What was the point of this post in this thread?

Perhaps it would serve as a focal point for debate in another thread that is more in keeping with debate about the War in Iraq, or the issue of WMD. As it is this has nothing to do with the debate over any bias that FNC may have.

I think he posted it in the wrong thread.

Off topic, but what did fox news forget to fuzz out in this clip?

lol

http://content.collegehumor.com/medi...pornslipup.wmv

Appears that the CRTC folks are as strange as the FCC. Although this is only one person's opinion:

Canada, Al Jazeera, and Fox
By Rondi Adamson
Christian Science Monitor
Al Jazeera has been deemed acceptable viewing for Canadians ... but Fox News?

No. It's currently only available to Canadians with illegal satellite connections. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a federal agency that decides what constitutes appropriate viewing and listening for Canadians, and that, last month, granted Al Jazeera the right to broadcast in Canada, is a paleo-concept. That culturecrats in Ottawa have, as their mandate, the protection of "Canadian values" and promotion of "Canadian content" reeks of rightthink, doublespeak, and social engineering.

On the surface, the Al Jazeera decision seems to jell with the CRTC's raison d'tre, but the reasoning isn't consistent. The commission says Al Jazeera doesn't compete with existing channels. True enough. We don't have a 24-hour Arabic news network that bubbles with anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. We do, however, have a public broadcaster with barely concealed anti-American and anti-Israeli biases. Canadians should perhaps be grateful their taxes don't fund Al Jazeera as they do the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

What Canadians most certainly do not have is a conservative news network. Yet Fox News was told in 2000 that it could broadcast in Canada only if it offered a schedule with 15 percent Canadian content. I'm grateful this proposal never took off, particularly when I see the Canadian version of MSNBC - Matthews, Scarborough, et al., interspersed with a distressing array of Northern talking heads singing the praises of Canadian multiculturalism, social programs, and niceness.

CRTC defenders - and there are many in Canada's arts community - say the agency is simply trying to shield Canadian sensibilities from nefarious outside influences. (Read: conservative American influences.) The reluctance to allow access to a network that might shake up the status quo is a reflection of national insecurity. The issue isn't whether people will like everything they see on Fox News. CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast here sans Canadian content. But they're relatively centrist. And no one seems concerned that BBC World airs here or that the CBC 24-hour cable channel carries its nightly newscast. So the BBC is competing with existing stations - but it has all the right (or, better said, left) biases. If Al Jazeera were rejected, the CRTC would be called intolerant by many in a nation where moral relativism has become the norm. One man's fatwa is another man's hockey game.

The CRTC is again considering an application from Fox News - a decision is expected in the fall. Curiously, in clearing the way for Al Jazeera, the CRTC included a waiver asking distributors to edit out "abusive comment." This sets a dangerous precedent: If we watch Al Jazeera - and I'm not convinced we shouldn't be allowed to - we should be exposed to what it truly is, not a sanitized version. Not to mention that if Fox News is permitted in Canada, I wouldn't be astonished if "abusive comments" (Read: pro-American) were replaced with a test pattern.

Rondi Adamson is a Canadian writer.

*Shakes his head*

-Rudey
--But then again, honestly I really don't care that much about what goes on in Canada so...

Any one else enjoy the irony of a writer deploring the percieved bias of the CRTC while demonstrating un-abashedly her own?

Al Jazeera was accepted by the CRTC yes, but with a crap-load of special rules they have to follow - time delay, permenant record of all broadcasts... stuff like that.... guess they used Don Cherry and Coach's Corner as an example :)

As for the allegations about the lack of Canadian content in on the channels she named... actually they cover the Canadian content by having Canadian commericals (which makes sense.. duh) and public service announcements during the broadcast. For example the broadcast of CNN does show Canadian commericals... but more importantly, it also has adds or announcements, which helps fullfill their Canadian culture "quota".

No bias seen on the writer's part.

-Rudey

Alright since their is some discussion about Al Jazeera and FOX News in relation to Canada, sparked in part by the Rondi Adamson op-ed article earlier... I thought I'd give a little more background, so the two following links will take you to very brief articles on the subject:
http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...a-fc4ca17ea236

http://www.canada.com/search/story.h...5-da9e33b61989

Now both are from the National Post, which could be considered a "conservative" newspaper, just as Rondi Adamson is a "conservative" op-ed writer... think Ann Coultier , but toned down.


Now the following link is to an article reviewing a film attacking FOX News, with some background info for the readers... now bear in mind that this article comes from a newspaper that Rondi Adamson has attacked as "liberal", "anti-American", "un-Christian", and a couple of others.... now that being said the paper is pretty much from the centre of the political spectrum for Canadians, much as the CBC is... so enjoy.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1092175811195

I tried to find more on FOX News or Al Jazeera, but the majority of articles were more concerned with Al Jazeera being recently banned by the Iraqi government... or complaints about the coverage of the DNC by FOX News.

Actually this thread has a link to the only study on whether Fox news is biased and how much compared to other networks. Please share with your fellow Canadians since some might be close-minded.

-Rudey

This first article says that Rogers was a huge supporter of bringing this to Canada.
I do believe they have decided not to carry this channel.

Unfortunately, American media is heavily partisan. There is no true "unbiased media" or "bi-partisan" media outlet. The glut of media leans toward the left. Conservative journalists who work for liberal publications are pigeonholed into the role of "Conservative Commenter" while the plum roles of more "mainstream jobs" like anchormen and reporters are decidedly liberal.

The overwhelming majority of media is not indicative of the political leanings of the American public. There is a majority of liberal media, and a decided lack of convervative media outlets. Fox News is a conservative network, and an outlet for conservative America. Let us be reminded that CNN, C-SPAN, NBC, CBS and ABC-- other primary media-- are decidedly liberal and cater to the liberal audience.

Consider this. In the last two presidential elections---
In 1996, 89% of Washington bureau chiefs and journalists voted for Clinton.
In 2000, 7% ofWashington bureau chiefs and journalists voted for Dubya.

This illustrates that there is a uneven balance of liberal journalists to conservative journalists, thus showing the media angles are disproportionately representative of the American political landscape; conservatives do not have any where near as many conservative media outlets as liberals have liberal media outlets.

So to summarize: we live in a bi-partisan society with decidedly partisan media, and uneven partisan representation within the media.

You may be right but, with no interest in getting into a huge debate, let me point out a couple of problems I have in your theory.

First, why would all of these bureau chiefs and journalists have any interest in letting anyone know how they voted? That's why we have a secret ballot. Saying that 89% of this and 7% of that would indicate that every journalist in DC was willing to waive her or his right to privacy in voting. Otherwise, how can you get a firm percentage? I don't believe the numbers.

Second, at least in theory (I know there's no perfect world), the way a journalist votes should have nothing whatsoever to do with the way he/she reports. Just as the way you vote should not affect the way you do your job.

I have a theory of my own, which I can't prove in any way, so don't bother asking for studies or stastics. (I question most of them anyway because they can be flawed or tainted by those who write them) My belief is that "most" journalists attempt to be pretty fair. In broadcasting, the fairness is held up to government scrutiny by the FCC. Notice that I said broadcasting. Cable is not included, because cable channels are not on the "public" airwaves and thus not under the purview of the FCC. That's how FOX can be right alligned and others allegedly left. I say allegedly because I consider myself to be somewhere close to the center, and I don't find huge discrepencies in most reporting. There are, of course, some print media who have long known political leanings. The print media has no government regulation at all.

But, I digress. My continued theory is that the term "liberal bias" has been force fed to us for years by the political "spin doctors," even before that last phrase was invented. I find that, as well as most of the rest of politics, cynical. One of the best ways to fight someone who disagrees with you is to attack them. We see that here on GC, don't we?

According to several polls, Walter Cronkite, in his day, was considered the most trusted American. He was also, you might recall, one of the main figures in bringing the "spin" the government was giving the Vietnam conflict more into line in terms of what was really happening over there.

I believe it was Lyndon John who said, (paraphrased) "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the nation." What really lost the nation was the dawning reality that the government wasn't being entirely truthful, and got caught. I don't think that many would consider Johnson to be a bastion of the Conservative Right. So was he a victim of the "liberal press?"

Frankly, if the mainstream broadcasters at least were that far one way or the other, people simply wouldn't watch them. As the population moves more to the right, the electronic media (at least the visual part) automatically seem farther to the left.

From my centerist position, I just don't see it that way. But the media can't really win because there aren't that many of us folks here in the middle. No matter what is reported, it's going to PO one side or the other.

So, finally, although I have never been trained as a journalist, I have worked with them most of my professional life and have found most to be honest, hard working journeymen who take their craft very seriously.

They're also great partiers.

How many real working journalists do you know personally?

Now, you can disagree with my theories -- but for me experience -- what I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears -- means more than names and labels.

Trueisms Spoken Here!
 

While each might just be true with posts here, I have come to the conclusion, whether is be Dem. or Rep., they all become a gang of people with like titles. They Are Called "Legislatures".

Once the seat is warm in the and under The Capitol Dome of City, County, State, or Nation, they cannot seem to do anything "FOR The People".

While they are proffesing of what their beleifs are, there is Porking going on across our Country. That is so they get voter approval in the next election and keep thier jobs. "JOBS", yes it has become a Professional Job.

It seems living in a Border State, Ks. / Mo. I get to see all of the sides.

Rep. Leg. fight with the Dem. Exec., and vice versa. So, who suffers.:rolleyes:

I see some of the things that money is spent on and what it is not. It gets sickening about who really loses. But yet, they all beat their chest like the giggest Gorilla in the pack about what has been done.

EPA, Corp Of Enginers, etal, have become a joke.

Open up more Timber Land, Give Oil and Gas Leases, where there is no exploration. Drive through Kansas and see 1 in 10 pumps being used for getting Gas and Oil from the Earth.

Hell, I wish I had the Money to get all of the Breaks that these Contributors get.

The people who helped to build, protect, and promogate this county who are aged, are having a heck of a time trying to buy Medication, G.I.s are being cut back from The V.A.

I Love This Country but it makes one wonder, just what the Hell is going on here!:(

I will never forget a Young Black Fire Brand from Texas with No politcal juice won. He wanted to make a Change in the Capitol of this Country was told in no uncertain terms, screw with us boy, dont mess with our perks boy or you will be a one timer. Guess what, He was. Got the Hell away from the Viper Pit.

Good For Him. He is better off!:cool:

Former Fox Newsman Not Afraid To Be Honest
Richard Ruelas
Arizona Republic
Jon Du Pre had to be honest during the job interview when Roger Ailes, head of the Fox News Network, asked him what he thought about "what we do." Du Pre told Ailes he hadn't seen the network because, at the time, it wasn't available in Phoenix, where he worked as a news anchor. Ailes then half-coughed to clear his throat. The outgoing air flapped his jowls. He then asked Du Pre, "What's your political preference?" It was a question Du Pre had never been asked while seeking a journalism job. During his employment there, from 1998 to 2002, Du Pre would find that much of what went on at Fox News Channel, the upstart 24-hour cable news network, was unlike any news organization he'd been at before.

Du Pre answered the political question this way: "Respectfully, Mr. Ailes, it's none of your business." Ailes told him he liked that answer. Du Pre was assigned to the network's West Coast bureau. Ailes' reason for asking about his politics would become clear over the next few weeks.

"Only as time went on, did I begin to realize that Fox News Channel wasn't a news-type organization," Du Pre said. "It was a political propaganda machine."

Du Pre, familiar to Phoenix-area viewers as an anchor for KPNX and KPHO, is one of the former Fox News employees interviewed for the documentary Outfoxed. He is the only on-air personality to let his name and face be shown. Du Pre didn't think it was a big deal to talk openly about his experience at Fox News, even on a documentary that aims to portray the news network as a Republican Party operative. The network's conservative agenda was never kept a secret among its employees.

"I never saw anybody attempt to masquerade as anything we weren't," Du Pre said. "It was all done in the open, in staff meetings."

Although he's one of the "stars" of the documentary, Du Pre was not sent a copy. The film, funded by the left-leaning MoveOn group, is being distributed primarily by mail order, through www.outfoxed.org. Du Pre didn't see the documentary until last week, when I took a copy up to his north Scottsdale home.

"I have no idea what to expect," Du Pre said, leaning back on his brown leather couch. Du Pre, 45, has the classic good looks of a news anchor, and his living room walls resonate with his deep voice.

The screen showed Rupert Murdoch, the network's owner, and Ailes holding a news conference in 1996, announcing the formation of Fox News Channel. Ailes said the network would "restore objectivity where we find it lacking." He also said that his former jobs working for Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would not affect the programming. "We just expect to do balanced journalism," he said.

Spooky music came out of the speakers as the documentary showed some leaked memos from John Moody, a vice president at the network. The memos gave directives on not only what stories the network would cover, but also how it would cover them.

One said to downplay coverage of the 9/11 commission hearings. "This is not 'What did he know and when did he know it' stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate," it read.

Another anticipated that a Kerry speech that day would include criticism of the war in Iraq. It advised that the network "take the beginning of the Kerry speech," which was expected to focus on jobs, "and see if other news at that time is more compelling."

Du Pre hit pause. "This is presented in here as some sort of nefarious or hidden agenda," he said. "It wasn't so subtle." In reality, his bureau chief, who would have been a recipient of the daily memos, would relay the messages to him in much more colorful and blatant language. Reporters knew who the enemies were. They were ordered to deliver stories that made Democrats look bad and Republicans look good.

Du Pre said most Fox News Channel employees figured the bias was so obvious that audience would be able to see it as well. "Nobody thought that what we were doing was 'fair and balanced,' " he said, quoting the network's slogan. It was more "an attempt to balance out what everybody else was doing." He also said such rationalization was "survival."

"Their point of view is their point of view, and they have every right to it," Du Pre said. "But to hold themselves out as a fair and balanced source of news and information, let alone the truth, is abhorrent."

Du Pre left Fox News when his contract expired in 2002. The network said it wasn't renewing his contract. That was fine with Du Pre, who said he wouldn't have renewed it anyway. The network took his salary, which reflected 19 years of broadcast experience, and used it to hire two "kids" out of Sacramento, Du Pre said. Ailes is still listed as a reference on Du Pre's resume.

On its Web site, Fox News released a statement about the documentary, saying that any news organizations that run stories on the film "is opening itself to having its copyrighted material taken out of context for partisan reasons." The statement does not say the documentary is in error nor deny the authenticity of the internal memos.

The network, on its Web site, also tries to discredit its former employees, including Du Pre. It says Du Pre left Fox News because "as his personnel file states, he was a weak field correspondent and could not do live shots." Du Pre said that claim is false.

Du Pre, who left Channel 5 this year, has twice been denied anchor jobs at Fox affiliates in other cities because of his appearance in the documentary.

"Even if I don't get another job in this business, it will have been worth it," Du Pre said of the Outfoxed interview. He got into this business to tell the truth, after all. It's a lesson he learned from his journalism professor at Brigham Young University, Lynn Packer.

BYU fired Packer for pursuing an investigation on Paul Dunn, a Mormon Church leader. Dunn had made a mini-empire out of inspirational stories from his own life. Packer found that most of those were demonstrably untrue. In a 1991 Republic story, Dunn admitted he stretched the truth, but it was only to make the stories interesting or help convey a message.

Which is exactly the justification behind what Fox News Channel does.

Du Pre said the producers of Outfoxed were surprised that he agreed to an on-camera interview. Most other former employees appear as disguised voices.

But that wouldn't have been nearly as cleansing for Du Pre.

Instead, the crew set up in his dining room, clipped a microphone to his shirt, and asked him questions about his time at the Fox News Channel. Du Pre told the truth.

"It'd been so long since I'd really done that," he said. "It felt good."

All this he said, she said...well it's all so...irrelevant. It doesn't even compare to a study.

-Rudey

/hijack/

Just a little news management:

'Hardball' Accused Of Going Soft

Republican insiders are giving cable-TV political host Chris Matthews the cold shoulder, believing that he has gone over to the Kerry camp, according to a published report.

U.S. News and World Report says Matthews protested too sharply about the Bush campaign's editing of an MSNBC "Hardball" interview with Kerry posted on the party's negative site, www.kerryoniraq.com.

As a result, GOP officials are quietly advising Republicans not to go on his show.

"'Hardball' may seem more like badminton during the Republican National Convention," the magazine quoted one GOP insider as saying.

"Hardball" executive producer Tammy Haddad didn't know her show was being blackballed, she said.

"We beat everybody up," she told the magazine. (New York Post)

Rudey, I'm sure you've taken a statistics class - you do know that one study isn't the be all and end all. Before something to be "proved" there usually needs to be several studies - I wonder if there have been more on the topic?

I've taken a lot more than one statistics class at my alma mater and at Columbia. I'd like to ask what statistics class you took that taught you how many studies were needed to "prove" something.

As it stands I know of 1 study (the one I started this thread about) that analyzes media bias - by analyze I don't mean listing stories of bias. This 1 study is done by reputable academic sources.

I am more than open to other studies but there are none. I do have studies that analyze media bias on certain topics and on certain networks - what I'm thinking of is with the BBC.

-Rudey

I'd like to see something that says "one study is NEVER enough". If that were so none of the mathematical proofs I ever did would have been enough and I would have hated econometrics.

Regardless I didn't say that things can't change and I didn't say that another study won't show different results if it uses different metrics. That's always a possibility. And it is also possible that mistakes were made and that if this study using the same metrics is rerun that you might get different results, but so far nothing and it hasn't been attacked or rejected like the some renewable energy source.

-Rudey

Well, let's think about it logically. The best studies are usually valid within about 3 percentages points 19 time out of 20 (95% of the time). The other 5% of the time, the results could be absolute crap.

How do we ensure that a particular study isn't that one time out of 20? We do more studies to show that the results are not unique. It's just common sense.

Those are confidence intervals. It doesn't mean that 5% of the time it will be wrong.

-Rudey

It means it could be though.

And pigs can develop wings and fly.

-Rudey

Can you tell me which company has developed this pigs? I'd like to purchase some stock on them.

Denounce my opinion all you want - it's still valid. More studies would make these results more conclusive. Whatever.

I didn't disagree with that but you can't try and say this study means nothing. At this point Fox is the least biased news network compared to other networks. If you can find something wrong with that statement, let me know.

-Rudey

Well just finished watching a Fifth Estate special on the US media and percieved 'left' and 'right' wing bias... interesting to say the least - it's too bad DeltAlum doesn't get the CBC I'd have loved to here his take on the interviews with some of the media personalities...

Link to CBC website listing resources:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

For those interested media watch-groups from the left and right are listed at the end of the page... intersting to see the connections to certain "studies" already used on GC.

Personally I found the correlation between primary news source and beliefs regarding the War in Iraq and US Politics - particularly the fact that the more you watched FOXNews the more apt you were to believe a) World opinion was in favour of the US taking military action in Iraq; b) WMD had been founf; c) Saddam and Iraq were directly responsible for 9/11... now if Fox is far and balanced, how can these misconceptions be more prevalent amongst their more advid viewers?


PS> Canadians will get a kick out of the FOXNews coverage shown regarding Bush's visit to Canada after the US election - priceless that the experts no so little about our and their own history:D Ann Coultier stated that Canada had sent troops to fight in Vietnam, and when corrected by the interviewer she argued with him that he was wrong.... he was even helpful enough to suggest that perhaps she was thinking of Australia... which she said no to - she was sure it was Canada :p Priceless.

I wish I could see CBC as well. I used to enjoy watching it when we lived in Detroit. This show sounds interesting.

So really what studies are used on GC?

What connections are you talking about?

-Rudey

Well the study that you referenced by Barro for one; there was a segement discussing questions about the Groseclose-Miylo studies methodology: specifically questions over the 1 for 1 rating of citations, without weighting them, or adjusting for context (ie. whether the cited "liberal" or "conservative" source was referenced in a positive or negative context); and the use of MRC references for some of the research material...

I didn't see the piece, obviously, but the 'weighting' referenced here (as well as contextualization) is a heated research topic in every field. For instance, weighting in my field has been disallowed because Bayesian workup of numbers adds yet another bias to the figures.

These are tenuous bases for attack on studies; the empiricism behind the numbers is always up for discussion, no matter how they're done. This is the real world of statistics.

Well to be honest a lot of the stuff went over my head in the small segement... mostly dealing with the mathematical model used. Basically the host/commentator argued that without weight or context, using left/right sources becomes problematic to say the least - sorta a looks good on paper, but not in practice. When they refered to weight they ment how left/right of centre was the source they subject was citing... which then gets into the prickly arguement of where centre is... something that I didn't (and the Fifth Estate) want to touch.

What I found interesting is that say if I was a reporter, and I was doing a piece say on the Iraq War - if I used sources such as Amnesty International and the Department of Defense once each my piece would balance according to the formula - even if the piece was an article attacking one side or the other in the arguement over body counts or prisoners of war... that is where I found the application of the Groseclose-Miylo study problematic when analyizing the media (or politics for that matter).

Well for one Barro conducted no study. Barro is one of the most prominent modern economists. All Barro did is offer a quick summary of the research piece in a magazine.

And there is no "connection". The study was conducted by academic research centers including NORC, at the University of Chicago, and Stanford if I remember correctly. To say a reference from something else was cited is pusing "connections".

-Rudey

Excerpt from the Washington Post...

An Opinionated Network
Monday, Mar 14, 2005; 7:05 AM

In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.

These findings -- the figures were similar for coverage of other stories -- "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In a 617-page report, the group also found that "Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals," while CNN is "the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view."

The project defines opinion as views that are not attributed to others.


(The article goes on for a long time. You can see it in Monday's edition online. You have to sign up -- but it is free)

Here's a link...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...s/kurtzhoward/

Yesterday, CNN (!) reported that a Columbia University study had determined that 2/3 of all Presidential election coverage was negative toward President Bush.

Was that coming from Fox News, as well?

http://www.jfpm.co.za/pics/apples.jpg http://www.zawaj.com/youssuf/photos/oranges.jpg

fact/opinion vs. positive/negative story

Can you see how substitution of one with the other may create situations in which Fox News has less tangible bias than other sources? I'm not trying to Foghorn Leghorn you here, but that's the point of the thread, and that's what I was getting at.

Also, CNN's opinion pieces are simply not given by the reporter - it's by a pundit or commentator, which is significantly more journalistic, but may not satisfy the rift noted above.

I saw that.

On the on-air network side, what was interesting to me is that within the same networks, there was a positive/negative difference between the major evening news programs and the morning shows. The evening shows tended to be more "negative" in their coverage than the AM counterparts.

Not having read the study, I have no idea how "positive" and "negative" were defined, though.

ETA --- Wait, I thought it was the other way around for Bush...36% negative, the rest positive or neutral. See below:

"The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism."

Silver Tongued Ohio U. Bobcat takes on critics...
 

Roger Ailes Defends FOX News Practices
Refutes Criticism by Project for Excellence in Journalism
By Claire Atkinson and Abbey Klaassen

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Fox News Network's chairman-CEO, Roger Ailes, Thursday brushed aside recent research from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that suggested his news operations harbored a conservative bias.

Mr. Ailes made his comments this morning at a media breakfast at Syracuse University's Newhouse School in Manhattan, where he was interviewed by New Yorker media columnist Ken Auletta.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism is a Washington-based organization affiliated with the Columbia University School of Journalism and funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

One-sided news coverage
In its "State of the American News Media" report issued March 13, the Project concluded that the Fox News Channel had the most one-sided news coverage of the major networks. Fox was specifically cited for being twice as likely to broadcast positive news stories about the Iraq war than its competitors. Its reporters were also found to have included their opinions in seven out of 10 news reports. Reporters from Fox rivals CNN and MSNBC only included opinion in about one in 10 of their stories, the report said.

Responding to the criticism, Mr. Ailes said survey questions or polls of the sort the Project conducted can always be spun. "I took a poll of Pew and 98% of my organization thought they were biased," he joked. "You can't get too worked up about it."

Heavy on political analysis
He went on to defend Fox News' programming, which runs a lineup heavy on political analysis, arguing that there is simply too much time in the day to do all hard news all the time. "You need news analysis, it's part of TV today," he said. But, he insisted, "hard news -- you can't really spin that." He said he always asks staff to "reach out to a point of view they don't always agree with, to be sure they add some balance to the stories."

In response to criticism from the Project that cable news channels often run stories based on only a single source, Mr. Ailes acknowledged that cable operations are often less staffed. He also pointed out that Fox News has one-third the staff of CNN.

"The journalism in cable sometimes is light because the depth of investigative research isn't there," he said.

No 'Tailwind'
Mr. Ailes asserted, however, that the "American people know what they're watching. The news audience is older, they're more educated, they have more money. There is no tricking anybody." He went on to say that Fox News had not had a "Tailwind," the 1998 journalistic debacle aired by CNN that inaccurately accused the military of gassing American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam war. The story was later retracted. Mr. Ailes said Fox had also avoided the kind of problems CBS News had following its report on President Bush's Air National Guard duty, for which anchor Dan Rather later apologized.

When asked about the greatest challenge at Fox News, he said it was "complacency and people who get to be successful or get too much money." When asked if there was anything CNN had that he envied, Mr. Ailes replied with a quick no. But, after a few seconds, decided he envied the positive press CNN gets. He said there was nothing he envied about MSNBC, but that the network has "hired every blonde that doesn't already work for us -- and apparently it's not working."

Sound marketing practices
His advice on sound marketing practice is, "You tell your story, figure out your message and get people to identify with it." Mr. Ailes described how Fox adopted the line, "America's most powerful brand in news." When a rival contested the phrase, he responded, "It's a marketing slogan!" In advertising sales terms, he said that because CNN refused to break out numbers on a head-to-head basis, he concluded that Fox News must be beating them.

Well the CBC re-aired the 'Sticks and Stones' Fifth Estate program that has dealt with the bias in American media - specifically FOXNews...

Now the CBC has even made the program available online through their website:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

It was fun watching the summary of the fallout of the program... including Bill O'Reilly calling the CBC's program equivelant to Nazi propaganda... or Ann Coulter insulting the CBC interviewer, Canada, and CBC on a C-SPAN interview.

I'd encourage people to watch this... particularlly viewers of FOXNews - the program is informative for supporters of media or journalism.

Oh in case you're wondering the program comes down firmly on the side of media bias blatantly existing in the mainstream media.

PS> You might want to check out that arrogant blowhard O'Reilly being caught lying about sources (well making them up), and lying about facts (making up statistics).... funny there has been no real calls for his resignation or firing.

[hijack]

I *heart* Fox News (especially Bill O'Reilly)

[/hijack]