FAUX News & others practicing "pseudo-journalism"?

[Guest Cerebus]

At first I was going to dismiss this article, but I found this line particularly striking:

 

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main

misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

 

Thoughts?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yesterday someone on Fox paraded around their opinion poll which said that the economy was most important on people's minds, that they thought Bush would handle the economy better than Kerry, and then the host through out there that we should blame Bill Clinton for what's happening on Bush's watch. Typical Fox.

 

But the best part was that poll that showed that people were more concerned with the economy than anything else: "Security" and Iraq were labeled as two different issues. Put together, they actually outnumbered the economy.

 

Just another way how Fox tweaks their polls.

[Steviekick 0]

Most media analysts discredit Fox news. I've noticed that most of their polls are kind of confusing and do creative statistical interpretations to make their points.

[Guest MikeSC]

At first I was going to dismiss this article, but I found this line particularly striking:

 

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main

misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

 

Thoughts?

I could mention that the LA Times editor has no business criticizing anybody for journalistic ethics.

 

That paper is a bigger joke than Fox News could ever hope to be.

-=Mike

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

There's a hardcore conservative in my History AP class who claims that nuclear weapons were found in Iraq. I don't have the patience to argue with him.

[NoCalMike 0]

well this goes to show that you should never underestimate the stupidity of the general population. People don't REALLY want the truth a lot of the time, if it means doing more then turning on their favorite news network, whether it be Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC......etc.....This isn't really so much an issue over FOX NEWS, but more an issue about people's laziness when it comes to international relations/issues.

[Guest MikeSC]

well this goes to show that you should never underestimate the stupidity of the general population. People don't REALLY want the truth a lot of the time, if it means doing more then turning on their favorite news network, whether it be Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC......etc.....This isn't really so much an issue over FOX NEWS, but more an issue about people's laziness when it comes to international relations/issues.

But, I suppose, you manage to conquer the laziness, right?

-=mike

[NoCalMike 0]

well this goes to show that you should never underestimate the stupidity of the general population.  People don't REALLY want the truth a lot of the time, if it means doing more then turning on their favorite news network, whether it be Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC......etc.....This isn't really so much an issue over FOX NEWS, but more an issue about people's laziness when it comes to international relations/issues.

But, I suppose, you manage to conquer the laziness, right?

-=mike

Sure. Not being lazy, doesn't mean you are necessarily CORRECT all the time about everything, but there is definately a difference between, checking numerous sources, listening to different opinions as opposed to, "Hey, Sean Hannity said the left hates america, so he must be right"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Just another way how Fox tweaks their polls.

You mean polls get slanted? I'm shocked beyond all belief...

[Some Guy 0]

well this goes to show that you should never underestimate the stupidity of the general population.  People don't REALLY want the truth a lot of the time, if it means doing more then turning on their favorite news network, whether it be Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC......etc.....This isn't really so much an issue over FOX NEWS, but more an issue about people's laziness when it comes to international relations/issues.

But, I suppose, you manage to conquer the laziness, right?

-=mike

Sure. Not being lazy, doesn't mean you are necessarily CORRECT all the time about everything, but there is definately a difference between, checking numerous sources, listening to different opinions as opposed to, "Hey, Sean Hannity said the left hates america, so he must be right"

That isn't true?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I wish cable could get LinkTV, they have a program called Mosaic that's a bunch of news broadcasts from the Middle East overdubbed into English. Say what you will about bias (though some Arab channels have been pretty well-balanced in the prisoner case), but seeing images of bloodied bodies on the ground, regardless of whether or not they did something to provoke it (and they usually do), is a more realistic sight than most of the US stuff, which makes war look like a paintball game.

 

However, you really need to moderate yourself when it comes to seeing stuff like that, too.

[Guest MikeSC]

I wish cable could get LinkTV, they have a program called Mosaic that's a bunch of news broadcasts from the Middle East overdubbed into English. Say what you will about bias (though some Arab channels have been pretty well-balanced in the prisoner case), but seeing images of bloodied bodies on the ground, regardless of whether or not they did something to provoke it (and they usually do), is a more realistic sight than most of the US stuff, which makes war look like a paintball game.

 

However, you really need to moderate yourself when it comes to seeing stuff like that, too.

Jobber, don't even ATTEMPT to portray Arabic TV coverage of this war as being even remotely as fair as the US coverage.

 

To do so would only serve to make you appear to be a dolt.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

well we haven't heard many reports on the 10,000+ iraqi civilians killed yet, and how our government has tried to compensate them with money.

[Guest MikeSC]

well we haven't heard many reports on the 10,000+ iraqi civilians killed yet, and how our government has tried to compensate them with money.

But because Al-Jazeera says it --- IT MUST BE TRUE, right?

 

Good God.

 

What next --- the Jenin "massacre" DID happen?

 

Slapnuts --- go ahead and cue up the usual should he choose to dispute the falsity of the event.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Slapnuts --- go ahead and cue up the usual should he choose to dispute the falsity of the event.

-=Mike

I'm tired, leave me alone.

Oh, and one of the program editors for Al Jazeera visited our school a couple weeks ago and spoke; I knew he was lying because his mouth was moving. His only good point is that most of the Arab governments hate them as much as the US does, so I guess they have universal hate going for them. During the question and answer session it was fun watching him duck questions about where the stations' funding comes from. "This is not important, we are an independent news source for the Arab world!"

[Guest MikeSC]

Slapnuts --- go ahead and cue up the usual should he choose to dispute the falsity of the event.

                      -=Mike

I'm tired, leave me alone.

Oh, and one of the program editors for Al Jazeera visited our school a couple weeks ago and spoke; I knew he was lying because his mouth was moving. His only good point is that most of the Arab governments hate them as much as the US does, so I guess they have universal hate going for them. During the question and answer session it was fun watching him duck questions about where the stations' funding comes from. "This is not important, we are an independent news source for the Arab world!"

Well, just keep one thing in mind --- the moment they actually anger the sheiks who fund them, they're off the air. It'd be like expecting CNN, when it first started up, to call Ted Turner a moron.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

FOX is biased without a doubt. The sad thing is, is that the average person isn't that interested in world affairs and just takes what the media feeds them for granted. I'm thankful that I live in the UK as the media here is a lot more level headed. I think another problem that FOX news has is that if they criticize the government on any of their wrong doings then they might be deemed as "un-American" which could cost them viewers. The bottom line is that FOX are solely about making a profit and not about fair and true reporting.

 

As for Al-Jazeera. They may have their own bias but they do have the contacts in the middle east and often deliver some great news footage.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I point to a statistical survey posted a few weeks ago here, where they found Fox News to actually be closer to the median voter than any other American news outlet (slightly to the right).

 

This study was done by looking at what newspaper citations the programs used.

 

I'll find the link should anyone want to challenge this...again.

[Guest hunger4unger]

My own eyes and ears tell me that FOX is biased. No poll or article that you show me will change my opinion.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

My own eyes and ears tell me that FOX is biased. No poll or article that you show me will change my opinion.

then you're completely blind to the truth.

Properly researched statistics don't lie.

EDIT: And GMU is a LIBERTARIAN school, we don't like either conservatives or liberals. So none of that BS.

 

Credit: MarginalRevolution.com

 

Surprise! Fox News is Fair and Balanced!

Accusations of media bias are common but are typically based upon nothing more than subjective standards and anecdote. A brilliant new paper by Tim Groseclose (GSB Stanford, currently visiting GMU) and Jeff Milyo (U. Chicago, Harris School) pioneers a more promising approach. Since 1947, the interest group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) has tracked how Senators and Represenatives vote on key issues and they have used these votes to rank politicians according to their liberalism. In the 2002 session, for example Ted Kennedy received an ADA score of 100 and Phil Gramm a score of 0. Political scientists are familiar with ADA scores and have come to rely on them as a measure of ideology.

 

Groseclose and Milyo have found a way to compute ADA scores for media outlets as if they were politicians. What they did was to examine the Congressional Record for every instance in which a politician cited a think tank. They then did the same thing for newspapers, network news shows and other media outlets. By matching newspapers with politicians who had similar citation records they can impute an ADA score for the media outlet. Joe Lieberman, for example, has an ADA score of 66.3. Suppose that in his speeches he cites the Brookings Institution twice as much as the Heritage Institute. If the New York Times has a similar citation style then the New York Times is assigned an ADA score of 66.3. (The method is slightly more complicated than this but this gives the right idea.) Note that Groseclose and Milyo do not have to determine whether the Brookings Institution is more liberal than the Heritage Institute all they need to know is that the Times has a similar citation style to Lieberman.

 

Ok, what were the results? It turns out that all of the major media outlets, with the exception of Fox News: Special Report are considerably more liberal than the median member of the House over the 1993-1999 period. Moreover, although Fox News: Special Report was to the right of the median house member it was closer to the median member than were most of the other media outlets. (Interestingly, all of the liberal media outlets were less liberal than the average Democrat and Fox News is less conservative than the average Republican - thus there is a sense in which all media outlets are less biased than is the typical politician.) Here are the ADA scores of various media outlets along with some comparable politicians.

 

Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) 66.3

New York Times 64.6

CBS Evening News 64.5

USA Today 62.6

NBC Nightly News 62.5

Los Angeles Times 58.4

Ernst Hollings (D-SC) 56.1

ABC World News Tonight 54.8

Drudge Report 44.1

Arlen Spector (R-PA) 44.0

House Median 39.0

Senate Median 36.9

Olympia Snowe (R-Me) 36.0

Charlie Stenholm (D-Tex) 29.3

Fox News Special Report 26.4

 

Source Paper:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Edited May 10, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Guest hunger4unger]

1993-1999? This info is based on info from TEN years ago, five at the least! Let's agree to disagree.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

1993-1999? This info is based on info from TEN years ago, five at the least! Let's agree to disagree.

Okay. In order to do research you need Stable Data. That doesn't exist yet, hell, most of the 2000 census isn't finalized in their numbers yet.

 

And its info based at most from 5 years ago. Not Ten.

9 to 5 years ago. This is the nature of scholarly research.

 

 

When I make a claim, I back it up. I fail to see you cite anything other than your own observations.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Well yeah, I appreciate that you have backed up your claim but this is a message board and me stating that FOX is biased is my own personal opinion. I don't need polls to back up what I think about Fox news - i've formed my opinion after watching the channel on an almost daily basis for over three years. If you think that FOX is fair then that's entirely up to you and although I disagree with that I don't think we can go any further as it's a matter of opinion. As I said, agree to disagree. Peace

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Well yeah, I appreciate that you have backed up your claim but this is a message board and me stating that FOX is biased is my own personal opinion. I don't need polls to back up what I think about Fox news - i've formed my opinion after watching the channel on an almost daily basis for over three years. If you think that FOX is fair then that's entirely up to you and although I disagree with that I don't think we can go any further as it's a matter of opinion. As I said, agree to disagree. Peace

My point is this:

 

While people don't like me, they take what I say seriously because I bring facts

 

I do not believe people take your posts seriously unger, because they're personal feelings without being backed up.

 

Should you ever want to convince anyone else of your position, you should bring facts. That is being an effective speaker.

 

<--not a flame, but genuine advice

[Guest hunger4unger]

Appreciated Stephen but what facts can I pull out to claify that *I* think that Fox News is biased? It's my opinion and can't be fact based!

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'm sure if you looked you could find

a) counter to stat argument (probably not likely)

b) opinion pieces from well, more popular people than us, supporting you

c) specific examples of fox being well out of touch

 

Specifically, look at what Murdoch has said. He, owning Fox News, could by his own biases be presenting himself as off the mark and thereby you can make a case...its anecdotally based, but its far more convincing (but still wrong *smiles*) than just your opinion.

 

That would win you at least some begrudging acceptance here.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Can we please take a brief intermission of "The Owning Of hunger4unger"? I have to go get something to eat.

 

And Steve, even though you did save this board at one point, remember that this IS a messageboard, and things like facts and stats are not meant to be posted...

[Guest hunger4unger]

No one is getting owned and I never said that facts and stats shouldn't be posted. My point is that they are not always necessary. Some opinions can be taken on face value and if someone disagrees then great - discussion and debate ensues. I have no desire or inclination to trawl the net looking for articles on Fox News to back up my OWN OPINION. I didn't ask for Steve to come back with poll and study information, which incidently, do very little to prove that Fox aren't biased.

[Styles 0]

So basically it comes down to "they're biased because I SAID SO!" Right.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

and I never said that facts and stats shouldn't be posted.

 

That was more of a playful jab aimed at the folder in general. My bad.

 

My point is that they are not always necessary. Some opinions can be taken on face value and if someone disagrees then great - discussion and debate ensues.

 

Watching you and Steve swap posts reminded me of the time I served on Jury Duty. Even though the evidence was overwhelming at giving the defendant a "guilty" verdict, there were people in deliberation that threw out the testimoney of witnesses because they didn't "feel" that it mattered.

 

I have no desire or inclination to trawl the net looking for articles on Fox News to back up my OWN OPINION. I didn't ask for Steve to come back with poll and study information, which incidently, do very little to prove that Fox aren't biased.

 

Well your mounds of research do very little to prove that *all together now* OMGFAUXNEWSLOL2004 is biased.

 

And, for the record, I could give two shits about what you think about anything, let alone everyone's favorite cable news channel. And no, that wasn't a vicious partisan attack aimed at your patriotism -- I don't give a crap what anyone thinks at this place, and I hope to God you all have the same opinion of me...