Fox News Feud

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Has anyone on your staff looked at the photo you show of the young man? His eyes are a clear pale blue. The man you show behind the glass is a close up of him!!!! He has brown black eyes. Are these the same man??? I've worked as a nurse for 40 years and I've never seen this happen except in newborn infants.
Dis he steel the other mans identity?? Is the other person even alive?? Did the real guy set this guy up to take the fall?
I would recommend some more research on this. By the way I watch Fox News most days exceot to watch HGTV.

Ruth Mellberg of CO 2:35PM May 18, 2010

Michael of California,
Were Pew Research Center to have analyzed the stats like they should have, one comes to the conclusion that MSNBC, CNN & the MSM in general are indeed mouthpieces for Obama.
Pew should have compared MSNBC's coverage of Obama with MSNBC's coverage of McCain and then done the same for CNN, FOX NEWS and so on.
Comparing MSNBC's general election coverage of Obama with MSNBC's general election coverage of McCain & then doing the same for CNN, FOX NEWS and so on - here is what you find:
1.) MSNBC's general election coverage of Obama was 14% negative & 43% positive. MSNBC's general election coverage of McCain was 73% negative & 10% positive.
2.) CNN's general election coverage of Obama was 39% negative. CNN's general election coverage of McCain was 61% negative.
3.) FOX NEWS general election coverage of Obama was 40% negative & 25% positive. FOX NEWS general election coverage of McCain was 40% negative & 22% positive.
4.) The MSM's overall general election coverage of Obama was 29% negative & 36% positive. The MSM's overall general election coverage of McCain was 57% negative and 14% positive.
Then, one finds that MSNBC was indeed 5X as negative in their coverage of McCain compared to MSNBC's coverage of Obama (McCain's 73% negative vs Obama's 14% negative). MSNBC was indeed 4X as positive in their coverage of Obama compared to their coverage of McCain (Obama's 43% positive vs McCain's 10% positive).
CNN was 1.5X as negative in their coverage of McCain compared to their coverage of Obama (McCain's 61% negative vs Obama's 39% negative).
FOX NEWS was equally negative for both Obama & McCain (40% negative for both) and more positive for Obama (Obama's 25% positive vs McCain's 22% positive).
The MSM's overall general election coverage was 2X as negative in their overall coverage of McCain compared to their overall coverage of Obama (McCain's 57% negative vs Obama's 29% negative). The MSM's overall election coverage was 2.5X as positive for Obama compared to the MSM's overall coverage of McCain (Obama's 36% positive vs McCain's 14% positive).
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
YOU, Michael of California, have MUCH to learn. YOU have yet to learn that MSNBC, CNN - AND the MSM in general - are Obama's mouthpieces.
You need to learn to not take at face value a template that is presented. Look at the stats and then analyze them.

Bob of ID 11:04AM October 27, 2009

Pew did what they did for a reason. Their stats were correct, but their analysis was shoddy.
Pew SHOULD HAVE compared MSNBC with MSNBC, FOX with FOX, CNN with CNN and the MSM with the MSM.
IOW, Pew should have compared MSNBC's positive & negative coverage of Obama with MSNBC's positive and negative coverage of McCain. Pew should have compared the MSM's overall coverage of Obama (both positive andd negative) with the MSM's overall coverage of McCain (both positive and negative).
Same for CNN and Fox News.
That is what Mike did, Michael of California.
Michael of California - YOU are the idiot.

Bob of ID 8:48AM October 27, 2009

Michael, I have read and re-read that study. Mike is spot on.
You said that conservatives never cite anything. That is a sweeping generalization on your part. Mike did cite - he gave a link to the source.
Second, Pew's angle in comparing negtivity and positivity was to compare FOX's positivity & negativity to MSNBC's, CNN and the overall MSM's positivity and negativity for each candidate. Pew wanted to compare Fox's positivity and negativity when covering Obama to CNN's and MSNBC's and the overall MSM's when they covered Obama. Pew wanted to compare FOX's positivity and negativity when covering McCain to CNN's and MSNBC and the overall MSM's covering of McCain.
What PEW could have done - yet chose not to - was to compare/contrast like Mike did.
Mike broke things down differently, that's all. He looked to see what Fox'e positive and negative coverage was for McCain & Obama and did the same with CNN. MSNBC and the overall MSM and then compare them with each other.
Statistics can be looked at more than one way. Pew's study can be broke down the way Mike broke it down. Mike did an excellent job, in fact. You, Michael of California - EPIC FAIL.
YOU are the idiot.

Bob of ID 7:05AM October 27, 2009

A previous commenter, Mike of NH, is an idiot.
He cites a Pew Research study to show that "The MSM is clearly a mouthpiece for Obama" and to show that Fox News was fair and CNN/MSNBC were unfair in general election coverage.
It takes only a mild amount of reading comprehension to prove these false. Go to the link he provided: http://www.journalism.org/node/13436 : and read the findings. Here's the important ones:
#1 -- "On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm. For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive and substantially less negative."
#2 -- "CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone."
#3 -- "The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News."
That last one is important. It shows the differences between OPINION (MSNBC) and NEWS (NBC News).
Lastly, Fox has the highest viewers of all 3 broadcasters -- higher than the other 2 combined. So to pretend that MAIN STREAM MEDIA is something other than Fox is delirious at best.
This is why conservatives never cite anything. Because when they do, and you check their sources, they're either (1) biased or (2) say the complete opposite of what they're trying to make them say.

Michael of CA 12:02AM October 27, 2009

Everyone knows that Fox News is a right wing propaganda machine.

Don of OH 8:23PM October 26, 2009

Just as the FOX could not be trusted in its flag-waving coverage and support of the 43rd President, George W. Bush, thus can it now not be trusted for its unrelenting attacks on the 44th President Barack H. Obama. Simply said: they were not believable in the past and are no more credible in the present.
T. Korn

Tad Korn of CA 8:08PM October 26, 2009

Obama said that FOX NEWS was not a real news source, but he lied through his teeth when uttering this. The Main Stream Media (MSM) is Obama's mouthpiece and Obama knows this and wants it to stay that way. He attacked Fox News to send a message to the MSM to not report on information that FOX NEWS digs up on Obama or his administration (ACORN, Van Jones & so on) and that if they did that they would pay the price for doing so.
A Pew Research Center study of the general election shows that the MSM is biased, was hysterically desperate to get Obama elected president and is indeed Obama's mouthpiece:
MSNBC's general election coverage (news stories) of Obama was 14% negative & 43% positive. Their general election coverage of McCain was a whopping 73% negative & a miniscule 10% positive. MSNBC's general election coverage had 4 times as many positive news stories of Obama when compared to their general election coverage of McCain (43% vs 10%), and their general election coverage had 5 times as many negative news stories of McCain when compared to their general coverage of Obama (73% vs 14%).
CNN wasn't much better than MSDNC in their general election coverage: their general election coverage (news stories) of Obama was 39% negative & their general election coverage of McCain was 61% negative.
FOX NEWS general election coverage (news stories) of Obama was 40% negative & 25% positive. Their general election coverage of McCain was 40% negative & 22% positive. FOX NEWS general election coverage was equally negative for both (40%) and actually had more positive news stories for Obama than they did for McCain (25% vs 22%).
FOX NEWS actually had more positive news stories for Obama than they had for McCain, unlike CNN or MSNBC who had far more negative news stories for McCain than they did for Obama.
The MSM's overall general election coverage (news stories) of Obama was 29% negative & 36& positive. Their overall general election coverage of McCain was a whopping 57% negative and a miniscule 14% positive. The MSM's overall general election coverage had 2.5 times as many positive news stories of Obama when compared to their general election coverage of McCain (36% vs 14%), and the MSM had 2 times as many negative news stories of McCain when compared to their general election coverage of Obama (57% vs 29%).
The MSM is clearly a mouthpiece for Obama - and they still get a thrill up their leg for him! Liberals know that the MSM is a mouthpiece for Obama and that only Fox News is speaking truth to power, but they won't admit it. In the end, they would rather lie through their teeth about FOX NEWS, make up falsehoods about it, and make excuses for the MSM's bias in reporting the news.
LINK TO PEW RESEARCH STUDY: http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Mike of NH 7:15PM October 26, 2009

Here's a sportscaster spin doctor liberal who is so heinous in his rhetoric, and no one cares because he's a lefty, but let Fox even appear to be conservative and the White House goes on the offensive. I know...tell Obama to stop campaigning, stop making speeches and avoiding his office, go to work and actually take charge, and maybe he'll have less to worry about. In the meantime, send Olbermann back to announcing sports.

Tim of VA 7:06PM October 26, 2009

The feud between President Obama and Fox news looks like what we see every day here in Nigeria. Over here it is the norm for government to censor a section of the media and the people understand and even accept it as a display of power. I mean we are a third world country right? Well the last time i checked the United States is supposed to be the bastion of democracy, and we are told by your leaders including President Obama that freedom of the press is the very essence of democracy, so can somebody tell me why the president of the free world is afraid of criticism? When the president of the United States goes about whining that he is not loved by everybody and employs tactics similar to what i find in our clime then there are issues. Why in the world is he acting like a third world leader? Maybe it is the Kenyan blood in him.

gboyega adegbenro 6:19PM October 26, 2009