Is Fox less biased than any other news source?

[adpiucf]

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by adpiucf
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.

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.

[Tom Earp]

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.

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!

[DeltAlum]

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."

[Rudey]

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

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Article that is irrelevant

[DeltAlum]

/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)

[kappaloo]

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

-Rudey

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?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kappaloo
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

[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

Originally posted by kappaloo
I took several core Statistics courses (mostly math) and the one thing pounded into our head is that one study is NEVER enough. There is always too much risk of error. You take any controversial topic and you'll find studies that contradict eachother - even if the studies are reputable and well conducted.

I read this study - it seems very well done as I believe was published in a peer-reviewed journal (was it? I can't remember right now). But it's not everything. This study shows that Fox was the least biased, but for that statement to be a strong statement - more studies will need to be done.

There is no "magic" number - it's just true that more research would have to be done in the area to convince a lot of people - even those who might agree with the outcome from the get go. The more research that backs a topic the more conclusive the results.

-- also, don't take this as me "bashing" this study or trying to discredit it due to some "leftist" agenda I have. To be honest, I think Fox News is okay - it's the commentary shows I dislike.

[kappaloo]

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kappaloo
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

[kappaloo]

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

-Rudey

It means it could be though.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kappaloo
It means it could be though.

And pigs can develop wings and fly.

-Rudey

[kappaloo]

Originally posted by Rudey
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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kappaloo
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