Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
In reality it's more like, "People who support the war are more inclined to watch Fox News."
I do think that Fox News had a MAJOR problem with reporting things too soon before they had even been confirmed and then NOT reporting much when these "findings" were denounced -- but this is a problem all over the TV news, not just at Fox. The newspapers and magazines didn't have as much of a problem with this because they have time to edit articles when what's assumed to be true is proved false. Not so much with TV.
|
Two excellent points.
As I've mentioned several times, the president of Fox News, Roger Ailes (also a fellow Ohio U. Bobcat) was Richard Nixon's media advisor. It at least somewhat stands to reason that people who "want" to hear a more "conservative" view that backs the present administration would turn to Fox.
To carry the thought forward, and as a comment on the second point, reporters, editors and managers with that point of view are probably quicker to report those stories that are likely to support the administration or other conservative entities.
In theory, of course, ideology should have nothing to do with reporting and all coverage should be unbiased. People have accused media of having a "liberal" bias for years.
It is my opinion that Fox, while claiming "ballanced" coverage, has gone much farther in supporting an agenda than any other major electronic media. The history of print is something else, but that is because print has never been "controlled" like true broadcast was (a government institution granted or revoked your license to exist). Fox NewsChannel (and CNN) does not have that regulation, because they are cable -- not onair -- media and have never been regulated to the extent of the over the air media.