Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Nov '09 06:57
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

    Fox News: Fair And Balanced?
    S. Robert Lichter, 11.16.09, 12:01 AM EST

    Fox News has become embroiled in a nasty controversy over its ill treatment of President Obama. But are the charges true?

    What if I told you that Fox gave Obama his worst press and John McCain his best press of any network during last year's presidential election? If you work for the White House, you'd probably take this as proof that Fox is just a mouthpiece for the opposition. Now what if I told you that Fox had the most balanced coverage of any network during the same campaign? If you work for Fox, you'd probably say we told you so.

    But what if I told you that both scenarios are true?

    While it seems unlikely, that conclusion is precisely the case, based on an ongoing study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).

    ...

    The CMPA study compares ABC, CBS ( CBS - news - people ) and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts. (CNN and MSNBC have no comparable flagship evening news show; more on Fox's polarizing talk shows momentarily.)

    So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

    In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks.

    ...

    Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. 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.

    ...

    Obama differs from his predecessors mainly in the false hopes generated by sometimes fawning campaign coverage from jaded journalists who temporarily let themselves get carried away by his eloquence and the historic nature of his candidacy. When politics returned to normal, their coverage returned to form.

    ...
  2. 20 Nov '09 06:57
    ha! told ya!
  3. 20 Nov '09 06:57
    the parts left out are worth a read, too.
  4. 20 Nov '09 07:00
    i wonder how many analysts Associated Press will assign to counting THIS!
  5. 20 Nov '09 07:09
    You think this is evidence that Fox News is fair and balanced?
  6. 20 Nov '09 07:14
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You think this is evidence that Fox News is fair and balanced?
    why isn't it?
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    20 Nov '09 07:16
    Who owns Fox news?
  8. 20 Nov '09 07:23
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    why isn't it?
    It's evidence that either the other news networks are biased, too, or that there were simply more positive things to say about Obama than McCain, possibly because Obama ran a successful campaign to become president, while McCain made some very questionable decisions during the campaign.
  9. 20 Nov '09 07:41
    maybe you should read the full article, and see why it says what it says.
  10. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    20 Nov '09 07:49
    Who owns Fox news?

    The reason you don't want to say who it is, is because by doing so, Fox news automatically becomes biased.
  11. 20 Nov '09 07:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    maybe you should read the full article, and see why it says what it says.
    I think its over his head and below his knees...
  12. 20 Nov '09 08:03
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Who owns Fox news?

    The reason you don't want to say who it is, is because by doing so, Fox news automatically becomes biased.
    why should that matter?
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    20 Nov '09 09:58
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    why should that matter?
    Let's see:

    Murdoch found a political ally in John McEwen, leader of the Australian Country Party, who was governing in coalition with the larger Menzies-Holt Liberal Party. From the very first issue of The Australian Murdoch began taking McEwen's side in every issue that divided the long-serving coalition partners. (The Australian, July 15, 1964, first edition, front page: “Strain in Cabinet, Liberal-CP row flares.&rdquo It was an issue that threatened to split the coalition government and open the way for the stronger Australian Labor Party to dominate Australian politics. It was the beginning of a long campaign that served McEwen well

    In a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg, Murdoch was asked whether he had "anything to do with the New York Post's endorsement of Barack Obama in the democratic primaries." Without hesitating, Murdoch replied, "Yeah. He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don't think he will win Florida... but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk

    In Britain, Murdoch formed a close alliance with Margaret Thatcher, and The Sun credited itself with helping John Major to win an unexpected election victory in the 1992 general election.[28] However, in the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005, Murdoch's papers were either neutral or supported Labour under Tony Blair. This has led some critics to argue that Murdoch simply supports the incumbent parties (or those who seem most likely to win an upcoming election) in the hope of influencing government decisions that may affect his businesses. The Labour Party under Blair had moved significantly to the Right on many economic issues prior to 1997

    On June 28, 2006 the BBC reported that Murdoch and News Corporation were flirting with the idea of backing Conservative leader David Cameron at the next General Election.[30] However, in a later interview in July 2006, when he was asked what he thought of the Conservative leader, Murdoch replied "Not much".[31] In a 2009 blog, it was suggested that in the aftermath of the News of the World phone tapping scandal, Murdoch and News Corporation might have decided to back Cameron,[32] although there had already been a converging of interests between the two men over muting of the UK's communications regulator Ofcom

    Yeah... he sounds REALLY objective.
    Anything this man touches is tainted.
  14. 20 Nov '09 13:09 / 1 edit
    This is retarded on many fronts. First of all, you can't "prove" something subjective nor can you quantify bias. This is why media "studies" really turn out to be a collective opinion, in some cases based on select criteria.

    During election series the one who is ahead in the polls will of course receive more "positive" comments. Positive remarks do NOT necessarily equate to flattering characterizations of the candidates.

    Political "analysts" who work for news networks are a lot like sports analysts who give colorful commentary during a game.

    Sports analyst: "The Cults offensive line has done a good job protecting Payton Manning, giving his receivers time to get separation down field"

    Political analyst: "Barack Obama has done a good job staying on message so he can divert attention away from his repeated scandals"

    The second comment would have the dual purpose of explaining away why Obama is ahead in the polls, it would register as a "positive" comment about how he ran his campaign - and as a bonus it's a backhanded compliment that's really an insult.
  15. 20 Nov '09 13:41
    Ah, and it seems the founder of CMPA used to be on the Fox News payroll. It's always nice to have the Fox guard the henhouse.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Robert_Lichter