Does Fox News live up to the slogan Fair and balanced?

  • News
  • Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date
  • Tags
    News
In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether Fox News truly lives up to its slogan of being "Fair and balanced." Some believe that Fox News is biased and caters to a certain audience, while others argue that their existence ensures free speech. Journalism is supposed to be objective and neutral, but many news networks, including Fox News, make the mistake of presenting their own opinions. The conversation also brings up a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which found that Fox News was not the most accurate in their reporting. It is mentioned that S. Robert Lichter, the editor, is a paid consultant for Fox News. The conversation also suggests looking at other news networks, such as

Does Fox News live up to the slogan, "Fair and balanced"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 9.3%

  • No

    Votes: 58 67.4%

  • In some ways/areas

    Votes: 20 23.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    86
  • #36
Skyhunter said:
No wonder the Tea Baggers are more popular than the Republicans.

Please don't use that term to describe people who are just in general concerned about the growth of government and spending under this administration.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #38
Dembadon said:
In my opinion, Fox News is the worst news program in existence.

Edit: The facts aren't always fair and/or balanced. I don't need a report to be fair, I need it to be true.

Well if it was not for Fox, we probably never would have found out about the whole Reverand Wright issue with Barack Obama except maybe for those who listen to talk radio or check things on the Internet. The rest of the media were completely ignoring it and were going to cover it up. Fox occassionally makes mistakes like all the news organizations, but it serves as a nice balance I think.

As for "fair and balanced," well for news to be fair, that's because there's a lot of debate over just what the facts are on quite a few subjects. For example, big debates on this very website go on about the legitimacy of climate change. Both sides cite facts, and there is still lots of disagreement.

So what is a news reporter to do? Get people from both sides of the issue and get their views and present them, and let the viewer make their own decision.
 
  • #39
Er... What Reverend Wright issue? The one where Glenn Beck tried to paint Obama as a terrorist for having a somewhat foolish and inflammatory preacher?

Considering how foolish and inflammatory Glenn Beck can be, I suppose this means that all conservatives are terrorists.

Judge not a man by the company he keeps.

Note: Who kept connecting Obama to a radical from 40 years ago, when Obama was a little kid? After answering that question, tell me who the real character assassin is.

Finally, if Tea Baggers isn't acceptable (and I don't care if it isn't, I'll use it anyway), how about "Guy Fawkers"?
 
  • #40
Char. Limit said:
...
Finally, if Tea Baggers isn't acceptable (and I don't care if it isn't, I'll use it anyway), how about "Guy Fawkers"?
You don't care if you're being intentionally inflammatory?
 
  • #41
mheslep said:
You don't care if you're being intentionally inflammatory?

I like how you ignore my real content and hit on the one sarcastic comment in my post.

I'm anti-PC in all forms. I'm inflammatory because I don't think others can tell me not to be. So yes, I am intentionally inflammatory.
 
  • #42
I know some people who can force you not to be inflammatory...

...this thread is riding the edge right now.
 
  • #43
On this forum, yes.

But not in public, where my first amendment rights apply.

I haven't seen that phrase, "riding the edge" before. Prithee, could you explain it to me?
 
  • #44
Pushing the limits of what is acceptable here.
 
  • #45
I see.

I'll shut up (read: moderate my tone) now.
 
  • #46
Nebula815 said:
Please don't use that term to describe people who are just in general concerned about the growth of government and spending under this administration.

I was specifically referring to those who label themselves such.
 
  • #47
Did anyone catch Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News, on ABC's This Week? There are two or three parts to the roundtable discussion.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-scott-brown-republican-9710855

Seating Ailes with someone like Krugman strikes me a bit like sitting Larry Flint next to Einstein, but it was interesting. I don't know that this reflects well on ABC and their choice of guests, but one appearance is fair play, I guess. Krugman didn't look very happy.

When Huffington asked Ailes why he cut away from the meeting between Obama and the House Republicans, he responded "Because we are the most trusted news source on television!" or some ridiculous and non-applicable response close to that. Within the context of responsible reporting and providing reliable news and information, when asked why he allows someone like Glenn Beck to run his circus show every day, Ailes said that it is all about ratings, and they're [Fox is] winning. So, apparently he has no interest in credibility. What a yutz!
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Nebula815 said:
Fox occassionally makes mistakes like all the news organizations, but it serves as a nice balance I think.
You'd be close if you replace 'occasionally' with 'regularly', 'makes mistakes' with 'fabricates news' and 'like' with 'not quite like'.
 
  • #49
I wouldn't use regularly.

Regularly denotes a pattern. There's not really a pattern to when they do it.
 
  • #50
Char. Limit said:
I wouldn't use regularly.

Regularly denotes a pattern. There's not really a pattern to when they do it.
Okay, I'm being a little loose with the use of the word 'regularly', but from my memory, John Stewart seems to catch them pulling their tricks every few of months or thereabout. A recent one that I recall was the bit where Hannity switched the footage for a protest rally, and later admitted to "an inadvertent mistake" after the Daily Show blew his act. Using footage from a different event to jack up attendance numbers - that's how low Fox stoops with their pettiness.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...ean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage
 
  • #51
Not to mention at least one guest who openly joked about Obama being assasinated - hoping so, IIRC.

Let's be clear that FNC is the so-called "Fox News Channel", which includes the likes of Beck, who is something between a clown and a complete nut. "Regularly" certainly applies to him. I know: I get all of the talking points from my foaming-at-the-mouth right-wing friends who can no longer see or think straight. Most of my customers and neighbors are Fox News and/or hate radio addicts. Yes, I said addicts! They are addicted to hating the imaginary liberals and all of their secret plots. Their heads are so full of nonsense that I think it qualifies as brainwashing.

Ailes was exactly what I expected. He is a clown as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
How about the useless dribble that CNN and MSNBC put out every single day during the Bush administration? It isn't anything different from what Fox News is putting out today about the Obama Administration. They are private companies and can air whatever they want as long as it complies with the FCC. What is seriously the big deal?
 
  • #53
MotoH said:
How about the useless dribble that CNN and MSNBC put out every single day during the Bush administration? It isn't anything different from what Fox News is putting out today about the Obama Administration.
How about you put some teeth into that currently toothless assertion?

So far, you have one example of Fox faking footage for an event to help them support the news they made up. Your turn to match that by providing similar examples of faking the news by CNN and MSNBC. Then the ball's back in the court of those that assert that Fox is, in fact, doing something worse than the others.
 
  • #54
Is this a tennis match? Are you keeping a running tally, Gokul? To me it just looks like a bunch of people throwing darts back and forth without a real thesis to defend.

MotoH did not assert anything about a score and for my part I'll say Fox might be less accurate or more biased than MSNBC, but certainly it can't be proven by throwing mud back and forth in this thread.

Get real. The reality is that we have a lot of people here who like throwing mud at Fox and not a lot that like throwing mud at MSNBC and as a result, we always have a lot more anti-Fox traffic in these threads. Whether MSNBC is better or worse than Fox, it doesn't make it any less acceptable for Fox to employ - as Ivan put it - "nut"s, than for MSNBC to employ nuts. And Keith Oberman is every bit as nutty as O'Reilly or Beck.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Just for you, though, Gokul, as we all know, mocking Sarah Palin has become a sport and MSNBC has used fake photos of Palin for that purpose: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091113035138.aspx

Does this imply that Fox isn't biased or prove that MSNBC is more biased? Certainly not. I'm not interested in keeping score: let's just not close our eyes and pretend that a Fox doesn't have a counterpart on the left.

And as always, to me the general left bias that permeates the media is mroe troublesome than the open bias of channels like MSNBC and Fox. With them, at least you know where you stand. When watching CNN or CBS, you really need to pay attention to make sure you aren't being duped, as many people were immediatly after the Fort Hood shooting.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
I have Fort Hood on the brain tonight, so I'll elaborate on that:

In the days immediately following the Fort Hood shooting, the media made up and forwarded a truly rediculous theory of the motivation of the shooter while (with Obama's help) actively suppressing discussion of other theories and providing pointed/biased arguments against them. Near as I can tell, the theory (vicarious PTSD) was made up by Newsweek, but it is tough to tell because it quickly became the predominant theory of the motive, reported by the vast majority of the mainstream media. We had discussion of it in here and I just couldn't believe how many people fell for the media's fictional story of the crime hook, line and sinker.

People - even people here who I consider intelligent - see that kind of thing on CNN and just accept it without thought. That is far more dangerous than what Fox and MSNBC are doing. A crowd video from the wrong rally, a fake photo of Palin in a bikini and a guest's stuipd joke about assassinating Obama - how do these things really matter? The joke is completely pointless and the fake photo and wrong crowd video are just fuel for zealots on both sides. Someone who is watching to see what a Fox commentator has to say about a Tea Party rally is already a right (or left) end zealot, so whether the video is misleading really doesn't change anything. Same goes for the Palin photo. But a biased story on CNN can have a huge impact and is a much bigger problem.

And maybe that's the point? For years, the left bias of the media has been a thorn in the side of the left, when pointed out by those on the right. Now the left has something to harp on. It allows people to divert attention from the bigger problem.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
russ_watters said:
Is this a tennis match? Are you keeping a running tally, Gokul? To me it just looks like a bunch of people throwing darts back and forth without a real thesis to defend.
Of course there's a thesis to defend. Which news network demonstrates the least respect for common journalistic standards? Is there a measurable difference between the quality of news provided by Fox and most other mainstream networks, or are they all about the same (or, is Fox significantly better than the rest).

MotoH did not assert anything about a score and for my part I'll say Fox might be less accurate or more biased than MSNBC, but certainly it can't be proven by throwing mud back and forth in this thread.
On the other hand, simply dropping assertions out of a hat, without any evidence to back them up, is not only toothless, as I mentioned, but also in direct violation of the Guidelines for this forum (specifically rule #2).

Get real. The reality is that we have a lot of people here who like throwing mud at Fox and not a lot that like throwing mud at MSNBC and as a result, we always have a lot more anti-Fox traffic in these threads. Whether MSNBC is better or worse than Fox, it doesn't make it any less acceptable for Fox to employ - as Ivan put it - "nut"s, than for MSNBC to employ nuts. And Keith Oberman is every bit as nutty as O'Reilly or Beck.
Olbermann is probably every bit as biased as the O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity. Sure! But that alone hardly makes MSNBC as bad as Fox, unless you believe that the quality of a news network can be determined entirely by the bias displayed by its most biased anchor/host. And in your own opinion, this is not true.

My opinion is that Fox is worse than MSNBC, and both are a lot worse than CNN, when it comes to demonstrating objectivity, honesty and journalistic rigor (i.e., verifying stories, checking through multiple independent sources, not participating in the creation of a story, etc.) - and all three are way below PBS/NPR. And that's not even counting outright buffoonery by opinion piece hosts, like yelling at your guests, physically intimidating viewers who call in with their opinions, embellishing your journalistic credentials (claiming to have won awards that you didn't, or claiming to have been in a war zone when you never have, etc.), and simply making up stuff whenever you don't have a real answer to a question.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
russ_watters said:
Just for you, though, Gokul, as we all know, mocking Sarah Palin has become a sport and MSNBC has used fake photos of Palin for that purpose: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091113035138.aspx

Does this imply that Fox isn't biased or prove that MSNBC is more biased? Certainly not. I'm not interested in keeping score: let's just not close our eyes and pretend that a Fox doesn't have a counterpart on the left.
I never asserted that MSNBC isn't biased to the left. It's pretty obvious, and extremely annoying. But I was responding to the assertion that Fox, MSNBC and CNN, all display about the same quality of content, presentation and rigor. If you also disagree with this assertion, you agree with me and disagree with MoToH. There is nothing contradictory about a conclusion that MSNBC demonstrates blatant bias towards the left, and still provides better quality of news than Fox.

As for the fake Palin photos on MSNBC, yes that's pretty pathetic, but at least it was in what was admitted at the outset to be a light-hearted segment copying the style of Letterman's "top ten" lists rather than during serious news coverage. It is similar to the Fox piece I cited above in that in both cases, the visuals were known to have been fake, but still used. It is dissimilar in the manner it was used. But even if it were used in a serious piece, that would only be the beginning of a comparison between Fox and MSNBC - with nothing about CNN yet.

The usefulness of a tennis match is that it gives you a statistically significant number of comparison points to derive a reasonable conclusion from. Not even performing any comparison based on actual evidence, is like determining the winner of a Pro-Wrestling fight by the insults they hurl at each other before the bout.

And as always, to me the general left bias that permeates the media is mroe troublesome than the open bias of channels like MSNBC and Fox. With them, at least you know where you stand. When watching CNN or CBS, you really need to pay attention to make sure you aren't being duped, as many people were immediatly after the Fort Hood shooting.
This is a fair argument to make, but a little different from the primary thesis of this thread, though one could presumably relate the perception or influence of certain coverage on the audience with the journalistic quality of the network providing it. But I'm not sure that you are making this argument yet.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Gokul43201 said:
Nebula815 said:
Fox occassionally makes mistakes like all the news organizations, but it serves as a nice balance I think.


You'd be close if you replace 'occasionally' with 'regularly', 'makes mistakes' with 'fabricates news', 'like' with 'not quite like' and 'doesn't serve' instead of 'serves'.

You've missed it, unless you want to keep some irony in this post :-p
 
  • #60
MotoH said:
How about the useless dribble that CNN and MSNBC put out every single day during the Bush administration? It isn't anything different from what Fox News is putting out today about the Obama Administration. They are private companies and can air whatever they want as long as it complies with the FCC. What is seriously the big deal?

People in this country make voting decisions based on what they see on those news programs. I'd say that's a big deal.
 
  • #61
I don't watch MSNBC but apparently most everyone on Wall Street does - according to people from the stock exchange floor who were interviewed on the Frontline documentary about the meltdown [linked in a couple of threads here]. MSNBC was described as being pervasive on Wall Street. So while it may be that MSNBC is hard left, and I don't know that to be true, they are allegedly also respected as THE news channel for matters of money.

I don't know one person who does watch MSNBC for their so-called hard left stance. In fact, the only person that I know who says he watches it regularly is a hard righty that is heavily into investments.

On the other hand, I can often cite the talking points from Rush and Fox that day based on the irrational rants from hard righties.

I would like to know what bias towards Bush was promoted by CNN. The only anchor that I like on CNN is the Wolfman, so maybe I just don't see it, but I definitely don't see Blitzer promoting nonsense like that coming from Fox or Rush. I do note that other anchors on CNN, like Kira Phillips, can't keep their opinions to themself. And I have caught Phillips misreprenting the views of guests in order to get her shots in, which, btw, are usually right-leaning. In fact, she is the only anchor I have ever emailed to complain about biased reporting. One day she completely distorted the opinions of a guest who was still sitting there! My guess would be that she is a Conservative Catholic.

CNN's morning guy is a yutz and Rick Sanchez is an idiot [really, just all fluff]. I give you that.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't watch MSNBC but apparently most everyone on Wall Street does ...
Almost - that's CNBC, a sister channel, same parent.
 
  • #63
mheslep said:
Almost - that's CNBC, a sister channel, same parent.

Ah, it is possible that I have confused the two since I don't watch either.

In that case I don't know anyone who claims to watch MSNBC. :biggrin:
 
  • #64
Whenever I do watch the news (not during supper time) it is usually that HLN or something of the sort. They have cool graphics and have more to do with pop culture and the like. Attack of the Show is also a pretty awesome news source! hahaha
 
  • #65
Ivan Seeking said:
Ah, it is possible that I have confused the two since I don't watch either.
Never watched CNBC! :bugeye: You don't know what you've been missing!
 
  • #66
Gokul43201 said:
Never watched CNBC! :bugeye: You don't know what you've been missing!

Honestly, until recently [not just now, but recently, say in the last year], I didn't realize that we had CNBC and MSNBC. I thought NBC had one cable news service. I have long been distrustful of cable news of all brands.
 
  • #67
Fox news balanced? hmmmm... yes indeed, and O'Reilly truly loves democrats
 
  • #68
The lack of "fair and balanced" is apparent in all US media outlets. For any non-bias take on politics, news, etc., you have to branch out to a lot of the world news agencies. I will, however, give CNN a little props because of their sister network CNN International. Personally, I tend to drift towards Al-Jazeera and BBC for my news.
 
  • #69
Cod said:
The lack of "fair and balanced" is apparent in all US media outlets. For any non-bias take on politics, news, etc., you have to branch out to a lot of the world news agencies. I will, however, give CNN a little props because of their sister network CNN International. Personally, I tend to drift towards Al-Jazeera and BBC for my news.

Yeah, all the political news station are bull. BBC and Haper's are the least bias I know of. Never watched Al Jazeera.
 
  • #70
I like the BBC and CNN International. PBS is also great for quality news reports and high-quality political documentaries. I also think shows like This Week [ABC] , and Meet the Press [NBC], can be quite informative and are generally reliable. Unfortunately, both have lost their edge lately. With MTP, it was lost with the passing of one of my heroes, Tim Russert. An hour with Tim was worth a week of most anything else. It will take time to fill that void. As for This Week, Stephanopoulos is leaving and has apparently gone soft - he has joined Good Morning America! EGAD! Maybe he is just sick of politics. Right now the show is adrift.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News Who is Nils Bildt? Could Fox News be *that* irresponsible?
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Poll
News Is Fox News Fair and Balanced ? (different than last poll)
2
Replies
61
Views
9K
News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption
10
Replies
340
Views
46K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
Replies
6
Views
3K
Is the Washington Post a Reliable News Source for Political Coverage?
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Do You Trust "Reviews" on Next Door?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Frustrations with the general populace's lack of interest in science
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
News Misinformation in the News (Science Says Fox News is Making You Dumb)
2
Replies
37
Views
10K
News Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?
8
Replies
253
Views
26K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top