Is FoxNews fair and balanced?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You decide.



Link with video

[Frodo]

of course not -it was designed as a station specifically for conservatives as a protest against what they perceived as pervasive liberal media bias throughout mainstream media outlets like the networks, PBS, and CNN. 

my theory as to why Fox News Channel continues to market itself as being 'fair and balanced' when they clearly aren't, relates to the point they are trying to make -that if television networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS could pretend they are being legitimate mainstream news sources when they are biased toward liberals, then there is no reason why Fox can't do the same. 

     

[Citizen James]

Depends on how you define "fair" and "Balanced".  Let's take a look at what definitions fit best:

Fair: acceptable, but not worthy of much praise.  Of a quality which is not very good, but not horible either.

I find that they usually get thier facts straight, just that they mix in editorializing freely with their facts.  In many ways they are quite similar to the style Michael Moore used in F9/11 (which I found similarly mediocre).

Balanced(adj of balance): a weight or force on one side in excess of the other.

Yep, that describes them to a T.  They have a heavy right wing ballance.

So, there you have it,  Fox News - fair and ballance(d)

[dazzleman]

of course not -it was designed as a station specifically for conservatives as a protest against what they perceived as pervasive liberal media bias throughout mainstream media outlets like the networks, PBS, and CNN. 

my theory as to why Fox News Channel continues to market itself as being 'fair and balanced' when they clearly aren't, relates to the point they are trying to make -that if television networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS could pretend they are being legitimate mainstream news sources when they are biased toward liberals, then there is no reason why Fox can't do the same. 

     

You're absolutely correct.  It always makes me laugh how most liberals seem to think that a liberal monopoly on the media is in the bill of rights.  Liberals control nearly all the media, yet focus their ire on the one news channel that isn't biased in their direction.

Fox's success suggests that many people out there were and are sick of the liberal bias in the media.

[minionofmidas]

James is spot on.

[Platypus]

of course not -it was designed as a station specifically for conservatives as a protest against what they perceived as pervasive liberal media bias throughout mainstream media outlets like the networks, PBS, and CNN. 

my theory as to why Fox News Channel continues to market itself as being 'fair and balanced' when they clearly aren't, relates to the point they are trying to make -that if television networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS could pretend they are being legitimate mainstream news sources when they are biased toward liberals, then there is no reason why Fox can't do the same. 

     

You're absolutely correct. It always makes me laugh how most liberals seem to think that a liberal monopoly on the media is in the bill of rights. Liberals control nearly all the media, yet focus their ire on the one news channel that isn't biased in their direction.

Fox's success suggests that many people out there were and are sick of the liberal bias in the media.

I'll tell you what is hilarious? CNN, NBS, etc., and especially PBS, aren't actually suffering from a leftwing bias I've never really watched CBS news, though.

If anything, all the stations that people say have a left wing bias have a right wing bias, although PBS and NBC are pretty neutral. CNN is odd-it really shifts sho to show but is rarely in the dead middle. It is the closest to a left wing bias, but there are plenty of right wing opinions presented.

That's just from an outsiders pov, though. It just seems to me that the networks over there are running as far to the right as possible to gain/not lose viewers. More power to CBS if it is actually going to be a liberal antidote to Fox because there isn't one around at the moment...

[dazzleman]

I'll tell you what is hilarious? CNN, NBS, etc., and especially PBS, aren't actually suffering from a leftwing bias I've never really watched CBS news, though.

If anything, all the stations that people say have a left wing bias have a right wing bias, although PBS and NBC are pretty neutral. CNN is odd-it really shifts sho to show but is rarely in the dead middle. It is the closest to a left wing bias, but there are plenty of right wing opinions presented.

That's just from an outsiders pov, though. It just seems to me that the networks over there are running as far to the right as possible to gain/not lose viewers. More power to CBS if it is actually going to be a liberal antidote to Fox because there isn't one around at the moment...

Dude, if you think PBS is neutral, you're very much to the left.  It's all in your perspective.  Who knows - maybe some people think Fox News is too liberal.

CBS News clearly has a political agenda, and this was proven by their fake National Guard story against President Bush.  I think the story backfired and helped him, and CBS News ratings are slumping.  If networks are moving to the right, it's because their losing viewers because people are sick of being served up liberal propaganda.

[Platypus]

i'm just going by the news programs-Newshour is very, very unbiased.

[dazzleman]

i'm just going by the news programs-Newshour is very, very unbiased.

Honestly, I don't think any news program can be truly unbiased, even if those presenting it try to be.

Bias can be blatant, and it can be subtle.  Just the choice of which stories to present, and which to ignore, involves bias, potentially.  I don't think anybody watching a news program can know the level of bias without also knowing the stories that they declined to present, as well as the stories they did present.

I don't think that at this point, we should necessarily hold lack of bias as the holy grail of journalism.  Maybe it would be better to simply admit that it's impossible to report on anything without some degree of bias, and just be upfront about it, rather than arguing who is biased and who isn't, when all are biased.  I think it's more a matter of whether bias is blatant or subtle, not whether it exists.

[opebo]

FOX is propaganda, but the so-called liberal media is in fact 'fair and balanced' simply because it is liberal.  Liberalism is the moderate compromise between laissez-faire and socialism economically, and the moderate/modest position of respect for the individual on private issues. 

Socialism in fact has no voice at all in the media.  What we have in America is one extreme right-wing station, and some moderate, balanced ones.

[Moooooo]

No, but everyone has an agenda.  Dont they?

[Jake]

It doesn't much matter really.

[PBrunsel]

Once again jfern takes something out of context. He is very good at that, like most radicals.

Personally I don't give a dang about Fox News or CNN. I listen to WOC Radio for the news and watch the local news every night.

[J.R. Brown]

of course not -it was designed as a station specifically for conservatives as a protest against what they perceived as pervasive liberal media bias throughout mainstream media outlets like the networks, PBS, and CNN. 

my theory as to why Fox News Channel continues to market itself as being 'fair and balanced' when they clearly aren't, relates to the point they are trying to make -that if television networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS could pretend they are being legitimate mainstream news sources when they are biased toward liberals, then there is no reason why Fox can't do the same. 

     

You're absolutely correct.  It always makes me laugh how most liberals seem to think that a liberal monopoly on the media is in the bill of rights.  Liberals control nearly all the media, yet focus their ire on the one news channel that isn't biased in their direction.

Fox's success suggests that many people out there were and are sick of the liberal bias in the media.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but as a liberal I would have to say that media bias is apparent in all aspects of the mass media. I don't claim that a liberal monopoly of the media is in the bill of rights, that sounds like some conservative bull sh**t. Conservatives control fox and liberals control CNN.

[Alcon]

There is obvious bias in both, but in all reality, it is not all that biased. People complain a lot about media bias, when in all reality the differences are only occasionally evident. The only reason I don't watch Fox News is because it is way too in-your-face, not because it is biased.

[Frodo]

of course not -it was designed as a station specifically for conservatives as a protest against what they perceived as pervasive liberal media bias throughout mainstream media outlets like the networks, PBS, and CNN. 

my theory as to why Fox News Channel continues to market itself as being 'fair and balanced' when they clearly aren't, relates to the point they are trying to make -that if television networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS could pretend they are being legitimate mainstream news sources when they are biased toward liberals, then there is no reason why Fox can't do the same. 

     

You're absolutely correct.  It always makes me laugh how most liberals seem to think that a liberal monopoly on the media is in the bill of rights.  Liberals control nearly all the media, yet focus their ire on the one news channel that isn't biased in their direction.

Fox's success suggests that many people out there were and are sick of the liberal bias in the media.

just to wipe away any misconceptions you might have regarding my post -i don't believe all that tripe about there being a liberal media bias, and quite frankly i think all you conservatives are being overly paranoid about it.  it's like you (collectively) see a conspiracy under every rock.  do not for one moment think that you and i see eye-to-eye on this issue.

i do, however, try to understand the viewpoints of those whom i disagree with, and that was the main point of my post -it was not to suggest i actually agreed with them.   

[Hitchabrut]

No. We need some right-wing bias on TV.

[??????????]

of course not -it was designed as a station specifically for conservatives as a protest against what they perceived as pervasive liberal media bias throughout mainstream media outlets like the networks, PBS, and CNN. 

my theory as to why Fox News Channel continues to market itself as being 'fair and balanced' when they clearly aren't, relates to the point they are trying to make -that if television networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS could pretend they are being legitimate mainstream news sources when they are biased toward liberals, then there is no reason why Fox can't do the same. 

     

You're absolutely correct.  It always makes me laugh how most liberals seem to think that a liberal monopoly on the media is in the bill of rights.  Liberals control nearly all the media, yet focus their ire on the one news channel that isn't biased in their direction.

Fox's success suggests that many people out there were and are sick of the liberal bias in the media.

just to wipe away any misconceptions you might have regarding my post -i don't believe all that tripe about there being a liberal media bias, and quite frankly i think all you conservatives are being overly paranoid about it.  it's like you (collectively) see a conspiracy under every rock.  do not for one moment think that you and i see eye-to-eye on this issue.

i do, however, try to understand the viewpoints of those whom i disagree with, and that was the main point of my post -it was not to suggest i actually agreed with them.   

A bit standoffish, ya think?

Liberals, for compromise....lol

[phk]

Ah, if you don't agree with something your going to find it biased, its that simple.

[dazzleman]

just to wipe away any misconceptions you might have regarding my post -i don't believe all that tripe about there being a liberal media bias, and quite frankly i think all you conservatives are being overly paranoid about it.  it's like you (collectively) see a conspiracy under every rock.  do not for one moment think that you and i see eye-to-eye on this issue.

i do, however, try to understand the viewpoints of those whom i disagree with, and that was the main point of my post -it was not to suggest i actually agreed with them.   

I'm so relieved that you try to understand opposing viewpoints.  It matters not to me what you agree with.

[phk]

This is really interesting to me... the question of media bias.

You are correct in saying that all media reflects bias, and that it is unavoidable. This is because it is written by human subjects who can never entirely seperate their personal subjectivity and ideological motives from objective reality.

It is a dialectical and ideological process in actually "uncovering" the truth. Which makes the process rather tricky, given that everyone is always already ideologically interpellated and that all media caries with it propaganda. (Fox News, CNN; all attack-dogs of the current political parties)

So understanding truth is like detective work. Essentially, taking ideological raw material and refining it.

In terms of understanding media, it comes down to structural analysis. The key is understanding the way in which structures (the political and ideological superstructures and the economic infrastructure) act as forces upon each other in a "complex structured whole."

Thus if we are well informed by the standards presented to us by the average American (we read the New York Times and watch the evening news) we really aren't well informed in any structural sense, as the lack of objectivity or perspective doesn't allow for accurate analysis.

Here's what I do:

I read many papers and journal from various perspectives. I read what the Press agencies put out, namely Reuters; the Corporate Media (meaning media that is profit driven, based upon advertising and thus runs stories that are profitable based upon market analysis). These are NY Times, LA Times; usually gives a perspective of what people that classify themselves as well-informed are thinking.

The journals from both the left and right that offer a fairly solid analysis of events. On the left wing of the spectrum you have CounterPunch, SocialistWorker, New Left Review; on the right you have, The Economist.

You can't stop there either, you have to understand the perspective of the world and the global players, so check out international papers such as the BBC, Al-Jazeera, JapanToday are saying. All of these are burgoise papers so read the proletarian papers like The Militant (Trotsykist) and the RWOR (Maoist, and my personal favorite); these are important for perspective.

But when looking at any international issue check out hte proper national papers that deal with it, and the nations involved. I read such online papers as IRNA (Iran), Gooya (Iran); when I want analyze the leftist student protests in Tehran, which is the event that I have followed for the past few years more closely than other.

Of course in any dynamic system (a system with an excess of variables) no analysis is rock solid. But this is the best method I've come up with understanding events: study history and contemporary reporting, both from as wide a range of perspectives as possible, and then combine this with economic analysis.

[dazzleman]

Ah, if you don't agree with something your going to find it biased, its that simple.

Very true! Good observation.

That' sometimes true, but I have read stuff that I don't agree with that I don't consider biased.  I consider something biases when it twists the facts, or leaves out significant facts, in order to paint a certain picture.  Presenting opinion as fact is another measure of bias.  I have no problem with opposing opinions, and I think those presenting opposing opinions can make an effort to be as unbiased as possible.  I don't think an opposing opinion is the only indicator that leads people to believe something is biased.