Fox news is famous for it's "fair and balanced" slogan. While this claim is simple, I believe that it's a more nuanced interpretation. I believe that they think the rest of the media is liberal and that in providing the news with a conservative bias, that they are somehow providing a fair and balanced interpretation to the news. I'm not certain if I'm communicating this well, but I hope that our fine members see the distinction that I'm aiming for here.

Edwards drops out of Fox news sponsored debate.]

Foxattacks.com


Questions for debate:

1.)Is Fox "fair and balanced"?

2.)Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?

3.)Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?

1.) Is Fox "fair and balanced"?

No, they are not. What network is?

2.) Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?

They certainly stand as a counter-balance to the other cable news outlets although I have no slick clip montage to prove this. Is anyone claiming the other outlets are objective?


3.) Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?

Many times they do, many times they don't. Mr. O' has indeed given a fair shake to many who's views run contrary to his. I suspect this would be much the case on the other networks when dealing with conservative-minded politicos.

The fact this sort of debate comes up quite often is proof enough to me that the media is doing just fine. If, like in the UK, our media outlets were honest what wing they aligned with I suspect there'd be more Blue than Red. I think Fox is slightly Right even as others pull further Left. Are they Fair & Balanced? No.

1.)Is Fox "fair and balanced"?
Obviously not. But what sets Fox News apart from other media outlets is their intent. The New York Times, CNN, the BBC, and other news organizations that people would call liberal are engaged in journalism. They are trying to report what they observe. There may be an inherent bias to that but there intent is journalism. Fox news on the other hand, is not engaged in journalism. Fox News is the propaganda arm of the conservative movement. Their goal is to create a picture that supports their world view using the pretense of news reporting. That is propaganda. People have leaked internal Fox memos that basically prove Fox is setting out to create news to cater to GOP talking points. Fox news doesn't even have a pretense of journalistic integrity. Certainly, there are other factors in play like ratings so Fox has plenty of salacious tabloid junk to boost their ratings.

2.)Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?
As I said before they are a propaganda source, not a journalistic organization. Everyone inherently has a bias but Fox News has done nothing to prove they have an ounce of journalistic integrity. I know the New York Times is written and edited by people who are liberal elites but their goal is journalism, not liberal victories in elections. That's the difference.

3.)Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?
No. I don't really make any distinction between the Republican Party and Fox News. They're in complete lock step. Sure, Republicans may not always come off well in the New York Times but that isn't the goal of the paper.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is Fox "fair and balanced"?
Generally yes. And this includes all programs.

2.)Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?

Well IMO Mr. O, who is only a part of the whole is slightly conservative. That said he does give both sides a chance to present views, which is one heck of a lot more than we see at CBS.

3.)Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?

IMO yes. Edwards backed out IMO because he knew he would get questions about the two women he had to fire and he is trying to get past it at this point – and I don’t blame him for that.

1.)Is Fox "fair and balanced"?
FOX is not a news outlet, they are the propoganda arm of the Republican party. To call them a news outlet is proof that their propaganda has worked. In order to report news you have to present the facts, who, what, where, when. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Brit Hume do not report, they opine. Hannity and Colmes is a debate show. O'Reilly is a self proclaimed pundit. Hume is a fraud reporter. The only one that can be considered a reporter is Sheppard Smith. Cavuto talks about stocks and business, that's not news in the sense that I understand it, that's a money show. Then there is a the daytime talk show with the MetroSexual and the uber-hot Juliet Huddy, that's a talk show, not news. I could go on but why. Look at their cast and you can see FOX is a farce. O'Reilly - Inside Edition, Geraldo - Al Capone's vault, Ollie North - war criminal. Newt Gingrich - Ethics charges. Who are they going to hire next? Ted Haggardly.

2.)Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?
The media outlets support the business interests. In the grand scheme they are all the same, supporting the wealthy and neglecting the poor.

3.)Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?
No. Democrats should not bother going onto FOX. Even if they made valid points, the audience would dismiss them as "Left-Wing Loons" because it's easier to name call than have a debate about policy. I can't count the number of times I've been called a "Commie" on this board alone. How do you argue with people like that? So no, Democrats stay away from FOX.

But you are a Commie... I mean you've self identified yourself as a Communist. I don't know if I've ever bothered to bring it up in our debating - not because I'm a wonderful person - just because it hasn't really ever come up... You can't be upset people note your own identifier.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

I thought that was pretty accurate. Before you freak out read the paragraph again.

From here

Baphomets Advocate, there is a recent thread out there entitled "Adding Categories." Have a read.

But onto the name calling question. The words liberal, commie, communist, and socialist are used as dismissive deragatory terms. For example:
From Ted:From aevans176:Here is lederuvdapac dismissing an idea by Landru Guide Us:It bears repeating these labels are dismissive and deragatory. Because such, most people do not even know what they mean. They simply understand that if it is communist, socialist, or liberal, it's not good and not worth exploring. Take for example the issue of Gun Control, most conservatives oppose Gun Control. To believe that anyone without a felony record should be able to own a gun is to believe in "Liberal" distribution of guns. Most people don't understand this because they cannot get past the labels.

Is Fox "fair and balanced"?
Within the context of your intro I would say they are...They will represent the left side of an issue, but where they fall short is in the way they bash and often overpower the opposing views. Sean Hannity is very good at vehemently making his arguments. It's like, I don't need to be bashed over the head, buddy. You're preaching to the choir anyway. (not that I'm a member)

Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?

It's all in how you define "Fair and Balanced". It's a matter of perspective. To some people, yes it is fair. To others, no it's not fair and balanced. There is not one answer to this question.

Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?

NO NO NO NO NO NEVER!!!!

You know, when Clinton was president, everyone thought it was a conservative media. When Bush became president, it became a liberal media. In reality, none of the news shows - except for Fox - reported the positives of any administration because it's not really news. Bad news gets reported - not the good.

And I think Fox news did change that. They did report a more balanced view mixing good and bad. However, I believe they've went too far the other way. When Scooter Libby got convicted on 4 of 5 counts, Fox was reporting he was found not guilty on 1 as their headline. Just like telling the world that Cheney simply "sprayed his friend with pellets" instead of clearly shooting his friend in the face, they highlighted "good" news at the expense of the real story.

Given this, I would much rather see Fox having representatives of both sides of an argument as opposed to someone like Keith Olbermann that has never been challenged seriously on his show. Now, don't get me wrong - I like Keith Olbermann and watch his show almost everyday. He does point out the deciet and hypocrisy that goes on in Washington and above else, Bush's total incompetency - something nobody else really does. But his audience is limited to the people hearing what they need to hear.

As much of a phony Hannity is, he has the intellectual integrity to take on someone who disagrees. That - in my opinion - makes him far, far more fair and balanced than almost any other talking head on radio or TV. He's still an idiot, but he doesn't hide.

But Fox News is criticized for being on the right or conservative side of issues... no?

I don't know how its possible to debate Fox without a single mention of KR Murdoch, but thats whats happening here...

1.)Is Fox "fair and balanced"?

Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?

Fox seems to me to be very similar to Sky though obviously there are some cultural differences. Both offer an alternative to the CNN/BBC perspective and as such have a bias that mirrors those. They are as fair and balanced as any other news service as far as I can make out, which is to say they are not balanced at all, though I'm sure they try to be fair.


3.)Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?

What is a fair shake? I doubt Fox would deliberately manufacture lies to embarress the democrats, but Fox belongs to News Corp which is owned by KR Murdoch who is famous for his right wing stance.

In and of itself, absolutely not.


I see the conservatives of today refusing to accept blame for any of their actions, and likewise they don't want to be criticized in any way shape or form, and if they are they blow the criticism way out of proportion and try to muddle the issue of which they are being criticized with all sorts of tangential issues. Granted no one likes likes criticism, but some people actually will step back for a second and re-evaluate their position when they see how is presented to them by another and have the feelings of the other side presented to them, I don't see that of todays conservatives. Given that, I agree with your initial interpretation. The best explanation for "fair and balanced" is that fox sees the rest of the media as being 50%+ liberal, so by being 99%+ conservative, and applying 10% of that 99 to each of the other media sources then the overall effect of the media as a whole is that it might become somewhat closer to the middle.


Not in the slightest, that's not what fox is there to do. It's akin to asking if a gazelle can get a fair shake from a lion.

EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK

What has this to do with FOX?

How about NBC’s new chief of news Rick Kaplan - buddy buddy with Bill Clinton. Do ya think he will be fair and balanced when Hilary is running? Does anyone think this station is not more "left" than FOX can ever be "right" and always has been?

No.

This is one of the central errors of the extreme-right, they define right and left as in relation to themselves. Ted, you are the perfect example, you define all media outlets as left or far left, and define Bill O'Rileey as (to quote you) 'slightly conservative'. That is only true in relation to you. By your standards the only thing far-right would be the Klan.

NBC isn't leftist, it is only deemed as leftist because it attacks George Bush Jr, because it presents polls showing him to be universally disliked, because it points out the consequences of his poorly thought out decisions and lays out the disasterous effect of his reign. To those who would support Bush to the firey end, these media outlets are leftie/Commie/liberals because they criticise the president. there is no consideration of the possibility that the presentation of consequences might be accurate and simply news.

CNN absolutely PILLORIED Clinton during his trial, they abused him over Somalia and dozens of other things, at the time there was criticism that the media was too far to the right.

Fox is not fair and balanced by a longshot, it presents only the side of the news it chooses and has been caught in outright errors. Does anyone remember the 2003 WMD find contravercy? That was in march 2003 when Fox declared loudly in its headlines: "Huge Chemical weapons factory found in southern Iraq" A week later, the headline was "Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex" (at leats this time they admitted 'possibly'.) That is two of a dozen cases, ALL turned out to be factually wrong, but where were the retractions or corrections?

When Dan rather, at an ACTUAL media outlet, reported something incorrect it pretty much destroyed his career. Why is FOX news not held to that standard? Is FOX news held to ANY standard?

Well there's a big difference between the Fox headlines/stories and Rathergate. Fox could easily deflect and say, yeah, bad intel - sorry. Rathergate had no such excuse. I could enumerate the reasons for no such excuse but a trip to LGF would be quicker for everyone.

Well we know Iraq had numerous chemical weapons “plants” where they made the tons of chemical weapons destroyed 1991-1997. As for the story you are talking about – below is the CNN story – nearly exactly the same as the FOX story so I don’t get your point.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon officials on Sunday said the U.S. military has secured a facility in southern Iraq that may have been used to produce chemical weapons.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/...lant/index.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm



CNN may have reported on Bill but in general it is left biased for most Americans – This is why FOX is double their size ( 4X the size of MSNBC).


And NBC and MSNBC is so famously biased it is astounding you could call them fair. I guess from your view they are right in line (left).

Here are a couple of points from people who worked there:

http://newsbusters.org/node/10857

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/ltm.10.html

Sigh...

MSNBC... the same network that canceled Phil Donahue when his was the highest rated show on the network? The same network whose manager told Jeff Cohen - Donahue's producer - to not have so many liberal guests (yet never seemed to mind their conservative hosts having mainly conservative guests?)? Famously biased indeed.

Goldberg... the man is a joke. A disgruntled employee whose book Bias only furthers the oft repeated (though misleading) conservative mantra about the news media - that reporters are liberal, therefore etc etc. Actually journalists tend to be left-leaning socially, yet right-leaning fiscally. Neither of which has much to do with their reporting.

NBC and MSNBC are owned by GE. Hardly a voice for the left-wing.

FOX is indeed ridiculously biased - farther to the right than the already right-leaning mainstream news outlets - who are not necessarily biased right or left, but are biased toward authority and toward a narrowing of political debate.

And it's interesting that you used two CNN links there. It occurs to me that on CNN and other mainstream media outlets, we are much more likely to see books by Goldberg or Coulter given airtime than we are books by Chomsky, Brock, or even Alterman.

FOX is quite sly really. Often on their shows the "liberal" side of a roundtable discussion will be a couple of reporters - which cleverly reinforces the myth that mainstream reporter = flaming liberal.

I think there is an important factor that gets muddled up by these debates. The media should be a skeptical check on consolidated power. The news media does its job right when they question what the government tells them. This does not make them "liberal." This debate (not this exact debate here, but in general) has been detrimental because it has helped narrow the range of views we are exposed to. There has been a transformation in which "news" now seems to mean reporting what we are told without questioning it. And I think that's a shame - whether they are questioning a Democrat or a Republican.

Amazing how we can just blow all this man says about working there in one sentence – amazing. And GE is a company that “owns” dozens of companies and if you think they try to “make” the news “conservative” you are wrong – have examples??





Any examples? Certainly from your point of view it is - and maybe that is all its about. Well if they are then that says a lot about the American people doesn’t it – since they came from nowhere to be twice the size of CNN. 4 X MSNBC.




At least there is a liberal side. I have heard numerous CNN and NPR rants where there was only a commentator telling me what to believe.

Have you noticed that CNN’s trying desperately to get back the more conservative “mainstream” viewer. Paula Zhan now has the table where the conservative and liberal sides express their views, and how about Glen Beck! He makes O’Reilly look like a socialist.

Does this tell you that many of us out here are sick and tired of having Don Rather types tell us how to think??? It should sir.

As for the GE bit - I really wasn't using GE as an example of how the media was conservative, read what I said again. However, I'll let another quote about Bias say it:





You really need examples of FOX leaning to the right?? I mean, I can give you some if you like... But first, using your argument here, don't you fall into the same category? If anything your rhetoric on media bias has been much stronger than mine. My contention is that the mainstream media leans slightly to the right, and strongly toward authoritarian bias. On the other hand you have made some pretty brash claims. If this is all in my head, or due to my view, why isn't yours? Perhaps we're both delusional!

But maybe not.




I didn't say there was a liberal side. I said they bring in reporters as if they represent the left by default. Not that the people they bring in are actually liberal.

Perhaps for you, the media is there to tell you "how to think." But I'm afraid Dan Rather has never told me how to think. Perhaps you could offer up some examples of his nefarious doings... the kind of stuff he was telling minds like yours to think - since you brought up the idea.

I'd like to close by quoting again the first paragraph I quoted above, perhaps you can tell me how this fits into your liberal media conspiracy theory:

If, as Goldberg argues, there's a media tilt toward Democrats, then why have Republicans received a majority of newspaper endorsements in all but two presidential elections since 1932?

I claimed that I want a media that is skeptical toward power. Why does that even have to be a "liberal" trait? A free press - what's the point if all they do is provide a transcript of what Authority Figure A said today? They should be questioning, probing, finding out the truth. And you may have noticed, though you ignored it, that I made it clear the media should be as skeptical of Democratic governments as they are of Republican governments.

I agree – as has been noted, bias is a point of view. As I said what I don’t like is for the “commentator” or “reporter” to present their point of view. To do this the time spent on each side of the issue is different depending on the political view of the commentator. To prove this all you need is a watch and a pencil. Listen to a report that can have a “political” view and keep track of the time each view is given by the commentator including interview time with representatives of each side. I have done this for some NPR affiliates like WBUR and on CNN – the result is that the “liberal” view gets up to 5 times the “time” and gets the “conclusion" as well. All I ever expect of fair coverage is equal time for both points of view for political issues – then I can come to a conclusion. NO network does this yet although right leaning FOX is closest IMO.



Rather bias is easy to document.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/videobias/dan_rather.asp






Clearly this is because there are more small rural “republican” newspapers than big city papers that go with the Dems – try again with circulation and the reverse is true.



I agree and I expect the same – BUT where there are differing viewpoints on these types of issues – BOTH sides need to be heard – NOT just the side the commentator has decided is correct – be it left or right. So when I am on WBUR (NPR affiliate – Boston) and I hear 3 “commentators” bashing a Bush position and no one speaking for the other side (and there usually IS one) I feel this is liberal bias.

Just curious, but according to TVNewser, two Fox News debates are being co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute (CBC Institute), as in 2004. Is this a different debate, or are Democrats beginning to snub the CBC, too?

3.)Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?

Can Fox get a fair shake from Democrats?

While I have no real interest in debating this issue, you may find this an interesting twist to your thread...

Nationally syndicated, libertarian talk show host, Neal Boortz, offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could present evidence (news transcript, video tape, etc.) that Fox reported the news with a conservative bias. The challenge did not include editorials. Only Fox's coverage of the news was game.

No one ever collected...

I believe it. Fox “news” does seem to be very fair. IMO what liberals hate about FOX are conservative commentators like Hannity.

And CNN is no doubt feeling the loss of that audience – and has responded with Glen Beck. Even Paula Zhan now has stories presented by advocated of both sides of an issue on here show.

What a novel concept!

To answer my own question, Jesse Jackson has now called CBCI to task for allowing FNC to cover and co-sponsor the debates:

Apparently, FNC can get a fair shake from some Democrats, but not others.

To follow up, the DNC has officially sided with Jesse Jackson and against the Congressional Black Caucus by refusing to sanction the CBCI debates to be aired on FNC, for the first time in the history of the CBC debates. It seems that the DNC now has a "liberals-only" dogma with regard to whom it allows to cover its debates, which overrides whatever loyalty it may have once had to one of its most reliable voting blocs, while renewing ongoing questions concerning the DNC's commitment to first amendment freedom of the press.

It also contributes to mounting evidence that the MSM is inherently partisan enough for the DNC to be comfortable that it won't construct the adversarial relationship that is theoretically supposed to exist between journalism and government. In my opinion, the adversarial relationship between government and the press is what separates journalism from propaganda. The DNC is taking actions consistent with accusations that it prefers favorable propaganda over seriously defending its positions or confronting dissent.

If I were a Democrat, I'd renounce such tyrannical, paranoid tendencies of the national party leadership. If I were a Republican, I'd also renounce the RNC if it were to refuse to participate in an ABC debate because its top staff are former Democratic appointees and apologists, or a CBS debate because its new news director is a former adviser to Democrats convicted of maliciously false partisan coverage of Food Lion and Tailwind, as well as cover-ups of various Clinton scandals, or an NBC debate because it no longer hides from its leftward bias following a high-profile spat with FNC's O'Reilly. Only spineless wimps with something to hide avoid tough questions. If the DNC weren't spineless wimps with something to hide, they'd go on FNC at every opportunity.

It appears the candidates themselves are not quite as cavalier as the DNC in writing off the CBCI. FNC says it still has commitments from all the top campaigns and the CBCI, so the debates will be no different whether or not the DNC condones them. What seems to be the result is that there will be seven major Democratic debates this year instead of the traditional six.

From a TVNewser blog entry:
In an update to that entry, TVNewser reports:

I agree. To propose that your either Party not associate with media it feels is not biased in their political direction is ludicrous. IMO for the DNC to propose this clearly underscores the belief that the left wing of the Party is in firm control. How this Party expects to get the support of independent voters it needs to win the White House in 08 is beyond me. Clearly many of these independent voters watch FOX which has twice the audience that CNN has and 4 X that of MSNBC. The phrase “shooting oneself in the head” comes to mind here. They are essentially saying that they are willing to write off all of the viewers of the countries largest cable news network!


“When it comes to the audience for cable news, four questions stand out:
Is the cable audience still growing? How dominant is Fox News? Can CNN still claim, ratings aside, that more people look at it over the course of a month? Is MSNBC making any headway?
The answers heading into 2006 looked like this:
• The audience for cable news was still growing, but not by much and not across the board.
• One channel, Fox News, continued to drive the growth, while its principal rivals, MSNBC and CNN, continued to suffer ratings declines.
• CNN still leads in the number of different people who watch it over the course of the month, allowing it to maintain its claim to be a rival to Fox News.
• CNN’s Headline News emerged as a new contender in the cable news landscape. It managed to surpass MSNBC to become the third most watched channel in 2005. “
http://www.journalism.org/node/501

I never vote because I have disdain for both parties. I am, however, politically interested. IMO, to get the picture, one needs all media. I watch Fox (a lot, it's entertaining), MSNBC, CNN, BBC (it's not entertaiing), foreign media, and local news. I read the NY Times, and the Washington Times. I listen to Conservative talk-radio, Air-America, and the local moderate station.
By consuming what all of them say, I am able to perceive a fair-and-balanced view of the World. The questions:

1. Is Fox "fair and balanced?"
No. It serves only the Republican/Conservative view.

2. Is Fox "fair and balanced" in regards to their programming or in being a conservative news source amongst liberal ones?
If this question means, does Fox give balance to the overall media picture, then I think that it probably does. I believe that most media lean toward a moderate Liberal view. If you watch all media, then Fox balances it out. However, I believe that their claim is not that. Their claim is that Fox gives objective, unbiased reporting. That's just silly. They are strongly promoting Conservative/Republican views.

3. Can democrats get a fair shake from Fox?
Not a chance.

I also wish to say this. I grew up as a conservative, but am now neutral. What changed me was extensive travelling through 29 countries, including third-world-countries, and experiencing different cultures. I do not think that it is possible to experience and see the hardships in the World without gaining sympathy for other viewpoints, and seeing, first-hand, the results of our international policies. Journalists are human. We can watch a video on TV of a guided missile hitting a target and applaud our technology, but sometimes there are errors and journalists have to watch children writhing on the ground with missing limbs. BBC and (to a lesser extent) CNN place journalists in foreign places for extended periods of time. They see things that must affect their reporting. To somebody living in America, who has not seen the effects of our work, this probably comes across as "Liberal" thinking". It is not. It is informed thinking. When digesting news, please question the source, but also question their experience. The BBC has journalists permanently located in foreign places. Fox occasionally sends somebody overseas for a few days.
It is up to the individual to get a fair-and-balanced view of the news. You can only do so by absorbing all media, American and foreign, and then travel.

There are a couple of reversals in recent events to report...

Now, the NYT "Caucus" blog is reporting Jackson has changed his mind and will support the debates, but is "concerned" about FNC's involvement. Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition was a frequent O'Reilly target a few years ago. TVNewser reports:
In a second reversal, it seems that not all the campaigns are keeping their commitments to the CBCI, as FNC had indicated.The Edwards campaign has now decided to pull out of the CBCI debate with FNC in favor of a Jan 2008 debate the CBCI has set up with CNN. I expect others will again follow his lead here, now that it won't require a snub of the CBCI. From TVNewser's account:

The problem with accusations of Fox's right-wing extremism is that they're disproven every time they are studied objectively. The two sources of most Fox criticism are FAIR and polls of journalists. FAIR studies are routinely debunked by its conservative counterpart MRC, whose polling shows at least 52% of journalists vote for Democrats, 19% vote for Republicans, and 21% wouldn't answer (but in earlier years, that remainder voted for Democrats).

The MRC numbers were confirmed in a study conducted by two liberal professors. From the the UCLA study I cited earlier:


Here's my own assessment of the hosts of FNC's top shows:
Bill O'Reilly -- conservative
Greta Van Susteren -- liberal
Sean Hannity -- conservative
Alan Colmes -- liberal
Brit Hume -- center-right
Shepard Smith -- liberal (2 shows)
Neal Cavuto -- conservative
Geraldo Rivera -- liberal
John Gibson -- conservative

So of the top 10 shows, 5 have liberal hosts and 5 have conservative hosts. Of the others, the morning show Fox & Friends seems to lean very slightly center-right after E.D. Hill left for a pre-noon right-leaner. The morning linup has the least viewers, but aside from Hill, Jon Scott is center-right, and Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly are center-left. The Business Block on Saturday is more about money than politics. The Sunday belly-button-gazing shows are generally centrist-to-liberal, like the Beltway Boys (liberal Mort Kondracke with conservative Fred Barnes) and Eric Burn's News Watch with a balanced panel. In the Sunday evening block, liberals Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera are followed by conservative Republican John Kasich, liberal Kim Guilfoyle, and conservative Paul Gigot.

I won't go through all the minor shows, but of the minor shows, so far, my list indicates a very balanced host bias: 5 more to the left, 5 more to the right, and 2 in the middle. Add back the top hosts, and there's 10 left, 10 right, and 2 center.

The guests on FNC are selected to counter-balance the hosts, so shows with conservative hosts deliberately have more liberal guests, while shows with liberal hosts deliberately have more conservative guests. When FAIR came up with a study showing otherwise (50-to-6 convervative-to-liberal bias in Hume's guests), FNC almost instantly bebunked the report with its own quota documentation validated by others.

Although I have read tons of opinion pieces responding to conclusive studies proving Fox's balance that "balance doesn't accurately reflect truth" and "truth is liberal, so balance spreads lies". However, we need look no further than the election returns of the last few elections to see the American electorate is ideologically balanced within a few percentage points, when forced to take sides. To project the less-than-balanced image of the world through rose-colored glasses (okay, now that the American Left no longer likes red and pink, we'll have to start calling them bluebonnet-colored lenses) is to give an inaccurate impression of what Americans believe.

I will agree that it's not good to rely too heavily on any one source of news-- that to get a good grasp you need to consult a wide variety of news outlets; but if most the news outlets you select are liberally biased, you're not getting a well-balanced view; that's why FNC's ratings are high, because it does make an effort to show more than one side. A whole lot of FNC opinion shows do have a strong viewpoint they're not ashamed to hide; a viewpoint NOT shared by 80% of journalists, but by up to 50% of the American population. These opinion shows don't masquerade themselves as hard news. The "news outlet" shows like Special Report and Fox News Sunday have been proven to be no more ideologically-biased than their counterparts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. Of the anchors of the four most centrist news outlets, only Brit Hume is being boycotted by the DNC in the debates.

I don't know if there's any way for the DNC to believably spin this other than it clearly wants to silence conservatism, cast aspersions on all hints of dissent, and avoid any real criticism during an election season. The RNC probably wants to do the same to liberalism, but at least they have better sense than to parade it around for everyone to see.

There is hardly any better evidence that the DNC hates the freedom of the press and is on a course toward outright censorship of dissent than their boycott of centrist media outlets who refuse to kowtow to the Party. It generates a clear chilling effect on journalists and media outlets who want the ratings of the debate season-- if you dissent from the Party, you're toast. I deal with people all over the world in countries where the ruling Party censors dissent. We're not there yet, but if the DNC keeps this up, it'll be sliding down the slippery slope. Why the DNC would so obviously play right into Republican hands eludes me.

That's not true. He's not quite as much of a right-winger as Fred Barnes but he clearly supports Republicans. He recently compared Democratic investigation of the US attorney firings to McCarthyism. I would call him center-right at best.

That's not true. Last year Geraldo claimed that he had "seen a hell of a lot more combat" than John Kerry and that Kerry proposal to redeploy troops "aids and and abets the enemy." I would call Geraldo a trash journalist first and a conservative second, but a liberal? No way.

Bill Hemmer said Democrats were paranoid for criticizing the right-wing hit job docudrama "The Path to 9/11."

Those are just a few examples, Mediamatters.org has plenty more. And moreover, media personalities are just the talent. The leadership pulling the strings is 100% conservative Republican, bar-none.

Obviously the DNC can't silence conservatism. There's not only Fox News but talk radio and print media like the Weekly Standard and the New York Post. That would be a ridiculous endeavor. What the DNC is trying to do is frame debate in a way that helps their candidates get elected. I don't see how Democrats would help themselves when their debate is broadcast by a news company that is trying to portray Democrats in a negative light. Just look at their Obama madrassa story or their selectively attacking Pelosi for visiting Syria. Fox News editors more or less, ask themselves, how do we make Democrats look bad today?

At the same time Democrats can't neglect the demographic Fox caters too. Barack Obama will seem charismatic regardless of how many times there's a "Fox Fact" underneath him pointing out his middle name. Democrats should certainly agree to interviews with Fox. Bill Clinton certainly helped his case when he took on Chris Wallace's distortions. But hosting a primary debate is different. Fox broadcasting a Democratic Party Debate is like a banquet to benefit world hunger or keg party sponsored by AA. It's just a non-sequitur. Broadcasting their debate is also a reward to the host for being nice to Democrats. Fox doesn't deserve any kudoos in that department. And I'm sure Fox News will find something to fill the timeslot. Maybe story about Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith?

That's not true. Mort was executive editor of neoliberal The New Republic from 1977 to 1985, during which time he only failed to endorse a Democrat once, in 1980, when he endorsed Independent John B. Anderson. The vast majority of the opinions he expresses lean left, and a few here and there lean right. He's not a partisan Democrat (he's an Independent) so he calls 'em like he sees 'em, but he still leans left.

Furthermore, I didn't see Kondracke saying anything nice about McCarthyism; many conservatives think McCarthy was right-- that there really were domestic "reds" and "pinkos" siding against the U.S. during the Cold War-- they'd never speak of it as if it were wrong. Does it matter at all that there really are significant parallels between McCarthyism and the way Senate Democrats have been handling the investigation into the firings? Honesty is not inherently conservative nor liberal. Calling out the liberal political party for misbehavior is not a betrayal of liberal ideology, just partisanship.

Yes way. He's not the only liberal disenchanted with Kerry, dubious of Kerry's questionable war service, and outraged at Kerry's disgraceful behavior after Viet Nam. You don't have to be conservative to know that Kerry's surrender proposals worked against U.S. troops and thus helped U.S. enemies. If I recall, you don't have to be pacifist to be liberal-- many claim to have supported Afghanistan and the first few months of Iraq, before flip-flopping. I'm slightly conservative, and I opposed the Iraq invasion from the get-go. Expecting proper conduct during wartime is not (ahem, shouldn't be) a liberal-conservative issue. Taken as a whole, Geraldo's political leanings are squarely liberal; center-left at best. And you're correct, he's primarily a sensationalist entertainer via trash journalism, who only occasionally lets political opinons out for their shock value, although he does seem sincere when he expresses opinions. Here he is shouting down O'Reilly recently. Gee whiz, Geraldo is such a conservative! :irony:

Yes, and... how is that not center-left? Any politician who wants to censor a fictionalized docu-drama (including The Reagans) because it's not 100% factual would be paranoid, at best. Anyone seriously disagree? Hemmer's overall coverage on CNN and FNC has leaned slightly left, if any direction at all.

I've cited similar groups like FAIR and their conservative counterpart, Media Research Center. These groups do occasionally come up with decent statistics; but their aricles documenting every minor step out of the partisan boundaries is downright comical in its hypersensitivity; not to mention the obvious distorition of trying to extrapolate someone's dominant message from one single sentence out of thousands a day, especially when you're intentionally ignoring all bias in the other direction.

MediaMatters does not even pretend to make a serious effort to document every pro-Democrat, pro-Liberal statement ever uttered by U.S. journalists. Bush is honestly slammed all day every day in the press, yet MediaMatters reports the most minor hint that someone might have a negative opinion of Nancy Pelosi as if it were the most horrendous act of treason ever committed. It's a slightly-unofficial attack rag of the Democratic Party, but it's still a lark. I highly recommend subscribing to its RSS feed and/or MRC's for the sheer entertainment value of one-sided hypersensitivity. It's almost as funny as Keith Olbermann, in a sad kind of way.

They are conservative, but in case you missed it, Rupert Murdoch is positioning himself to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, and is fundraising for her. To think of Murdoch as a typical conservative would be a mistake. From sourcewatch: That write-up, and Wikipedia's, describe how he backs liberal candidates in Australia and the UK, against conservative challengers people tend to assume he would prefer if he were as conservative as he is accused of being. Libertarianism occasionally puts one all over the spectrum. He is characterized by those who study his politics as much more of a money-grubber than an ideologue-- it seems every political statement he's made has been aimed at increasing his bottom line or "stature".

Yet, they try so hard. You gotta give 'em kudos for consistent persistence, as well as a high degree of effectiveness at marginalizing objectivity and dissent in favor of rampant liberal bias. It's worked extremely well for them in the past when gatekeepers were more important and they had a near lock on media ownership. The tide has been slowly turning against them, though, so they seem to be going to greater and greater lengths to intimidate objective reporters into the liberal camp and dissenting analysts out of their jobs. I agree, though, that such an era should be quickly drawing to a close.

Some might; I'm not in their heads, so I can't say for sure. But I have worked in news rooms among those who didn't know I wasn't a Democrat, and you can bet they were extremely gleeful whenever a Republican made a misstep, and quick to construct a better spin for news that might embarass a Democrat. Not just one or two-- the entire office-- including me because I didn't really care and needed the job. They'd even call colleagues at competing outlets to ask if they were running the story at all, and to get an idea of what they were saying. On most stories, those kinds of conversations usually went nowhere, but when it came to getting stories straight on a potential Democratic scandal, suddenly everyone's eager to share. Those kinds of experiences motivated me to change careers.

I'm with you here. I've never seen Obama give a bad interview. Even if ABC were to run a lower-third saying "Vote Hillary" under his interview and the anchor were to bully him, he'd still be wise to keep going on ABC.

Really? He came across as a hypersensitive, irrational, hateful, defensive egotist to most people I talked with about it, including many Democrats. But whether you come across looking good or bad shouldn't be the main point; so long as you show up to answer the questions without being evasive, you're much better off than not showing up, even if you make a fool of yourself like Clinton did, IMO. No matter what you thought of Clinton's outburst (I thought is was a more aggressive way to be evasive through diversion), you couldn't make much of a case that he was yellow-bellied wimp. I have a hard time believing that Clinton hadn't already grown a thick enough skin to handle tough questions, so it did seem more like stagecraft than statecraft. If he had later vowed never to speak with FNC reporters ever again, then it would have been an obvious staged attempt to discredit FNC, considering Chris Wallace did nothing that any other reporter wouldn't do when interviewing Clinton or Bush.

Like Republican candidates refusing to debate on any other media outlet because they're all at least slightly left of center on occasion? Ha!! The DNC refuses to debate on the one news outlet not clearly biased in its favor, but the fourth-closest to the "average voter", in a forum they've had absolutely no trouble with in past debates? This snub obviously has nothing to do with the partisan nature of the debates themselves, but converting journalists into believable propagandists...

Now, you're getting to the heart of the matter, but still a bit understated, don't you think? The DNC seems to think journalists are pavlovian dogs salivating for "the big get". Feed them or pat them on the head occasionally, and they'll obediently follow your every command. Take away their food, ignore them, or jolt them with an electric collar, and they'll eventually learn to fall into line. This isn't a case of the DNC avoiding bias, it's a case of the DNC rewarding the bias they like, while punishing objectivity and dissent. It's an outright attempt at intimidating the press, not supporting freedom of the press . If FNC were some minor-league team with negligible ratings like MS-NBC or some blog, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But FNC is the top-rated cable news channel with a sizable audience. This is like the NCAA keeping the SEC out of the National Championship race. It's big.

You're absolutely right about that. What passes for TV "news" is so jam-packed with irrelevant trash or repetitive sensationalism that it's amazing they ever spend enough time talking about substantive matters to be able to measure bias. Maybe Fox will keep the slot open and replace missing candidates with sock puppets or comedic impersonators trying out for SNL. Now, that would be a hoot.

Clearly you operate in a different political spectrum than I do. If you see obvious parallels between McCarthyism and Democratic investigation of the U.S. attorney scandal, pick up a history book and a newspaper. Mort Kondracke basically reiterates the Republican talking points that Fred Barnes says in a softer, meeker way. He isn't a cheerleader for McCarthyism, but anyone who is the least bit informed about what went on during that time is not a fan of Joseph McCarthy.

I definitely don't want to bring up the whole series of lies Karl Rove made up about John Kerry. But suffice to say, John Kerry will never run for President again so I think conservatives can start believing the US Navy and the people who actually served alongside Kerry in battle. And what Kerry did after leaving Vietnam makes him a hero. But let's not open that can of worms.

Having a shouting match with Bill O'Reilly doesn't make you progressive of the year. All Geraldo is expressing in that clip is a somewhat moderate immigration position. He shares that with a lot of so-called conservatives like President Bush, John McCain and Sam Brownback. Again, I don't think Geraldo is at heart a political pundit but a narcissistic idiot.


Sure, Rupert is more of an evil billionaire than a political being. But Roger Ailes is in the man in charge at Fox. He's a conservative without a doubt.

Well, this Democrat thinks Bill Clinton did a great job of refuting a vicious attack from Chris Wallace. Sure, he was passionate about it but that's how a President should feel about his job as commander-in-chief.

It isn't about censoring it, it's about recognizing that "The Path to 9/11" was trying to spread right-wing disinformation when the could have easily told the truth. Bill Hemmer was expressing the conservative opinion that it's fine to attack Bill Clinton's handling of terrorism using misinformation because, in the end, Bill Clinton is the root of all evil.

Pardon my obvious illiteracy, ignorance, stupidity, idiocy, and complete lack of education or intellectual curiosity, but the link you posted and I apparently didn't read told me that Kondracke merely asserted that interpreting the fifth amendment as an admission of guilt is reminiscent of McCarthyism: This history book here in my hot little hand that I'm apparently not reading quite clearly confirms that Kondracke was exactly right. For a similar passage from Wikipedia's McCarthyism page: All these newspapers and history books that I've apparently been looking at without actually reading the words might come in useful for some other folks, too, apparently.

Occasionally, but not often. I'd suggest one should actually watch the show before commenting on it, but then, I've just gotten on your case for doing something similar to me , so I'll restrain my reflexes. I'll merely assert anyone can tell by watching the show the two disagree at least as often as they agree, and suggest perusing thetranscripts here to tally up the agreements vs. disagreements if you care enough to prove me wrong.

Yes, it seems I know a few more conservatives than you do, not that it really matters. McCarthyist committees needlessly ruined many lives, but a huge number of non-lefties feel that some situations warranted investigation. The "Workers of the World, Unite!" message of many communist groups (including the Soviet Union) preached that worldwide communists had more in common with one another than citizens of their individual countries, so their allegiance should be first to their communist comrades. The CPUSA which had grown popular over the 1930s and early 1940s had strong ties with the USSR, so it seems reasonable to many that the strength of those ties should be investigated after WWII when the two countries were no longer allies, but facing each other down in a cold war. Naturally, no one will approve of the paranoid hysteria of some committees after they turned into Salem-style witch hunts, but many familiar with the period continue to believe the self-defense origins of the investigations were justified, although many committees were handled horrendously.

I won't bother continuing the back-and-forth on the leanings of the three or four others we've discussed because we apparently have a mere difference of opinion; when the left calls you right and the right calls you left, you're probably in the middle.

Actually according to now declassified Soviet documents most if not all of the men pursued by McCarthy were Soviet spies. Certainly his methods were not the best but neither were those of NYT who tried to crucify him. Read the facts and learn something.

The man may have had too much “zeal” for the job but he was not wrong. Hess and others were spies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3844108c5641.htm

http://www.dustinmhawkins.com/article0000262005.html


http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.js...ageID=600338092

Most if not all? Really Ted? You sure you want to make a claim like that?

McCarthy was not discredited at the time, and since demonised as an idiot because he went after Hiss and the Rosenburgs, he was discredited because he went after people like Leonard bernstein, Edward R Murrow, Charlie Chaplin, Langston Huges, Gypsy Rose Lee, Burgess Meredeth, Orson Welles. He attacked Water Flouridation and vaccinations, he tried to ban 'questionable ' books from the Library of the state department (at least he didnt publicly burn them). I remind you as well that those responsible for the fall of Mccarthy and Mccarthyism were his fellow REPUBLICANS and the US supreme court, not the Democrats.

In fact McCarthy made his name on the basis of a single speech in 1950 in which he claimed to have a list of names of Spies working in the state department: four years later he had been unable to provide any such list or give any such names. He was formally censured by the Senate of the United States, something only done thrice in US history.


Most if not all of the men pursued by Mccarthy were Soviet Spies? Really? Mccarthy had tens of thousands of people investigated, and exactly THREE were convicted of espionage, in fact two of the three were arrested before he ever came to preeminence. So are you sure you want to make that claim, or were you just making things up again?

Jay Leno joke about the Democrats dropping out of the debates...

Certainly the man was over the top in many ways but his allegations about government workers connections to Soviet Russia were correct.