Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 139 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
to redirect the conversation that has taken over the OWS thread I begin it anew here

My assertion is that Fox News and Republicans are both "Tools" (meant in both the literal sense and the pejorative sense) of Big Business, I think Dems are as well, but my assertion is that Repubs and Fox are a "team", whereas MSNBC and Dems are allies

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content analysis studies

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[41] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[45]

The documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism claims that Fox reporters and anchors, rather than citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, Fox personalities allegedly use the phrase "some people say" to include unattributed conservative opinion and commentary into reports. In the film, Media Matters for America president David Brock noted that some shows, like Fox's evening news program, Special Report with Brit Hume, tend to exhibit editorializing attitudes and behavior when on the air.

Outfoxed: Fox News technique: "some people say" - YouTube

A 2006 University of California, Berkeley study cited that there was a correlation between the presence of the Fox News Channel in cable markets and increases in Republican votes in those markets.[46]
[edit] Studies of reporting bias

[edit] Tests of knowledge of Fox viewers

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03-04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly,[55] reported that poll-based findings[56] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three purported misperceptions:[55]

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).

The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers
and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS

35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)

In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[57] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[58] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[59] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[60] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation.[61][62]

PIPA also conducted a statistical study on purported misinformation evidenced by registered voters prior to the 2010 election. According to the results of the study, "...false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment..."[63] but viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed on specific issues when compared to viewers of comparable media,[64] that this liklihood also increased proportionally to the frequency of viewing Fox News[64] and that these findings showed statistical significance.[65] Media critic David Zurawik pointed to what he saw as weaknesses in the study, such as that certain government agencies are defined as holding the "true" positions on issues and that the study didn't differentiate between the influences of FNC shows as opposed to political ads that aired within shows.[66]

A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists".[68] A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform similarly found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.[69] A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believed incorrect rumors than those with "low reliance" on Fox News. [70]

In 2011, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that Fox News viewers were less well informed than people who did not watch any news at all.
The study employed objective questions, such as whether Hosni Mubarak was still in power in Egypt.[71][72][73]
[edit] Internal memos and e-mails
[edit] Daily memos

Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News, John Moody. In the documentary Outfoxed, former Fox News employees are interviewed to better understand the inner workings of Fox News. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees on the approach to be taken on particular stories. Critics of Fox News claim that the instructions on many of the memos indicate a conservative bias. The Washington Post quoted Larry Johnson, a former part-time Fox News commentator, describing the Moody memos as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray."[74]

Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."[75][76]

Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[77] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation."

Two days after the 2006 election, The Huffington Post reported they had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "…[L]et's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 congressional election.[78][79]
[edit] Bill Sammon e-mails

In December 2010, Media Matters for America released a leaked October 2009 e-mail between Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network's senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News' coverage of President Barack Obama's health care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase "public option" when discussing a key measure of President Obama's reform bill, and instead use the terms "government option" or "government-run health insurance", noting negative connotations; Sammon also suggested that the qualifier "so-called" be said before any proper mention of the public option. Another e-mail by Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente accepted Sammon's conditions. Critics claimed that Sammon took advice from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared on Hannity shortly before the e-mail was written and made the same suggestions in identifying the public option. Critics also noticed that reporters and panelists on Special Report with Bret Baier used the term "public option" before the e-mail was sent, but used the term "government option" immediately afterwards. Sammon, in an interview with Howard Kurtz for The Daily Beast, defended the directive and denied he was trying to skew Fox News' coverage.[80]

Later that month, Media Matters released an e-mail by Sammon from December 2009, in which he pressured Fox News reporters to include the views of climate change skeptics in light of the Climategate controversy.[81][82]
[edit] Talking points from Bush White House
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan in 2003

While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content.[83] McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news, but were issued to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.[83]

McClellan later apologized to Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly for not responding to Matthews' suggestion that "Bill" or "Sean" received the talking points; McClellan said he had no personal knowledge that O'Reilly ever received the talking points. Furthermore he pointed out "the way a couple of questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen."[84]
[edit] Wikipedia edits

In August 2007, a new utility, Wikipedia Scanner, revealed that Wikipedia articles relating to Fox News had been edited from IP addresses owned by Fox News,[85] though it was not possible to determine exactly who the editors were. The tool showed that self-referential edits from IP ranges owned by corporations and news agencies were not uncommon, including from The New York Times.[85] Fox edits received attention in the blogosphere and on some online news sites. Wikipedia articles edited from Fox computers from 2005 through 2007 included Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, Chris Wallace and Brit Hume.[86]
[edit] Photo manipulation
Fox News Channel image of Steinberg superimposed on a poodle, and Reddicliffe superimposed on the man holding the poodle's leash
Left: Original photo of Jacques Steinberg. Right: Photo aired on Fox News Channel.
Left: Original photo of Steven Reddicliffe. Right: Photo aired on Fox News Channel.

On the July 2, 2008 edition of Fox and Friends, co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy aired photos of New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe that appeared to have been crudely doctored, apparently in order to portray the journalists unflatteringly. This occurred during a discussion of a piece in the June 28 edition of The New York Times, which pointed out what Steinberg called "ominous trends" in Fox News' ratings.[87]

According to Media Matters, the photos depict New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg with yellowed teeth, "his nose and chin widened, and his ears made to protrude further." The other image, of Times television editor Steven Reddicliffe, had similar yellow teeth, as well as "dark circles ... under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back."[88]

During the discussion, Doocy called the Times report, written by Steinberg, a "hit piece" ordered up by Reddicliffe.[87] The broadcast then showed an image of Steinberg's face superimposed over a picture of a poodle, while Reddicliffe's face was superimposed over the man holding the poodle's leash.[87]

Times culture editor Sam Sifton called the photo that was aired on Fox "disgusting," and the criticism of the paper's reporting a "specious and meritless claim" while denying that it was a "hit piece."[87]
[edit] 9/12 newspaper ad controversy

On September 18, 2009, Fox News Channel took out full-page ads in The Washington Post, the New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal with a prominent caption reading, "How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this story?" with pictures of a Tea Party movement protest on the United States Capitol lawn. A still picture in the ad was in fact taken from a CNN broadcast covering the event. The veracity of this ad was called into question on the air by then-CNN commentator Rick Sanchez, along with others pointing to various coverage of the event.[89][90][91] CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CBS Radio News provided various forms of live coverage of the rally in Washington throughout the day on Saturday, including the lead story on CBS Evening News.[89][91][92][93]

Fox News' vice president of marketing, Michael Tammero, responded, "it's fair to say that from the tea party movement . . . to ACORN . . . to the march on 9/12, the networks either ignored the story, marginalized it or misrepresented the significance of it altogether."[94]
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
66,894 Posts
The local Fox Channel here in Baltimore had a run in with the protestors a few weeks ago and ever since the reporting has been negative about anything the protestors do. Fox has been milking any tidbits of not even newsworthy shit as a big deal while reminding viewers that tax money is involved or permits were not issued etc. They even labeled the camp as a drug heaven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
Do chickens have 10 inch dicks?
 

·
Administratoris Emeritus
Joined
·
46,416 Posts
Can FNN be fair or balanced?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,153 Posts
to redirect the conversation that has taken over the OWS thread I begin it anew here

My assertion is that Fox News and Republicans are both "Tools" (meant in both the literal sense and the pejorative sense) of Big Business, I think Dems are as well, but my assertion is that Repubs and Fox are a "team", whereas MSNBC and Dems are allies
Yes, your assertion continues to support me point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,829 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Yes, your assertion continues to support me point.
OK, well would you care to make that assertion again and try to provide a viable argument this time since when you made it last time you were pretty much Ned Beatty'd?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
I'm composting now, it's used in our new "Green" all natural product, and the chickens have become a major donator of a key raw material.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,153 Posts
OK, well would you care to make that assertion again and try to provide a viable argument this time since when you made it last time you were pretty much Ned Beatty'd?
It was your assertion
. . . my assertion is that Repubs and Fox are a "team", whereas MSNBC and Dems are allies
The evidence on both sides is similar yet your conclusion is not.

Your bias has distorted your reason.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,635 Posts
FNN is just too blatant with their bias. We all know CNN et al are biased, but not nearly to the same extent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
It was your assertion

The evidence on both sides is similar yet your conclusion is not.

Your bias has distorted your reason.
I think GermanStar actually built a pretty good case, Obermann being fired for donating to the Dems yet Palin being paid by Fox while stumping for the Repubs, I also listed quite a few illustrations in my OP supporting my claims, the burden of rebuttal is in your court sir, and as I have made my point concerning debate tactics and do note you are now addressing issues, I will no longer practice my profession on you in such a ruthless manner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
FNN is just too blatant with their bias. We all know CNN et al are biased, but not nearly to the same extent.
The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[41] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."
Personally I think all Corporate/American Media (not that they are alone in this) starts off at a baseline pretty far removed from "zero", where "zero = reality" but then to throw in the quoted "opinions" on top of that Bias is where it really goes south

To take a story already skewed by being the "Party Line" and then throw in this opinion-non-journalism thing they do on top of it makes Fox so far removed from Reality that they are nothing more then a Republican/Big Business Fifth Column
 

·
Administratoris Emeritus
Joined
·
46,416 Posts
I think GermanStar actually built a pretty good case, Obermann being fired for donating to the Dems yet Palin being paid by Fox while stumping for the Repubs, I also listed quite a few illustrations in my OP supporting my claims, the burden of rebuttal is in your court sir, and as I have made my point concerning debate tactics and do note you are now addressing issues, I will no longer practice my profession on you in such a ruthless manner
It's a slam dunk. You're directing your posts toward a punch drunk fighter, hit too hard and too often, with no recollection of who or where he is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,101 Posts
The fact that Palin is so prominent on FNN is evidence that they are not tools of the RNC. The establishment Republican leadership is NOT conservative. They dislike fiscal conservatives and they dislike social conservatives and they have contempt for the tea party movement.

FOX acts as cheerleader for the Republican Party on the occasions when the Republican Party is acting conservatively, such as when they oppose liberal policies.

FNN is biased towards the politically conservative viewer and they present to them views that reinforce what they already believe. This is how they make their money. Viewers who are conservative watch FNN and this translates into advertising dollars. So does adversarial confrontation. When Sarah Palin gets into a pissing contest with some liberal guest, the audience eats this up.

This is in no way different from the liberally biased networks. They are certainly not tools of the DNC but they act as their cheerleaders for the Democrats when the Democrats are advancing liberal policies or opposing conservative ones.
 
1 - 20 of 139 Posts
Top