No it's not fair and balanced. What a ludicrous notion. One one ONE! caller speaking to O'Reilley mentioned the name Olbermann...merely MENTIONED the guy's name, and O'Reilley cuts him off, and tells him Fox Security knows where he lives and he's going to be getting a visit from them. There was a previous (there are many) bogus terror alert which was going to target Los Angeles, and Fox plays the scene from Independence Day where that large building in LA gets blown to bits by aliens in UFO's. Kind of swaying the viewers mental emotions wouldn't you say? Then there's the pinup boys there who say out loud that liberal antiwar Americans ought to be put in gulags or shot for treason. And these are the tip of the iceberg. Was this thread actually a joke on someone?

For the most part, I find Fox news fair, but not balanced. The moderators, especially O'reilly, will give opponents a fair swing. But the issues are outrageously tilted towards conservatives, or non-confrontational with the White House.

Sometimes the stories are completely irrelevant to anything happening on on the macro-political stage.

For instance, the commutation of Scooter Libby was a macro-political story. The highest official to commit a felony since Iran-Contra, and then essentially set free by the President of the United States, is a HUGE deal! But Fox news barely covered it. If I remember correctly, Hannity + Colmes and the O'reilly factor didnt cover it at all!

This editorial by Bill O'reilly demonstrates by point precisely:

Should You Care About the Scooter Libby Verdict?

So, a fair assessment by O'reilly, just not balanced.
And again:

Covering the Iraq War... why, thats what the terrorists want us to do!

Say what you want about Chris Matthews, but he sticks with the big stories, Liberal or Conservative, unless a big name comes in. Contrast this with yesterdays news Ward Churchill, girl fights or "activist" judges. I just finished watching Michelle Malkin accuse PETA of hypocrisy. No news about Alberto Gonzales (A huge story, liberal or conservative).

Before I answer the question, I cannot help but point out this irony:
Aevans, I'm no Chomsky fan...But again I have to point out the irony [call it OCD]. Chomsky shouldn't be used as a source against Fox News...But Front Page Magazine should be used as a source against Chomsky? Madonna Mia.

No. It is occasionally fair and almost never balanced. It is just as biased as every other news source which brings me to a key point: it is impossible...Im-possible for a news source that derives from the writings and reporting of human beings to be unbiased. It just cannot be done. Fox is just as biased and unbalanced as any other news source and as such, I don't find any complaints about "bias" in the media to be very credible. Of course there's bias, there's no such thing as a neutral news story. Fox is to the right what CNN is to the left. It isn't far right-wing and CNN isn't far left-wing, if that were the case, neither would attract the large audiences that they do. Fox reports from a slightly rightish political stance.

As in, "do they provide a counter-balance to a generally left-leaning media?" To an extent, yes. They provide the media consumer with an alternative to generally left-leaning sources of information.

It's been known to happen, but not all too frequently, but as I said, occasionally Fox is fair.

CP

1.)Is Fox "fair and balanced"?

As the studies I have linked to previously in this topic prove, it's news reporting and evening news shows the least bias of any news program. In its news reporting, its bias tipped ever-so-slighly to the right, about as much as ABC Nightly News tipped left. Also, as I've shown in this topic, it hosts opinion shows that are relatively one-sided in both the left and right directions, as well as debate shows intended to balance out. The reason left-leaning critics believe the channel slants everything far-right is that the conservative shows are more popular than the liberal shows. They seem to key in on Hannity and pretend Colmes doesn't exist.

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

Both, to the extent than any news outlet tries to be. As I've already discussed at length, dispassionate studies of media bias conducted by college professors who claim to be liberal have concluded FNC is more fair and balanced than most other news outlets. It also happens to air conservative opinion shows like the O'Reilly Factor that act as a counterbalance to the editorial commentators on most other news shows, who are almost universally liberal in their opinions. Here's a challenge: list the conservative commentators who get at least 15 min./wk. of network or cable airtime who are not employed by FNC. Glenn Beck. John Stossel. Uhm...

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

Obviously, where the debates are concerned. These were to be conducted by Brit Hume, who has a very good track record with political debates, and Juan Williams, a liberal FNC contributor. Not to mention being hosted by the left-leaning CBC Institute. It's not like O'Reilly and the dreaded Religious Right were going to be in the front row shooting spitwads.

I still think the real question is whether FNC is getting a fair shake from liberal extremists among Democrats.

Time: Liberals Go After Fox News Advertisers
SJMN: Liberals pressure Fox News advertisers
FNC: Liberal Activists Step Up Campaign Against FOX News

As the AP has reported in a variety of ways, the organized campaign to discredit FNC and harass its sponsors is being led by the usual suspects: George Soros' MoveOn.org (which can't seem to move on), "Campaign for America's Future" (which seems to be against America's future), DailyKos (which isn't Kos and isn't exactly daily), Brave New Films (which aren't particularly brave, new, or even films-- most released straight to video). But just because these groups use false advertising in their own names doesn't stop them from trying to silence FNC on grounds that its claim to be fair and balanced isn't precisely true. Yeah, that's not hypocritical

FNC personality Bill O'Reilly has a campaign against advertisers sponsoring "left-wing hate speech", so I'm not surprised that the purveyors of said left-wing hate speech are trying to retaliate in kind. The problem is, they're not retaliating by trying to silence neo-nazi propaganda or Ann Coulter in this case, but a news outlet ranking among the least biased in its industry by almost every objective study.

As KXMB-CBS's editorial blog points out,

The campaign to over-react against FNC is being conducted by the same left-wing censorship machine whose idea of free speech is that you're free to say anything you want to say as long as it's left of center, or you don't mind your family, friends, and business associates being harassed by militant hippies recruited by employees of the Communist Workers World Party, a.k.a. International Action Center, a.k.a. ANSWER.

It's hard to say who is more brainwashed: viewers of FNC who actually believe the GOP is AOK, or the pawns of MoveOn.org and WWP who actually believe FNC's news reporting is any more biased than any other major news outlet. Considering that FNC has been as critical as any other major news outlet of the various Bush administration scandals, I'd probably have to say the Soros zombies are more delusional, but it's admittedly a close call.

I'm a little doubtful that they are liberal. These guys are connected to three prominent conservative think tanks-the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Heritage Foundation. Would two liberal professors co-author an article for The American Spectator as well?



I normally wouldn't go on as the authors proven ties to conservative think tanks and The American Spectator destroys any notion that this study is valid, but even if we leave alone their ties to the right, the study has some serious flaws.. The study is problematic in how the research was carried out. A single issued Center For Responsive Politics is highly liberal while the ACLU is slightly conservative? And how is it that the ACLU has a higher conservative score than the NRA? (49.8 vs. 45.9)

The methodology shows how the books can be cooked, so to speak.