Fox News, MSNBC, and Media Bias
It's not how many positive or negative stories a network does, but the quality of the reporting that matters ["Fox News Less Biased Than CNN, MSNBC in White House Coverage," usnews.com]! If the quality is good, then who cares if there's a disparity in positive/negative stories between certain political leaders?! Fox News does not lead in quality of reporting. Glenn Beck for instance is less of a news spokesperson and more of a "TV personality." The news has always been more about feeding us ideology than facts.
Comment by James of MD
You would have to be a fool to question whether Fox News has a right-wing bias or not. It is so blatantly apparent after spending virtually any amount of time watching it, that it is ridiculous to even debate it. In fact, it would be as ridiculous as suggesting that MSNBC doesn't have a left-wing bias. If you're looking for facts, try the BBC, PBS, CBC, or other organizations that aren't manipulated by corporate intrusion or dominated by talking heads starting every sentence with the words "I think." Also, if your news sources are essentially just cheerleaders for your political beliefs, you need to stop watching them, because they are making you part of the problem.
Comment by G. Dub of AZ
This subject would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. For the federal government to create an enemies list on a news agency is troublesome. I thought Obama was the next JFK or Abe Lincoln, not Richard Nixon! The left-wingers who hate Fox I'm sure think [Keith] Olbermann and his buddies at MSNBC always speak the truth and are never biased for Democrats and that is ridiculous. It is not even close who is more biased. Open-minded and clear-thinking people despise hypocrisy. If the left keeps this garbage up, this country will have another Civil War.
Comment by Joe of MA
The flawed logic is that you can estimate bias by counting up positive and negative stories. People and political parties that do more negative things get more negative coverage. The way to determine bias is to actually look at the content of every report and see whether it is accurate or slanted. The only alternative is to make the absurd assumption that the only truthful journalism comes out with just as many good stories as bad ones for each party or individual. No one really believes that. And can Cary be serious when she describes Fox News as a "news outlet?!" It delivers propaganda, not news.
Comment by James Coley of NC
It is self-evident that Fox News has an ideological agenda that it unabashedly pursues, rendering it anything but "fair and balanced." Fox is certainly entitled to its editorial views but crosses the line when it distorts news coverage to score ideological points. Fox should establish a strong barrier between news and editorial content. Of course, this will not happen if its goal is to cater to right-of-center viewers.
Comment by Paul Kellett of MI
- Check out our political cartoons.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (17) | Print
Reader Comments
Media Bias Tea Party: A Fox News Affair
Most Americans have already caught the drift that there is bias in media. There is “bias” in all media. Everyone and anyone in media knows and has some kind of an agenda. It doesn’t matter where you get your news; always remember there’s an agenda. The question is, what’s the stated agenda versus the *real* agenda? When presented any news this is where the reader, listener, or viewer must be able to discern the *real* media agenda, and not be blindsided by the news agency’s stated agenda. Case in point is the latest “Tea Party to Rally Against “Bias” Media. What is the *real* agenda, compared to the stated agenda?
Look where the editorializing occurs
For the ratings disparity, also consider this:
Fox News is Center-Right. All other major news outlets are Center-(or Radical-)Left. The non-Fox networks are all competing for the same market, while leaving the other 50-60% of the country to Fox. Moving his network rightward was a brilliant move by Mr. Murdoch.
News channels show legitimate news, and they show editorial programs. Fox News does a much better job than the rest of keeping the two separate. Witness:
Fox has a much higher percentage of "token liberals" than any other other network has "token conservatives".
For Tom Brokaw, it's usually "President Clinton," but "Mr. Bush".
Only AFTER a massive public outcry did NBC yank Olberman & Matthews from "news" and pull them to the editorial side.
CNN's ace field reporter, John Roberts, refers to the Democratic Party in the first-person plural.
ABC's turns its programming over to Obama-staff-written infomercials pushing healthcare "reform."
CBS aired phony Air National Guard memos critical of Bush with (at best) shoddy verification of their authenticity, and even in the face of numerous anachronisms within the documents, continued to defend them for over a week.
...I could go on
Consider also that ALL major newspapers and networks have been hemorrhaging viewers/subscribers over recent years, with two exceptions:
1. Fox (granted, part of their resilience is cited in my 1st paragraph)
2. The Washington Post (which greatly slowed its slide about a year after a complete overhaul of its editing staff yielded a re-dedication to balanced reporting).
Media outlets as sports teams
News and information is supposed to inform, not mislead. Analysis, opinion and editorializing is supposed to challenge, not reinforce one's prejudices.
It never ceases to amaze me how strongly people defend private media outlets that promote their views as if these corporate appendages were their favorite sports team. Perhaps they fail to consider is that the act of cheerleading one's opinion is tantamount to hoping it's factually correct.
When is Vegas going to get into the act? Perhaps each segment of your favorite fomentor can then be assigned a spread to reflect the chances he or she isn't simply talking out of their a$$. It works for the NFL.
advertisement
