Is Fox the most trusted U.S. TV news source?

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Fox News: Fair And Balanced?

So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.

There's an obvious logical fallacy here which you failed to acknowledge in quoting this.

BrianIs AtYou

[Infidel]

Which one?

[Inanna]

Is Fox a broadcast network?

that one.

[Frelga]

Also, if one of the two candidates is objectively stronger - speaking hypothetically - it is hardly "fair and balanced" to make them appear equal.

[halplm]

Is Fox a broadcast network?

that one.

You seem to be implying that there are different standards applied to broadcast and cable networks about what is "balanced."

I'm not sure why that would be.

Also, if one of the two candidates is objectively stronger - speaking hypothetically - it is hardly "fair and balanced" to make them appear equal.

You cannot say one of two candidates is objectively stronger. There is no objective standard.

Also, "fair and balanced" is not the same as "objectively biased."

It used to be the expectation that the media was completely unbiased, and simply reported the facts and saved the opinions to the editorial page. It has become increasingly difficult to find such reporting.

[Primula Baggins]

Also, if one of the two candidates is objectively stronger - speaking hypothetically - it is hardly "fair and balanced" to make them appear equal.

You cannot say one of two candidates is objectively stronger. There is no objective standard.

So, if a news channel was reporting on a convention of the Flat Earth Society, would you expect the newscaster to give equal weight to the "theory" that the Earth is flat and the fact that it is round? Certainly there are objective standards.

(I actually wouldn't be surprised if the newscaster did exactly that, given the other weird ideas that get "equal weight" with established fact, especially during sweeps months—ghosts, perpetual motion, alien abductions, etc. But I tend to think of this as a sign of how news coverage has gone to hell in the past couple of decades. YMMV.)

[halplm]

There are objective standards in reporting the facts, but there are no objective standards in political ideology.

There are aspects of relevancy as well, but that should not reflect in favorable or unfavorable reporting, merely in level of reporting.

[Frelga]

Of course there are objective standards in ideology! Would you objectively give fair and balanced hearing to Marxism as compared to, say, Neoconservatism? Politics aren't religion - decisions made today make tangible impact on real life, in this world. These are a matter of fact, and should be discussed as such. Instead, the media treats any story like a horse race, with winners and losers.

[halplm]

Of course there are objective standards in ideology! Would you objectively give fair and balanced hearing to Marxism as compared to, say, Neoconservatism? Politics aren't religion - decisions made today make tangible impact on real life, in this world. These are a matter of fact, and should be discussed as such. Instead, the media treats any story like a horse race, with winners and losers.

No, Politics aren't religion. But it is not fair to say that "so and so is factually correct when they say their ideology will result in such and such."

When you report one ideology as better than another, you are no longer presenting facts or objective reporting, you are editorializing.

That's the whole point about media bias.

[Inanna]

Is Fox a broadcast network?

that one.

You seem to be implying that there are different standards applied to broadcast and cable networks about what is "balanced."

I'm not sure why that would be.

No-no... I meant that Fox is a broadcast network - and the quote talked about "broadcast networks" and "Fox", as if Fox isn't. At least that's what I think Brian was pointing out (Where are you, Brian?)

[Primula Baggins]

Fox is a broadcast network, but Fox News is cable. Though I don't think that should affect the news standards to which they should be held, it does have some effect on how they're regulated in this country.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Is Fox a broadcast network?

that one.

You seem to be implying that there are different standards applied to broadcast and cable networks about what is "balanced."

I'm not sure why that would be.

No-no... I meant that Fox is a broadcast network - and the quote talked about "broadcast networks" and "Fox", as if Fox isn't. At least that's what I think Brian was pointing out (Where are you, Brian?)

No, the assertion that Fox is a broadcast network is a factual error, not a logical fallacy.

I was referring to the idea that there might be an objective standard, and that one or the other of the candidates might be better in some objective way, apart from ideology.

Halplm is correct, to an extent, in that an "objective standard" with regard to ideology is not as easy to pin down in some other areas, but the facile statement that "fair and balanced" means equal positive or negative statements about a candidate is nonsense.

The example of a flat earth society vs round is a good one, even if not entirely comparable.

Would we give equal weight to David Duke on positives and negative if he were running?

I don't think so, and that is due to ideology.

However, other objective standards apply.

For example, if I were to run for President, I would not expect to stand up to any of these candidates, even though I am thoroughly in agreement with my own ideology.

It would be rightfully pointed out that I have no experience in politics other than as a voter etc etc

If someone tried to balance that somehow, it would be absurd.


The most "fair and balanced" news source is likely to be the one that is closest to the statistical mean (with a Bayesian weighting, perhaps, like IMDB does for movie ratings) when all such sources are taken into consideration.

And purely going by positives and negatives without evaluating such assertions themselves against a standard is absurd. For example, a positive or negative evaluation that is based on objectively false information does nothing to contribute to this consideration. (e.g. claims that Obama is Muslim, and even that claim, were it true, would have to be evaluated by an objective standard--why one ought to consider it positive or negative. My brother is a Muslim.)

BrianIs AtYou

[Túrin Turambar]

Of course there are objective standards in ideology! Would you objectively give fair and balanced hearing to Marxism as compared to, say, Neoconservatism? Politics aren't religion - decisions made today make tangible impact on real life, in this world. These are a matter of fact, and should be discussed as such. Instead, the media treats any story like a horse race, with winners and losers.

If Marxism was as popular as neoconservatism, then yes. And that's basically the standard - what people are interested in. The strength of a candidate isn't as important as their popularity and the public's interest in them. After all, people don't want to hear about things that they don't care about or won't affect them. That's why Republicans and Democrats get more coverage than Libertarians and Greens.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

The other issue that is often avoided in the discussion of positives and negatives is the issue of fact-checking and whether or not the evaluations correlate to accurate representations of facts and accurate representations of politicians stances. Then there is the question of whether you agree with the evaluation, even if the facts are right.

For example, if Fox says that Obama is negative because of policy A, which you agree with, what does it matter?

What matters is whether they accurately reported his stance on policy A, at least with respect to evaluating them as a news organization.

If they reported he supported policy A, but either mischaracterized his stance, or the ramifications of policy A, that mischaracterization is more important than a simple thumbs up or thumbs down evaluation.

It is silly to rate "fair and balanced" on positive and negative assertions without recourse to fact-checking.

BrianIs AtYou

[vison]

It used to be the expectation that the media was completely unbiased, and simply reported the facts and saved the opinions to the editorial page. It has become increasingly difficult to find such reporting.

Not on Earth, halplm. Not this planet, not since newspapers were first published.

Never. Not once. Nowhere.

For fun, you ought to see how William Randolph Hearst reported on the events eventually leading to the Spanish-American war. Fox is an AMATEUR in the field, compared to the Hearst papers.

Then come back here and start talking about how it "used to be the expectation that the media was completely unbiased".

[halplm]

Did I say it used to be the reality? No, in fact, I said it used to be the expectation.

And I did not say it had been that way for all time, or that in the past news media could be trusted explicitly, whereas now it could not.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it used to be the perception that the news media was "out to get the story" whereas now it seems the news media is "out to get their point across."

[Inanna]

Excellent posts, Brian.

[Túrin Turambar]

Did I say it used to be the reality? No, in fact, I said it used to be the expectation.

And I did not say it had been that way for all time, or that in the past news media could be trusted explicitly, whereas now it could not.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it used to be the perception that the news media was "out to get the story" whereas now it seems the news media is "out to get their point across."

It's true, although it was always more of an American thing. In Britain and in the Commonwealth there always seems to have been more of an acceptance that particular papers ran a particular editoral line, famously parodied in the 'who reads the papers' scene in Yes, Prime Minister.

I've heard it argued that Fox News is a British/Australian-style newspaper put in TV form and broadcast accross the U.S. That said, Murdoch's papers in Britain and Australia aren't as relentlessly partisan in their editorals as Fox is in its talk shows. Nor are any of the Sky News Networks (Murdoch's TV news stations in Britain, Australia and New Zealand). Fox's politics are based on a NewsCorp business decision, obviously in retrospect a shrewed one - why such a station would be so successful in the U.S. is probably a whole topic in itself.

Murdoch maintains that the actual news coverage on Fox is objective. I actually wouldn't disagree with him outright. For most media, their biases usually manifest themselves in what they choose to report rather than how they report it. And it reports news of interest to the type of people who want to watch Beck and Hannity.

[Infidel]

The various criticisms of the article on the study by CMPA showing FOX to have been the most balanced leads to a question:
I have been browsing through back through the threads here, and I found one entitled Media Bias
The first post in that thread touted a study by CMPA showing that from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008 Obama received worse coverage than McCain (the findings for that study were "Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That's worse than John McCain's coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.")
I read through the thread and had some difficulty finding any posts by commenters on this thread similarly criticising the findings from the same organisation in that thread. I may have missed some. Perhaps one of those offering their critique could point out the similar critique they offered in that thread?

For some comparison the primaries period from Dec 17 2007 -June 7 2008 CMPA found:
Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC)
Obama 66% positive
McCain 42% positive

FOX (Special Report first half hour)
Obama 54% positive
McCain 52% positive

The CMPA numbers for the 2008 election campaign, August 24-November 3 were:
Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC)
Obama 68% positive
McCain 33% positive
(CMPA says in their study "Barak Obama garnered the most favorable coverage of any presidential candidate CMPA has tracked since 1988")
FOX (Special Report):
Obama 37% positive
McCain 40% positive
(CMPA comments: "While the broadcast networks all featured a large gap between Obama’s mostly good press and McCain's and Palin’s mostly bad press, FOX’s coverage was mainly negative toward all the candidates.)
In their study they give various breakdowns by candidates and parties issues.
CMPA

[Infidel]

From a recent Politico/George Washington University poll:

36. When you use cable TV news channels to get news about the election, would you say you are mainly getting information from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC or some other cable news channel or website?
Mainly CNN.........................................................30%
Mainly Fox News.................................................42%
Mainly MSNBC....................................................12%
Other cable news channel/website.........................9%
UNSURE/REFUSED (DNR)................................7%

Thinking now about some of the people who provide opinion and commentary about politics and elections…
I am going to read you a list of some of these people. For each one, please tell me if you think this person has a positive impact or a negative impact on political debate in this country. If you do not recognize the name, just say so. Here is the first one …

POSITIVE -NEGATIVE-NEVER----REFUSEDUNSURE/
IMPACT ---IMPACT --HEARD OF--(DNR)
37. Rush Limbaugh 36% 52% 5% 7%
38. RachelMaddow 18% 18% 55% 9%
39. Glenn Beck 38% 32% 23% 7%
40. Keith Olbermann 23% 25% 42% 11%
41. Ed Schultz 11% 11% 70% 8%
42. Sean Hannity 35% 25% 34% 7%
43. Bill O’Reilly 49% 32% 12% 7%
44. Jon Stewart 34% 22% 34% 10%

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_b ... naire.html

associated article in Politico:

Poll: Bill O'Reilly is popular, but Rachel Maddow is unknown to likely voters

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42738.html