Study: Is Fox Too Balanced?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

So, in other words, you believe the mainstream networks are less biased because they advocate for global warming. Since Fox dismisses it, they are more bias? This would be true if the writer of this article was biased on the side of global warming (and according to the article, they endorse that position), but if they disagreed with that position, then Fox would be less biased.
In summary, Fox disagrees with our position and therefore, they are bias.
STUPID!

roostir of CA 5:09PM February 29, 2012

It is our nature as Americans to be critical and not accepting.

Anna of MO 8:45PM January 18, 2012

Want balance? How about we have three networks with NO liberals on it, ever? That would be balance.

Ron of PA 1:01PM January 10, 2012

"They wrote, "Fox broadcasts were more likely to include statements that challenged the scientific agreement on climate change, undermined the reality of climate change, and questioned its human causes."
You just proved your bias in the topic you chose and your conclusions based on your leftist ideology.
Paul you simpleton! The sad part is liberals like you can't or won't see it.

James of OH 12:37PM January 10, 2012

Fox news is an excellent example of how contaminated by "progressive" ideology American political discourse has become. Even supposedly conservative Fox responds to negative news about the economy with exactly the same knee-jerk reaction that CNN and the non-cable networks do: "What is the government going to do about this?" That reaction is based on the very liberal assumption that it is the government's job to constantly intervene in the economy, which is absolutely false. By intervening in the hopes of avoiding economic pain, the government delays necessary changes and generally makes the pain worse. Businesses and individuals should decide on their own how to best deal with news, good or bad, and government action delays or prevents those market-based decisions. Even liberal darling John Maynard Keynes believed that the government should only intervene in times of EXTREME economic difficulty; the rest of the time, the government should stay out of the way and let the markets function. That second part of his message is lost on today's politicians, who only see as far as the next election cycle. To politicians, especially liberal ones, any constituent complaining about some difficulty is an extreme situation justifying government action. Keynes would have been appalled by the use of his name to justify massive permanent deficits, to say nothing of a national debt greater than the GDP.

John M. of TN 12:24PM January 10, 2012

Why on earth would you pick "global warming"? Earth to Paul...the data was faked, remember the emails?
Why not pick Operation Fast and Furious. Apart from CBS, the MSM ignores it completely. Wonder why.
The only reason Fox looks so biased is point of reference. The so-called mainstream is so far left-stream that the middle looks biased to them.
TRUTH....all we readers want is the TRUTH. And the left can't tell the truth unless it supports their cause. It is pathetic.
Good pick with GW. A great lie that the "balanced" left propogated for years...and still does.

Ken Yangottago of MD 12:08PM January 10, 2012

This is the most insane article I have read in years. Since when are voices critical of public policy and dialog biased because the represent opposing views? This approach is right out of Nazi Germany. MSNBC and CNN should be held accountable for not covering both sides of the issues. You write this as though the only approach to the news is to bias it in favor of the liberal agenda, and any other approach except deception is "bias". You've just made me commit to watch Fox more often!

Leonard Umina of AZ 10:02AM January 10, 2012

The headline is regarding fair and balanced, yet the copy immediately plunges into global warming. Misleading. My observation is that FOX is often NOT worth watching [click] as they provide air time to ridiculous views, e.g. more government deficit spending is growing private sector jobs to the benefit of the economy ...not worth listening to those who agree. Dozens of other examples are possible whereas if TRUTH was always the focus, we can dispense with "balanced." If you want a business plan, start a T-FOX network (T=truth) that is unabashedly conservative and 100% fact based. Intelligent, informed people enjoy discussing issues based on facts, not opinion or agenda

Scott Lennox of FL 8:56AM January 10, 2012

I am so tired of this stupid argument and the stupid people that believe this crap. The bottom line is this: The earth is 4+billion years old, give or take a few years. The earth has been covered with water; it has been covered with volcanoes; it has been covered with ice. It has been very hot, and very, very cold. It has been tropical, and sub-arctic. It has been all these things over 4+billion years, and for 99.98% (give or take a few percentiles)of these years; there were NO human beings on the earth. None. No humans with SUVs, or hairspray, or air conditioning. Yes, the earth's climate is changing. It will change if I am here, or if Al Gore is not here. There is nothing you can do about it. It is not your fault, you are a comma in the long book of geology. Leave me alone!
And by the way, well said, John Hall.

Raymie of MO 8:30AM January 10, 2012

"The bottom line: Being balanced and providing supportive and critical views of global warming is actually biased because it gives critics a louder voice."
Being balanced...is actually biased. Yeah, and up is actually down. Freedom is actually slavery. Ice cream is actually raw Lima beans. Peter Griffin is actually Mohandas Gandhi.
Science is never settled. That's why it is called science, not dogma. Newton's ideas about of gravity were proven errant by Einstein. Perhaps someday soon, when more is known about the Higgs Boson, Einstein's concept of gravity being a warping of spacetime will also be upended.
If we don't know for sure what gravity is, or what it really means for space and time to be the same thing, if they are, how can our computer models predict the future for our planet? Does no one recall the necessity of the branch of mathematics called chaos theory?
From Wikipedia's 'chaos theory' entry: "Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome. [44] Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, showed that even detailed atmospheric modelling cannot in general make long-term weather predictions."
Computer models are simply long strings of code that delineate whatever logic has been chosen to run the model, a distilled Computer Science version of what the creators think they know to be true, highly sensitive to initial conditions as programmed. But, we don't really understand rules as fundamental as gravity, let alone all the rest we don't know, so how can we possibly distill this LACK of knowledge into accurately predictive code?
Of course our climate is changing. Everything is changing all the time. But, what will happen tomorrow? We don't know, and to claim that you know and I don't just demonstrates your overbearing ignorance and arrogance.
I thought modern liberals were supposed to be educated to the point of enlightenment, but really they turn out to be the worst of the worst intellectually--they refuse to think for themselves, seriously, all the while insisting that they are right and everyone else is either evil or stupid.

John Hall of OK 6:52AM January 10, 2012