Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[drankin]

I don't think a non-biased news source should be neither crital or supportive. They should just report the facts. Generally, the news presents the debate ocurring in reference to the healthcare plan...this includes statements for and against the plan. AFAIK, they all include both. It somewhat reduces the "newsworthiness" of the debate though when it turns into ridiculous positions such as "death panels" and the like, but still they are reporting on the debate that is happening both with the ledgislators and the public.

My main problem with all the American media is their "tabloidish" nature and their obsession with whatever the "story of the day" is...and they are all guilty of that.

We all know that FNC is a proponent of the right and attacks the left, while MSNBC is left and attacks the right. The rest I believe are fairly central. PBS and BBC, IMO, and the most unbiased sources that report actual news of importance instead of the crap the rest of them shovel on a daily basis.

And that's all fine. But people listen to what they want to listen to. And their media of preference may call it news. It's impossible to cover all sides to an issue. The bias of a particular media outlet might pick two of this sides and cover it as if it were ALL the sides. That's when everyone else gets pigeon-holed to a particular side that they aren't part of. There are those that do not want any reform, but there are more people who want reform, just not Obama's reform. I'd narrow it down to at least three sides to this issue.

Tabloids call their crap news too. All news outlets have a perspective (bias) whether intentional or not.

 

[Hepth]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But that's not what happened. Sure, everyone's always complained about the system, and a few people may have tried to do something about it in both directions, but always on a small scale compared to today. Small changes shouldn't be considered reform. But now, there is a HUGE push from one side for changing a system already in place. While the right may counter with, "well we wish it was much less regulated" that opinion and desire doesn't carry the same weight.

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure republicans/conservatives/fox watchers/ etc have, by now, associated themselves with the "anti-reform" title and view it, for the most part, as a good thing (and use it as such). Which is fine. In public if you ask a general population republican voter if he is anti-refrom he'll most likely say yes (this is a presumption though I think its pretty accurate). Because they view no-change as better than change in the wrong direction.

I'm sure they'd much rather have more deregulation as reform, but as it sits in the current state, less change is better. (in their opinion, not mine).

Semantics...

 

[Hepth]

As for foxnews.com, their current headliner is about "Despot Housewives" an inside look at "tyrannical leaders'" spouses while their husbands are at the UN summit.

CNN is about the summit.
BBC is about the summit.
MSNBC is about china and the summit.
nytimes is about the summit.

are ones i just looked at.

I don't mind foxnews's content their much when its on-topic, but more often than not is MORE about something that I barely consider newsworthy and more for ratings. But they're all, to an extent, culprits of that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But that's not what happened. Sure, everyone's always complained about the system, and a few people may have tried to do something about it in both directions, but always on a small scale compared to today. Small changes shouldn't be considered reform. But now, there is a HUGE push from one side for changing a system already in place. While the right may counter with, "well we wish it was much less regulated" that opinion and desire doesn't carry the same weight.

So because Obama came in and said he wanted this done ASAP and Obama happens to be a Dem then it is a Dem issue and the Reps working on healthcare plans along side their counterparts are probably best described as 'anti-reform' because Obama is not one of their's?

But it doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure republicans/conservatives/fox watchers/ etc have, by now, associated themselves with the "anti-reform" title and view it, for the most part, as a good thing (and use it as such). Which is fine. In public if you ask a general population republican voter if he is anti-refrom he'll most likely say yes (this is a presumption though I think its pretty accurate). Because they view no-change as better than change in the wrong direction.

I have not heard any conservatives take an 'anti-reform' stance personally. I have heard about plans being worked on by reps in congress and a desire for healthcare reform but without a public option. I have not heard anyone say they think things out to stay just the way they are.

 

[Proton Soup]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.
...
Semantics...

yes, semantics. because the debate really isn't about reform of the industry. the primary debate is over whether to provide universal health insurance coverage.

 

[Al68]

I honestly, at this point in time, see no problem with "anti-healthcare reform" being the republican stance. I understand your argument, but what is in debate right now is REFORM of the healthcare industry.

Yes, but the two sides are not pro-reform and anti-reform. Anti Obama Plan is not anti-reform.

Now if, at the same time as "Obama's Plan" or before, the republicans had been trying to ACTUALLY and PUBLICLY push through a plan of their own reforming healthcare to be much more free-market and MUCH less regulated, then YES, both would be reform and there would be a problem calling one anti-reform.

But that's not what happened.

Uh, where have you been? You don't think Republicans have pushed to deregulate for decades? I never thought I'd hear anyone actually make that claim.

But the media doesn't report such efforts as "reform", they are reported as "in an effort to please insurance companies...", etc.

Reform objectively means "to improve or change to a better state". Calling more regulation "reform" is taking the position that more regulation is "better" than less regulation. The media has consistently taken this obviously biased position on health care for years.

Why do so many people try to deny the obvious? Is media bias really that hard to detect when it's in your favor?

If the media consistently labeled Democrats' objections to deregulation as "anti-reform", would such bias be undetectable, too?

 

[burningbend]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

Clear Channel has liberal oriented stations. Liberals don't often listen to any news radio other than NPR though so just about any news radio you listen to is going to be conservative. If you switch over to the popular FM morning shows though you will find that they are predominantly liberal, and they predominantly discuss entertainment news.


These corporate owners are interested in making money. If that means liberal oriented programming then they do it.

Notice also that 11% is awefully small of a market share compared to most other media industry leaders.

 

[WhoWee]

They REAL DEBATE is about what to do about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When Obama talks about a health care crisis threatening the economy - this is what he's referring to - not who has health insurance.

He needs to raise money to pay for all of his spending.

He HAS to raise taxes across the board (not just on the "rich") and needs passionate public support.

If he can channel ALL of the insurance premiums through the Government and pay for individual health insurance (at a 20% discount - greatly reduced agent commissions - similar to Medicare Advantage) at a "super group" rate, force everyone to participate and tax the "Cadillac" plans - he will raise a lot of cash for the Government.

It's a big game and Fox is the only ones even close to focusing on the real story.

 

[seycyrus]

...
I don't mind foxnews's content their much when its on-topic, but more often than not is MORE about something that I barely consider newsworthy and more for ratings. But they're all, to an extent, culprits of that.

I could throw down a similar analysis regarding other websites having fluff while fox had the "nity-gritty". One has to consider the dynamic evolution of the site. Fox might have had their serious content up for over an hour and then switched it over, while the others were just beginning to cover the story.

This brings back a recent phone conversation between myself and an a liberal friend. We were shouting at each other about the content of fox v. cnn websites ("No dummy, above THAT picture to the right...) reading the headlines out loud to each other...

After a few moments, it became clear we weren't looking at the same front pages. Are the sites different in different regions? Or did we just have our sites setup in different ways?

 

[seycyrus]

Right now on my FOX site in big pictures: Despot housewives, McChrystal story, Obama to UN story, NYPD terror story.

On CNN: big picture = Drowning Mom. Small byline about wildfire. even smaller bylines about other stuff.

EDIT:

Breaking news on Fox; Sec general Ban Ki-moon speaks. Nothing about it on CNN.

 

[Al68]

lol every current cable news station is controlled by conservative corporate owners. there is no fairness doctrine. clear channel controls over 11% of the radio market and viacom controls over 35% of the tv market.

what liberal media?

Ok, so the news media, controlled by rich greedy corporations for decades, has convinced huge numbers of Americans that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the other 95% of the country.

Gee, who would gain by Americans getting that impression by watching network news?

 

[BoomBoom]

Ok, so the news media, controlled by rich greedy corporations for decades, has convinced huge numbers of Americans that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the other 95% of the country.

I think the stance on the issues by the Republicans has convinced the people of that, not the media. The media just reports what the Republican stance is.

 

[seycyrus]

I think the stance on the issues by the Republicans has convinced the people of that, not the media. The media just reports what the Republican stance is.

Such as?

 

[BoomBoom]

Such as?

Well, generally, pretty much across the board on all sorts of issues, Republicans always seem to be pro big business and anti social programs for the less privileged...(at least ever since I have been paying attention to politics from the Carter/Reagan era on).

If you want a specific example, perhaps the fact that the Republicans always seem to oppose any sort of minimum wage increase.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, generally, pretty much across the board on all sorts of issues, Republicans always seem to be pro big business and anti social programs for the less privileged...(at least ever since I have been paying attention to politics from the Carter/Reagan era on).

If you want a specific example, perhaps the fact that the Republicans always seem to oppose any sort of minimum wage increase.

seems more a small business than big business issue to me.

 

[Cyrus]

Right now on my FOX site in big pictures: Despot housewives, McChrystal story, Obama to UN story, NYPD terror story.

On CNN: big picture = Drowning Mom. Small byline about wildfire. even smaller bylines about other stuff.

EDIT:

Breaking news on Fox; Sec general Ban Ki-moon speaks. Nothing about it on CNN.

If only proving things were this cartoonishly simple.

 

[BoomBoom]

seems more a small business than big business issue to me.

OK, they are generally against any sort of envorinmental protection regulations, against consumer protection regulations on the banking and insurance industries, against progressive tax... the list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that the general public has the perception that Republicans and "pro-rich", because their stance on policy is generally "pro-rich".

(But I feel like I am pointing out the obvious here and can't seem to find a way to tie this back into the topic of Fox News.)

 

[SpaceTiger]

Ok, so the news media, controlled by rich greedy corporations for decades, has convinced huge numbers of Americans that Republicans are for the rich and Democrats are for the other 95% of the country.

I haven't had this impression for over 10 years. Republicans have been courting lower-class whites for some time now... do you really think Sarah Palin was meant to appeal to the upper classes?

You're making a lot of broad-brush statements about the impressions that other people have and I'm not convinced that they're accurate. If you're going to make claims like this, you should probably have some kind of evidence to back it up.

 

[skippy1729]

While FOX News has a decided mainstream conservative slant, they usually have a balance of left/right commentary when they bring in outside contributors. When Hillary Clinton was being crucified daily on MSNBC, she got, what I consider, a fair interview with O'Rielly.

Most of the criticism of FOX News is Olbermanic: If it is true, it is trivial and it usually isn't true.

Most of the coverage of the Health Care Bills on the other networks seem to play along with Obama's word games. i.e. abortion is not specifically mentioned (but it will be provided as a routine legal medical procedure); illegal aliens are not specifically covered (but there is no provision to enforce exclusion); yes you can keep your plan (but government mandates will possibly force your plan out of existence); the plan will be funded by eliminating Medicare waste and fraud (but no clue as to how this will be done).

Skippy

 

[Count Iblis]

The World according to FOX NEWS:

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0632/tmw-big.jpg

 

[Pinu7]

It is ridiculous that people attack fox news while turning a blind eye to the rest of the media, which is fervently left wing.

 

[Al68]

I think the stance on the issues by the Republicans has convinced the people of that, not the media. The media just reports what the Republican stance is.

They report a slanted version of what the Republican stance is, not how Republicans would describe their own stance.

Republicans always seem to be pro big business and anti social programs for the less privileged..

Perfect example. This is the way Republicans are presented in the media, and you believe it.

the general public has the perception that Republicans and "pro-rich", because their stance on policy is generally "pro-rich".

Because their positions are labeled as "pro-rich". The simple and obvious fact is that the Republican position on the issues you mention are libertarian positions. Libertarian economic policies are presented as "pro-rich" by the media, despite the fact that libertarians (and Republicans on the issues you mention) believe strongly that their positions are pro working class and poor.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

 

[seycyrus]

The World according to FOX NEWS:

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0632/tmw-big.jpg

[/URL]

AWESOME example of how the media misrepresents the republicans.

Wait, that *was* what you were trying to demonstrate, right? Right?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

When a conservative tells me that Democrats are all socialists and lovers of big government, does it prove that the media is biased conservative?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When a conservative tells me that Democrats are all socialists and lovers of big government, does it prove that the media is biased conservative?

If that conservative were specifically discussing the manner in which democrats are portrayed in the media and the influence that has on the general public then yeah you would probably call that a bit of evidence in favour of that conclusion.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If that conservative were specifically discussing the manner in which democrats are portrayed in the media and the influence that has on the general public then yeah you would probably call that a bit of evidence in favour of that conclusion.

So let me get this straight...

When a person on one side of an issue has a distorted view of people on the other side, this isn't a perfectly normal human thing. Rather, it's evidence that they're being swayed by the media (so long as they're discussing media portrayal of the opposing side)?

Furthermore, if you agree with someone's overall world view, you agree with everything they say, however illogical. And even when you don't actually agree, you pretend like you're agreeing, assuming that "probable evidence in favor of" a conclusion is the same as "proof" of it? Am I understanding you correctly there as well?

If you're going to make claims on a scientific forum, back them up with evidence. Provide me with polls of public opinion or give me news reports that have the specific biases you're referring to, don't just wave your hands and waste my time.

 

[BoomBoom]

They report a slanted version of what the Republican stance is, not how Republicans would describe their own stance.

No, they are either for a bill or against it, that determines their stance on that issue...and the media generally reports what they say in their own words of what their position is.

If it makes you feel better to believe that the majority of the country is somehow brainwashed by the 'liberal' media, then go right ahead and believe that. But if you really believe this is true, then you must also believe that the folks who watch Fox must be as well, right? Or are they somehow immune to media brainwashing?

 

[Al68]

No, they are either for a bill or against it, that determines their stance on that issue...and the media generally reports what they say in their own words of what their position is.

Well, you know the media does more than that.

For one, they characterize the bill in question the same way Democrats do, for example "reform of the health care system" or "measure to help poor people", etc. Then the opponents of the bill are seen as against "reform.." and "helping poor people", etc.

Second, they consistently misrepresent the Republican position, for example "in a victory for the insurance companies", etc., or "in a victory for low-income workers" when Democrats get their way.

You yourself have equated being against increasing the minimum wage as "pro-rich". It's no surprise that you don't notice bias when the media does the same thing.

 

[Al68]

When a conservative tells me that Democrats are all socialists and lovers of big government, does it prove that the media is biased conservative?

No, but it does show that the particular person you're listening to is. But if you know he/she is conservative, it's not hidden bias. No one is being mislead into believing Rush or Hannity are objective journalists just reporting unbiased facts. Their point of view is obvious and not denied.

Nobody listens to Rush to hear both sides of an issue. Many people do think they are hearing both sides on CBS news, or an unbiased reporting of facts by the anchor.

 

[BoomBoom]

You yourself have equated being against increasing the minimum wage as "pro-rich". It's no surprise that you don't notice bias when the media does the same thing.

Not precisely, I suggested that was one example of many that together give the public the perception that Republicans are "pro-rich". A monotone robot with no emotion or opinion could give the same news (of the Republican stance on all the issues) and I'm quite sure people would reach the same conclusions.

I think you give far too much credit for the amount of influence this perceived media bias creates. Or perhaps you will always perceive a bias unless it is biased in your direction (as Fox News is).

But if you know he/she is conservative, it's not hidden bias.

Which brings us back to the original point: Why does Fox News "hide" their bias under the slogan of "Fair and Balanced"?

 

[WhoWee]

Freedom of speech is a 2 way street. If you don't want to listen, change the channel.

By the way, can anyone name a left wing liberal radio talk show or TV show (was Bill Maher canceled?) with above average ratings - I'd like to evaluate their programming based on the criteria mentioned in this discussion.

 

[BoomBoom]

Freedom of speech is a 2 way street. If you don't want to listen, change the channel.

By the way, can anyone name a left wing liberal radio talk show or TV show (was Bill Maher canceled?) with above average ratings - I'd like to evaluate their programming based on the criteria mentioned in this discussion.

Actually, Fox News is a guilty pleasure of mine. I prefer to hear opinions I disagree with rather than listen to someone I do agree with.

Bill Maher is still on, he has a show on HBO called "Real Time with Bill Maher".
(Shame on ABC for cancelling "Politically Incorrect"!)

 

[Al68]

Not precisely, I suggested that was one example of many that together give the public the perception that Republicans are "pro-rich".

I agree it's only one example of many. The specific reasons for being on either side of that issue, and many others, belong in another thread. The important thing for this thread is that being against the Democrats' agenda on this and other economic issues does not equal "pro-rich".

But it seems like you agree that the media gives the impression that Republicans are "pro-rich", but you think it's their own fault for being "pro-rich"? But that logic only works if you assume that it's objectively true that Republicans are "pro-rich", instead of a perception people get from the media.

How about this: If you were pro-working people and poor, and you adamantly opposed raising the minimum wage and every other Democratic economic position, what would you then think of the way Republicans are presented in the media?

Why does Fox News "hide" their bias under the slogan of "Fair and Balanced"?

I think that slogan refers to the straight news, not the political programs I was referring to, and used as examples in this thread and others. They're not calling Sean Hannity "Fair and Balanced", obviously, or anyone else that is expressing their own point of view.

 

[BoomBoom]

But it seems like you agree that the media gives the impression that Republicans are "pro-rich", but you think it's their own fault for being "pro-rich"?

I'm not quite sure how many different ways I can say this, so I'll just copy and paste your sentence and change around a couple words:

But it seems like you agree that the Republicans' position on the issues gives the impression that Republicans are "pro-rich", but you think it's their own fault for having an agenda that is "pro-rich"?

-Yes

How about this: If you were pro-working people and poor, and you adamantly opposed raising the minimum wage and every other Democratic economic position, what would you then think of the way Republicans are presented in the media?

I not sure how being opposed to minimum wage increase would in any way be "pro-working people and poor"? (Oh and BTW I'm quite sure that most poor people do work)