Yeah. Perhaps I shouldn't considered an authority on that. However, I think a consensus could be reached. I'm not saying the study was bad, it's just I think it's pretty open to criticism in certain areas and maybe there would be a better way of determining things like this.

It's hard to determine what are conservative and liberal topics because, really, neither party is very conservative or liberal these days. Perhaps a better measure would be "Republican" and "Democrat" issues?

You're biased because you got knocked in the head (100%). Now I got nasty.

-Rudey

I have studies on biases in reporting on specific events in the news. For example showing victims on one side over the other, using words like militants over terrorists, etc. It's easier to do that type of a study on a specific topic, you know?

-Rudey

You're an odd one. You post for people to reply and then you come with something like this.

The truth is that I think FOX News has taken enough flak that, while they still fall far on the "right," they have become somewhat more ballanced in recent months.

They still have a highly "conservative" agenda, but at least are exploring other sides of stories -- even though I sometimes question their choice of opposition spokespersons and the treatment they sometimes receive.

Funny even after a study, people can't respond to it - all they do is come on and say "Fox is conservative". Well great, other news media is liberal. We're both right but I wouldn't doubt that they are less conservative than most other programs are liberal.

-Rudey

Well, that may well be. Maybe you should explain it for me. The Congress has been moving more "right" since the Regan days -- both Republicans and Democrats in many cases -- and the Members I saw rated in the article are contemporary.

Fox is pretty new in the overall scope of news organizations, so is it being compared to the political leanings of MC's who are not it's contemporaries?

I'm sure there are tons of studies out there. And without even looking at them, I can guess that they probably all say about the same thing about organizations like FOX, CNN and the NYT.

My dearest darlling Rudith, you're actually right. My professor did a study on this (hasn't been published yet, I don't think) that used a different methodology, and found that they were all biased, FOX just uses words with stronger connotations and thus appears to display more bias.

I went one step further for you. Here is the study in full: http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/me...closeMilyo.pdf Read it. That way you can read it in full. It breaks down the bias in different categories as well.

-Rudey

Umm Rudey said Fox displays less bias than other news sources. Keep on hating.

-Rudey

Thanks. I'll read it when I have a chance.

I was saying that FOX APPEARS to have more bias, but the actually do not - it's just that Fox will label Ted Kennedy as "liberal" or more likely "left-wing" rather than "Democratic." I think CBS was actually shown to be the most biased in our study.

Rupe Biased? They Report, You Decide
Rush & Malloy
New York Daily News
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel likes to say that it is "fair and balanced." But four people who used to work for the channel said Monday that executives directed them to slant their coverage to the mogul's conservative liking.

At a press conference at the Ritz-Carlton, Murdoch's former employees - Fox News terrorism expert Larry Johnson, Fox News Washington reporter Alexander Kippen, Fox News booker Clara Frenk and Fox News freelance writer David Korb - stood with Robert Greenwald, the director of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," a documentary on FNC that screens tonight at the New School University downtown.

Johnson said his appearances on Fox News ceased last year when he questioned the war in Iraq. "They never asked me back again," Johnson told The News' Brian Harmon.

Korb said he received orders to "make protesters look stupid and use footage of small crowds where the protesters look like pot-smoking liberals."

For his film, Greenwald obtained internal FNC memos in which execs order newswriters to describe events in a Republican-friendly way.

A Fox spokeswoman released a statement at the press conference that called the four ex-staffer's concerns "hardly worth addressing," adding that "some left due to incompetence."

Elsewhere, a former New York Post reporter claimed that Murdoch tried to dictate his stories on the media.

In a posting on Jim Romenesko's media Web site, Dan Cox said that when he was the Post's media reporter in 2002, "barely a day went by when Murdoch didn't force-feed items about his rival media moguls ...

"Not only were we not allowed to ask Murdoch any specific questions about these 'tips,' we were not allowed to check their veracity - anywhere."

Cox added, "Murdoch expected us to use them wholesale, unattributed, of course."

That echoes accounts of last week's Post "exclusive" flub on Sen. John Kerry's vice-presidential choice - which also ran without a byline.

The Post is a tabloid. It's never made any gesture to hide it.

The rest of the material: At the end of the day it's all accusations, made only by 4 people out of a large network, made by people who also are promoting a documentary, and doesn't compare to an actual study with statistical measures.

-Rudey