Fox News and Media Bias
Reader Comments
NEWS BIAS...Research .... UCLA
Excellent research on this subject was conducted by a Political Science Professer at UCLA. Check it out (Media Bias Is Real,Finds UCLA Political Scientiest/UCLA Newsroom)...
It was obvious.
The media was so bias, and it didn't take Fox news to tell us that, the whole world saw it. They carried the left-wing illuminati the entire election.
Liberal MSM bias
FACTS:
1) Editor Newsweek Evan Thomas ..quote:
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Sidein New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut."
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas.
FACT 2.
Whether you agree or not there is a media bias as this UCLA study indicates of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center,
with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the
Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most biased.
FACT 3.
"An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" by Deborah Howell Ombudsman
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama.
My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
"The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32,
than on Sen. John McCain, 13.
There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain
than there were about Obama (32), "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html?sub=new
Fact 4.
Biased news study
by http://www.journalism.org/node/13309
Obama's coverage: 36% positive, 29% negative, 35% neutral,
McCain's coverage 14% positive, 58% negative,28% neutral.
"In the news media, that tumultuous week played terribly for McCain, the second bad one in a row. While Obama enjoyed more than a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative coverage that week, McCain’s was the reverse. A mere 11% of his stories were positive while 50% were negative. Another 40% were neutral.
So if you are objective, logical and rationale readers,
and you hear statements like:The MSM's slavish ("my leg tingled when I heard Obama" Chris Matthews) THERE IS AND HAS BEEN A MSM bias!
Advertising sells right? Well people usually flip the commercials for the content and in the above FACTS the content presented Obams as the Messiah
and McCain/GOP the bad guys!
Any of you who ignore these studies of biased MSM have been drinking the kool-AID of Jim Jonesville!!!
Kool-Aid
Shouldn't Kool-Aid be getting royalties every time a journalist, news commentator, or Rush uses the term Kool-Aid? And when will Kool-Aid be re-stocking the ever popular Obama Kool-Aid? I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
Fox
Fox News itself has peddled the idea that all mainstream media is liberally biased. The McCain camp only gave interviews to conservative-leaning outlets--including Faux--I mean Fox News. Remember, this is where "Obama's Baby Mama" originated, along with the Obamas' "terrorist fist jab." Fox News doesn't deserve a lot of things, but it does deserve props for executing a brilliant marketing campaign for disgruntled Joe's looking for a hip bar to cry into their beer.
I like Fox News
I prefer Fox. I have for years...and I'm a moderate Democrat.
News or Opinion, MSM or the Facts
The recent election made many issues come into focus, one of the sharpest was the MSM -- what is reported, the bias or the facts and how journalists have moved away from their profession of reporting news.
As a teen in Washington, our journalism class regularly read the Washington Post. (Yes... during the Watergate period). This was something I continued to read during college at a leading Washington university and some years on. Decades later I picked up the Washington Post and thought it had become totally an Op-Ed paper, maybe even a tabloid.
How I came upon that disappointing conclusion was reading it after spending a couple of days watching C-SPAN and the live news on CNN and FOX and reading news online. After checking to make sure I wasn't reading blogs on the Washington Post site, I tried to align the stories with what I watched. What was reported as fact in the Post, barely resembled what I watched live and unedited.
Comparing CNN to Fox -- there too, not even close. I am not a fan of Fox but in the real world, Fox was superior and are more journalists than all the other US cable news networks.
How did this happen, when did you not need two sources to verify a story anymore? When did it happen that personal opinion became the focus of the story?
David Schuster of MSNBC, another cable news channel, exploded with the hoax story about McCain leaks. He became the latest example of this refocused reporting while making an embarrassment of the news, not reporting it, because of his personal agenda. I couldn't help think of the bias that has taken over the commitment for truth in journalism. Would I be to surprised to see that same story in the Washington Post -- yes in the 70s, but no not today.
sam dealy
dude,you are so blinded by your liberal little mind set that even logical sense does'nt even get your attention any more.
history taught us that congress runs the president and tne country.campaign promises are rarely reality. so why is that what people vote on? you should vote on who a person is, that will tell you what they can do. Obama? well, some people didn't care who he is obviously, they voted for him any way.now we all suffer,huge.big government means little freedom. we are now on a collision course with dictatorship,and most say, wow, how did this happen. PREY!
Hannity and Colmes is not 'News'
The problem here is one's perception of what is news. Hannity & Colmes is not a news program. It is opinion-commentary-debate, and anyone who considers it news is mistaken.
Conversely, The Daily Show is also not news, yet many young people say that is their prime news source. Sad.
Journalists need to stand up for the ideals of true journalism, objectivity, investigation, and balance. People must be helped to recognize (pathetic, isn't it?) the difference between news shows and all the others.
Who, of those who do know the difference, still trust that journalists see their role as reporting, rather than advocating?
