So, do you watch enough Fox News to form an opinion on that network? Is being selective unique to Fox News? Did you follow the link they provided to the Pew poll?
Only based on what I read. I very rarely watch Fox News. (or any other tv news). No. If a news story involved NBC, I wouldn't expect them to be unbiased about it either. I didn't, but I'm ok with the summary as provided, I have no reason to doubt it. I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions about it I posed in post #2 of this thread, however. barfo
No, probably I've seen even less of MSNBC than Fox. But it sounds as if they are the anti-Fox, i.e. biased in the opposite direction? I've seen a couple of clips of Olberman ranting. Other than that I don't know much about what they broadcast. barfo
Is that question even answerable? No one save for the two candidates' offices would know if the coverage was fair, and even they'll only know one side. I think it's safe to assume, however, in an election that absent a huge scandal, the positive and negative coverage of each candidate should be equal. The straight news press is there to inform, not to campaign. That's the job for the editorial boards of the news divisions.
I used to love MSNBC. I thought they were fair and offered a wide range of opinion with thoughtful guests. The problem was they were getting crushed by CNN and FOX. So they rushed to occupy the left side of the spectrum, trying to become an alternative to FOX. The problem for them is they're still getting crushed and their act is coloring the perception of NBC News, something Tom Brokaw complained about. I still don't think either NBC or MSNBC has ever recovered from Tim Russert's death.
I don't think it is answerable. However, that it isn't answerable makes the statistics reported meaningless. Did Fox get the right balance? Did MSNBC? Who knows? I disagree that absent a scandal, the positive and negative coverage should be equal. Let's say (your favorite candidate here) runs against Joe Bob, the village idiot. Joe Bob doesn't know shit from shinola, but he's not corrupt. He's just an idiot. His only talent is drooling on his chest. Should the papers cover Joe Bob just as favorably as (your favorite candidate)? barfo
In short, yes. Their editorial staff can call Joe Bob an idiot, but the news staff should just report the facts and let the readers/viewers decide for themselves. If he's truly an idiot, he'll eventually hang himself with his own words and or policy prescriptions.
The news staff doesn't have to call him an idiot, but if he says stupid stuff, isn't that a fact that should be reported? The discussion here was about how many positive or negative stories that appeared. One could take the position that stories aren't positive or negative, if they just report facts. However I don't guess that that was the working assumption of the Pew study. My guess is that if the facts reported cast Joe Bob in a negative light, that was counted as a negative story. barfo
Yes. But they are certainly more biased about themselves than about other subjects. That's why it isn't sensible to depend upon them to report on themselves. And of course that isn't specific to reporters - humans generally aren't very objective about themselves. barfo
Yes, to a liberal. If the study helps them, it always fair. When the facts hurt them, it's always biased. See, it's easy!
40% negative Obama vs. 40% negative McCain. Seems balanced, no? What's the right %? 40% negative by Fox, 40% negative by CNN. Don't you think that a disparity in negative (or positive) coverage of the two candidates indicates some bias?
I would think that when two candidates are running for an office, they should run about equal. Otherwise, the news agency s playing the part of pushing an agenda.
Well, it doesn't take long to find others. For instance, here is an editorial by critic David Zurawik (someone often critical of Fox) saying, "By the way, Dunn is absolutely wrong about Fox's coverage of the election last fall." This Huffington Post article also takes issue with the bias claim, quoting the Zurawik article above, and also referencing some MSNBC support of FNC on this issue Even among those articles that agree that Fox is biased, myriad of them point out that CNN and (especially) MSNBC are generally biased the other direction (Here's just one example among many).
His idiotic words should be reprinted in the news section. Writing that his words are idiotic should only be written in the opinion section. This kind of separation one learns in high school journalism.
