such as yourself) constantly have to trumpet how fair and unbiased they are, it's almost like "if I say it often enough, I'll eventually believe it".

(And if you slap a "liberal" label on me for that comment, I'll be severely ticked off)

*runs*

pretty much why i don't pay any attention to npr, gary.

The shame is that our tax money supports it.

i agree.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well every media outlet is subject to criticism - that's part of their oversight process.

One thing I will say about NPR is that they cover stories that get no exposure on any of the corporate networks.

On "quality" this is quite interesting. A survey from 2003 found that people's beliefs people's beliefs in certain misperceptions of the Iraq war varied quite significantly according to their primary source of news.

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

Guess what it says about the corporate networks...

[GaryC 7]

I don't watch any of them anymore. I got fed up pretty quickly when I first moved here when all I got was fluff and no real news. Too many talking heads, "experts", and incessant reporting on non-news items (I find it disgusting that Britney freaking train wreck Spears gets more air time and attention -- I swear, put the world's paparazzi on finding Bin Laden to get a recent pic, and they'd find him in a week!).

I don't hate Fox News, Gary, I just find it amusing that they (and supporters such as yourself) constantly have to trumpet how fair and unbiased they are, it's almost like "if I say it often enough, I'll eventually believe it".

(And if you slap a "liberal" label on me for that comment, I'll be severely ticked off)

You got me all wrong Cassie. I don't trumpet how fair and unbiased they are. They do indeed lean right and that is why some here don't like it. I just want them to admit that the rest leans left (which they most assuredly do). They just present a side that the others are not. It doesn't make them any more right or wrong but it does tend to show a side that gets little play on the air. They are a foil to the ones that lean left and IMHO do a better job of presenting the whole picture.

[HAL 9000 96]

" I mean really, you can't see the left slant in the news from everyone but Fox? "

Left slants and liberalism, such a dirty concept, no?... brought to you by Gary or was it Fox?

Like I said, what I see on any major media co is the same BS. Take it as you will my friend.

Leaning right and conservatism, such a dirty concept, no? Brought to you by Maviwaro or was that CNN?

You see you dumb that sounds?

I dunno Gary, maybe that's why I am not blaming one network over the other for being particularly fair or balanced.

But for what its worth, news networks aside treating the issues as chess pieces, they all peddle to the same idiocy that has this country divided along lines of money and power.

Perhaps what we should be doing is actually trying to solve problems, not label them incorrectly. That, unfortunately, isn't very newsworthy when the issues need to be balanced according to one particular line of thought.

And that's when the ideology becomes very interesting to rationalize.

[GaryC 7]

Well every media outlet is subject to criticism - that's part of their oversight process.

One thing I will say about NPR is that they cover stories that get no exposure on any of the corporate networks.

On "quality" this is quite interesting. A survey from 2003 found that people's beliefs people's beliefs in certain misperceptions of the Iraq war varied quite significantly according to their primary source of news.

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

Guess what it says about the corporate networks...

And then there is this angle on that subject.

Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success

Five years ago this week, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the "peace" movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic "middle class" demonstrators.

■ Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy's unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC's Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of "cluster bombs" against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.

■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam's victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine "massacre" at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America's highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.

■ Mostly Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion's share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined.

■ Little Time for Good News. The last six months have seen a massive reduction in insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties. But the three broadcast evening newscasts have shown little interest in the good news, with coverage dropping every month since September. (See chart.)

A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks' performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious. - Rich Noyes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/...fax20080317.asp

Edited March 17, 2008 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't watch any of them anymore. I got fed up pretty quickly when I first moved here when all I got was fluff and no real news. Too many talking heads, "experts", and incessant reporting on non-news items (I find it disgusting that Britney freaking train wreck Spears gets more air time and attention -- I swear, put the world's paparazzi on finding Bin Laden to get a recent pic, and they'd find him in a week!).

I don't hate Fox News, Gary, I just find it amusing that they (and supporters such as yourself) constantly have to trumpet how fair and unbiased they are, it's almost like "if I say it often enough, I'll eventually believe it".

(And if you slap a "liberal" label on me for that comment, I'll be severely ticked off)

Nah, let a liberal do that for you for kicks.

pretty much why i don't pay any attention to npr, gary.

Yeah more of this...

you said it, not me

Oh the sarcasm

[Cassie 8]

I don't watch any of them anymore. I got fed up pretty quickly when I first moved here when all I got was fluff and no real news. Too many talking heads, "experts", and incessant reporting on non-news items (I find it disgusting that Britney freaking train wreck Spears gets more air time and attention -- I swear, put the world's paparazzi on finding Bin Laden to get a recent pic, and they'd find him in a week!).

I don't hate Fox News, Gary, I just find it amusing that they (and supporters such as yourself) constantly have to trumpet how fair and unbiased they are, it's almost like "if I say it often enough, I'll eventually believe it".

(And if you slap a "liberal" label on me for that comment, I'll be severely ticked off)

You got me all wrong Cassie. I don't trumpet how fair and unbiased they are. They do indeed lean right and that is why some here don't like it. I just want them to admit that the rest leans left (which they most assuredly do). They just present a side that the others are not. It doesn't make them any more right or wrong but it does tend to show a side that gets little play on the air. They are a foil to the ones that lean left and IMHO do a better job of presenting the whole picture.

A quarter of the posts up to this point have already made the point that all the freaking news networks are biased one way or another! What more do you want?

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure... kill enough Iraqis and they're bound to just not be able to fight back. That's the point of attrition and the some parts of the journalistic community has discovered that the economy and the imminent elections beauty pageant are more interesting to them to cover since, low and behold, they actually do have quite an interesting connection to the war.

I don't watch any of them anymore. I got fed up pretty quickly when I first moved here when all I got was fluff and no real news. Too many talking heads, "experts", and incessant reporting on non-news items (I find it disgusting that Britney freaking train wreck Spears gets more air time and attention -- I swear, put the world's paparazzi on finding Bin Laden to get a recent pic, and they'd find him in a week!).

I don't hate Fox News, Gary, I just find it amusing that they (and supporters such as yourself) constantly have to trumpet how fair and unbiased they are, it's almost like "if I say it often enough, I'll eventually believe it".

(And if you slap a "liberal" label on me for that comment, I'll be severely ticked off)

You got me all wrong Cassie. I don't trumpet how fair and unbiased they are. They do indeed lean right and that is why some here don't like it. I just want them to admit that the rest leans left (which they most assuredly do). They just present a side that the others are not. It doesn't make them any more right or wrong but it does tend to show a side that gets little play on the air. They are a foil to the ones that lean left and IMHO do a better job of presenting the whole picture.

A quarter of the posts up to this point have already made the point that all the freaking news networks are biased one way or another! What more do you want?

Maybe Karl Marx's works need to be discovered in Ted Turner's library for that to label him a Commie #######. Even though that in itself doesn't make him a liberal, does it?

[Niels Bohr 72]

I don't listen to any news. I listen to people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well every media outlet is subject to criticism - that's part of their oversight process.

One thing I will say about NPR is that they cover stories that get no exposure on any of the corporate networks.

On "quality" this is quite interesting. A survey from 2003 found that people's beliefs people's beliefs in certain misperceptions of the Iraq war varied quite significantly according to their primary source of news.

Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

Guess what it says about the corporate networks...

And then there is this angle on that subject.

Five Years of Slant Against Iraq War Success

Five years ago this week, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the "peace" movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic "middle class" demonstrators.

■ Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy's unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC's Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of "cluster bombs" against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.

■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam's victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine "massacre" at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America's highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.

■ Mostly Bad News. In 2005, Iraq was a mixed bag — historic democratic elections, but continued violence. But an MRC study showed the network coverage emphasized the bad news. Out of 1,712 evening news stories, the lion's share (848, or 61%) focused on U.S. casualties, bombings, kidnappings or political setbacks, compared to just 245 (14%) that reported positive developments. (The remainder were mixed or neutral.) An MRC study of cable news coverage in 2006 found that all three networks emphasized bad news, although the Fox News Channel aired nearly as many stories about coalition success in Iraq (81) as CNN (41) and MSNBC (47) combined.

■ Little Time for Good News. The last six months have seen a massive reduction in insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties. But the three broadcast evening newscasts have shown little interest in the good news, with coverage dropping every month since September. (See chart.)

A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks' performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious. - Rich Noyes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/...fax20080317.asp

That may be true - but that's not really the same. Regardless of bias - people who cited corporate network news as their primary source of information were significantly more likely to express belief in things that had no basis in fact.