I've heard a lot of tough talk over the last few years that FOX news is biased toward the Republican party or the conservative agenda. When I ask people why they think FOX is biased, they mumble something about Rupert Murdoch and then babble for about 30 seconds and get defensive. I never leave a conversation overwhelmingly convinced that FOX has a bias.

Somebody, shoe me, once and for all, why/how FOX news is biased? Let's get this out once and for all. They came down pretty hard on McCain during the campaign and hammered Bush more than once. Is there something I'm missing? It appears "fair and balanced" to me. Examples or links would be nice.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

Fox's [Fox News Channel] founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race. With Ailes' help, Bush turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a resounding win by targeting the GOP's base of white male voters in the South and West, using red-meat themes like Michael Dukakis' "card-carrying" membership in the ACLU, his laissez-faire attitude toward flag-burning, his alleged indifference to the pledge of allegiance--and, of course, paroled felon Willie Horton.

Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[9] reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.

The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:

(percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)

• Fifty-seven percent believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
  
• Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
  
• Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
  

In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80 percent of Fox News watchers had one of more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71 percent for CBS and 27 percent who tuned to NPR/PBS.

As the Washington Post reported[10], "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

As AlterNet reported, "For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between."[11]

The Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media 2005" concluded that Fox was "the most one-sided of all major news outlets." On Iraq, 25 percent of 2,000 stories analyzed were negative and 20 percent were positive. "Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded." Also, "with the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox News," Americans don't seek out news sources that reinforce their beliefs.[12]

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2009 03:51AM by Bob.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 12:32AM by Alias.

Fox bills itself as a "news channel" but 95% of it's content is opinion. Whenever anyone gives an example of the extreme bias on one of their shows they consistently defend it because "that's an opinion show" or "he's a commentator."

But these same folks point to Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, etc. to demonstrate the bias of the "mainstream media." How many times have we heard the quote about Matthew's "thrill going up his leg" to support claims that the media are "in the tank for Obama?" If opinion doesn't count on Fox, why does it count on other networks?

From Newshounds

Part of Bill O’Reilly’s bizarro world show is a bizarro world segment titled “Pinheads or Patriots.” A “pinhead” is anybody who doesn’t subscribe to Bill’s “traditionalist” credo and a “patriot” is somebody who does – even if they’re not really “traditionalists” as in the case of Ellen DeGeneres whom Bill considered a patriot because she sang an off key version of Silent Night with Brittney Spears. In Bill’s bizarro world, “anyone who sings Christmas Carols is patriotic." (I guess, according to Bill, Jews aren’t patriotic). DeGeneres got another "patriot" award because she did some comedy around Aretha Franklin’s inaugural hat so, according to Bill, she is a patriot because she’s bringing hats back into American fashion. (Memo to Bill: keep lauding Ellen and you’ll lose your homophobic audience!) But Bill’s newest target is actress Jessica Alba who dared to call Bill an “a-hole”. (I can think of far more offensive words). And because Jessica had the audacity to mock Bill, he called her a pinhead for making a gaffe. Turns out the gaffe is on Bill!

Jessica Alba was stalked by Bill’s mini-me, Jesse T Watters, at a recent pre inauguration party given by “Declare Yourself” – an organization founded by Norman Lear to encourage young people to vote. Bill’s personal stalker, Jesse T Watters, asked Ms. Alba if she would give Bill O’Reilly an inauguration shout out. She declined saying that “he’s kind of an a-hole.” When Watters, asked “how so,” she said “I don’t know how he does it, maybe he’s born that way.” (Right On, Jessica) When Watters did his infamous can you give me an example (Memo to Jesse: I sure can!) she refused because a response would mean admitting to watching Fox News. (Memo to Jessica: you don’t have to cuz we do.) In reacting to this slight, on his “Reality Check” segment of “The Factor,” Bill said that Alba was “misguided and could benefit greatly if she watched The Factor.” After the party, Alba was asked, by CNS reporter Nicholas Ballasy, about what she thought Obama would change with his presidency. Taking a page from not plumber, not Sam, turned not journalist (Joe the Plumbers asking an Israeli journalist if he supported Israel) Alba took asked Ballasy what he thought is Obama’s “greatest characteristic.” When Ballasy responded that he was a neutral journalist, Alba said “You can’t answer about our President. Be neutral. Be Sweden.” (See Politico for an amusing description of the encounter.)

So as a way to avenge himself at Alba’s expense, O’Reilly declared Alba a “pinhead” (January 21st) for referencing Sweden when, according to Bill, she should have said Switizerland. Per Bill, “Sweden is a very nice country; but Switzerland is the land of neutrality.”

Comment: "Swedish neutrality refers to Sweden's policy of neutrality in armed conflicts, which has been in effect since the early 19th century.” Is Bill lying or just peddling more misinformation?

You use the fact that Fox has given Pres. Bush a hard time as evidence that they are well balanced. I believe when you look at those instances you will find it is when Bush swayed from the neocon conservative agenda is what generated that criticism. The best example I can give is when Bush reached out to the democrats and proposed a bi-partisan solution to the undocumented workers issue. So their loyalty isnt to a man..or women, but to an ideology.

Personally I think every news organization is biased to a point/degree...that isnt the problem. The problem is when people only listen to the news sources that they agree with. I make a point of listening to the Fox Sunday Morning show with Chris Wallace...every Sunday...along with the traditional MSM shows.

By far the best news shows are on PBS...whether you agree with them or not...you are not an intelligent watcher of the news if you arent watching them at least on Friday nights.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You use the fact that Fox has given Pres. Bush a
> hard time as evidence that they are well balanced.
> I believe when you look at those instances you
> will find it is when Bush swayed from the neocon
> conservative agenda is what generated that
> criticism. The best example I can give is when
> Bush reached out to the democrats and proposed a
> bi-partisan solution to the undocumented workers
> issue. So their loyalty isnt to a man..or women,
> but to an ideology.
>
> Personally I think every news organization is
> biased to a point/degree...that isnt the problem.
> The problem is when people only listen to the news
> sources that they agree with. I make a point of
> listening to the Fox Sunday Morning show with
> Chris Wallace...every Sunday...along with the
> traditional MSM shows.
>
> By far the best news shows are on PBS...whether
> you agree with them or not...you are not an
> intelligent watcher of the news if you arent
> watching them at least on Friday nights.

It pains me to say this Vince, but I agree with you synopsis of the news channels. I like PBS and NPR and sometimes AP. The worst person on Fox news is That white-haired guy that looks like he just stuck his dick in a light socket. I can't remember his name, but he is the biggest fucking asshole on TV.

I don't know if anybody realizes this, but we don't have "news" anymore. We have "informative entertainment."

In the "news," the report would go something like, "snow and ice storms have knocked out power to millions of homes and businesses in the Mid-East region. The electric companies expect to have power restored by the middle of February."

What we get, though, is this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm;_ylt=AkM2kk5H.NDNogQ10EBEZFZvzwcF

"News" is cold, objective, and purely factual. As soon as you start throwing adjectives and opinions into it, it's not "news."

Where can I go to find some REAL news?

Dinosaur Hump Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where can I go to find some REAL news?

Nowadays? You can't. Everyone has an agenda to push.

You're probably referring to John Gibson, and you're right--he is a prick.

Numbers Wrote:
> NPR and sometimes AP. The worst person on Fox news
> is That white-haired guy that looks like he just
> stuck his dick in a light socket. I can't remember
> his name, but he is the biggest fucking asshole on
> TV.

The key to proper news consumption, as with diet, is variety. Don't eat one kind of food and don't get your news from one source or medium. Read several different newspapers regularly, watch more than one news program, listen to commentators of all stripes, and visit lots of websites. Or do like most people do and ignore it all but pretend like you have a clue.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dinosaur Hump Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where can I go to find some REAL news?
>
> Nowadays? You can't. Everyone has an agenda to
> push.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The key to proper news consumption, as with diet,
> is variety. Don't eat one kind of food and don't
> get your news from one source or medium. Read
> several different newspapers regularly, watch more
> than one news program, listen to commentators of
> all stripes, and visit lots of websites. Or do
> like most people do and ignore it all but pretend
> like you have a clue.
>
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dinosaur Hump Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Where can I go to find some REAL news?
> >
> > Nowadays? You can't. Everyone has an agenda
> to
> > push.

A finely-tuned bullshit detector will help you sift through the shit for the actual facts, but even the actual facts aren't fully reliable anymore.

Dinosaur Hump Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where can I go to find some REAL news?

The closes yoy will get is PBS...at least they have the time to intelligently lay out the events...and arent limited to 2 minute sound bites and interviews.

Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're probably referring to John Gibson, and
> you're right--he is a prick.

That's him. What a total douchebag.

So your concern is whether Fox is balanced? Do you also ask whether NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS are also balanced? Answer is NO. You follow the liberal line.

You take the position that since one station doesn't meet your political view, then they are bad. So let's condemn and try to silence it. Then we can all get real good news because, of course, it will no longer be "wrong" (as in against your opinion.)

If anyone were truly concerned about unbiased news then there would be first a discussion of why the Govt funds biased media (NPR, PBS) after which all news would be scrutinized, not just one channel.

Murdock is a genius. Half of America is conservative, yet news is biased liberal. He tapped into a big audience, thus $$$.

I couldnt disagree with you more on the biasness of NPR and PBS..they are a wonderful investment of tax dollars and time well spent watching. But again..the problem is not that any news source is biased...the problem is whether in your ignorance you only watch one source. I do believe that watchers of Fox news channels are getting their news solely from those sources..and that many have lost their ability of independent thought. One only need document the one dimensional posts to most questions on here. Very few people are capable of thinking outside the box...outside their own experience...few are empathetic to anyone's problems but their own.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldnt disagree with you more on the biasness
> of NPR and PBS..they are a wonderful investment of
> tax dollars and time well spent watching. But
> again..the problem is not that any news source is
> biased...the problem is whether in your ignorance
> you only watch one source. I do believe that
> watchers of Fox news channels are getting their
> news solely from those sources..and that many have
> lost their ability of independent thought. One
> only need document the one dimensional posts to
> most questions on here. Very few people are
> capable of thinking outside the box...outside
> their own experience...few are empathetic to
> anyone's problems but their own.


the PIPA study from the University of Maryland proves this:

In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80 percent of Fox News watchers had one of more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71 percent for CBS and 27 percent who tuned to NPR/PBS.

As the Washington Post reported[10], "The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were 'the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

As AlterNet reported, "For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between."[11]

Bill O Really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Murdock is a genius. Half of America is
> conservative, yet news is biased liberal. He
> tapped into a big audience, thus $$$.

Actually, half of America is not conservative. Half of those who voted cast a vote for a republican, roughly, but those who voted were still only half of the voting age population. And voting for a republican does not make you a republican or a conservative just like all the "republicans" who voted for Obama are not now automatically "democrats".

First, it seems that for most people, they use Republican and Conservative interchangeably as do they use Democrat and Liberal interchangeably.

There are 72 million registered democrats and 55 million republicans, or 42.6% democrat, 32.5% republican (and 42 million or 24.8% independent)

a little more than two-fifths of the country is "liberal", a little less than one-third are conservative and one-quarter are independent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2009 11:21PM by Bob.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 12:25AM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>
> Actually, most of America is conservative.
>
> Hey, Bobbie boy, are you a registered Democrat?


I'm actually a republican. Just not one of these fanatical extremist types.

But I'm sorry to say, most of America is not conservative. If you look at each issue, the majority is on the side of progressives, not conservatives:

77 percent of Americans think Congress should increase the minimum wage; 66 percent believe "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes; 53 percent feel the Bush administration's tax cuts have failed because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs.

61 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research; 62 percent want to protect Roe v. Wade; only 3 percent of Americans rank same-sex marriage as the "most important" social issue.

75 percent of Americans would be wiling to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources to help reduce global warming; 79 percent want higher emissions standard for automobiles.

57 percent of Americans feel "most recent immigrants to the U.S. contribute to this country" rather than "cause problems." Sixty-seven percent of Americans feel that "on the whole," immigration is a "good thing for this country today."

69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage; 76 percent find access to health care more important than maintaining the Bush tax cuts; three in five would be willing to have their own taxes increased to achieve universal coverage.

On all of these, I'm probably on the conservative side, except stem-cell research and abortion. I wouldn't pay more for electricity to stop something I don't believe exists, and the government needs to stay away from health care. But as you can see, when you get down to the issues, most people are progressive, not conservative.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 12:23AM by Alias.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldnt disagree with you more on the biasness
> of NPR and PBS..they are a wonderful investment of
> tax dollars and time well spent watching. But
> again..the problem is not that any news source is
> biased...the problem is whether in your ignorance
> you only watch one source. I do believe that
> watchers of Fox news channels are getting their
> news solely from those sources..and that many have
> lost their ability of independent thought. One
> only need document the one dimensional posts to
> most questions on here. Very few people are
> capable of thinking outside the box...outside
> their own experience...few are empathetic to
> anyone's problems but their own.

Wait! Bill Moyer? Unbiased? Where's the balance presented by a Govt funded entity? Never seen a conservative on NPR or PBS unless to devalue their opinion.

Anyway, NPR couldn't survive as a commercial entity. It puts me to sleep.

Bob Wrote:


>
> the PIPA study from the University of Maryland
> proves this:
>
>
> In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80
> percent of Fox News watchers had one of more of
> these misperceptions, in contrast to 71 percent
> for CBS and 27 percent who tuned to NPR/PBS.
>
> As the Washington Post reported[10], "The fair and
> balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were
> 'the news source whose viewers had the most
> misperceptions.' Eighty percent of Fox viewers
> believed at least one of these un-facts; 45
> percent believed all three."
>
> As AlterNet reported, "For each of the three
> misperceptions, the study found enormous
> differences between the viewers of Fox, who held
> the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the
> fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were
> found to hold at least one misperception, compared
> to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other
> media fell in between."[11]
>
>

Wow! A study. Hmmm....must be factual because someone published a study. You need to examine their base motivation first. I bet you'd find a lot of liberal funding going into this study. I see Ben & Jerrys there. Not exactly conservative.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bob,
> >
> > Actually, most of America is conservative.
> >
> > Hey, Bobbie boy, are you a registered Democrat?
>
>
> I'm actually a republican. Just not one of these
> fanatical extremist types.
>
> But I'm sorry to say, most of America is not
> conservative. If you look at each issue, the
> majority is on the side of progressives, not
> conservatives:
>
>
> 77 percent of Americans think Congress should
> increase the minimum wage; 66 percent believe
> "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes; 53
> percent feel the Bush administration's tax cuts
> have failed because they have increased the
> deficit and caused cuts in government programs.
>
> 61 percent of Americans support embryonic stem
> cell research; 62 percent want to protect Roe v.
> Wade; only 3 percent of Americans rank same-sex
> marriage as the "most important" social issue.
>
> 75 percent of Americans would be wiling to pay
> more for electricity if it were generated by
> renewable sources to help reduce global warming;
> 79 percent want higher emissions standard for
> automobiles.
>
> 57 percent of Americans feel "most recent
> immigrants to the U.S. contribute to this country"
> rather than "cause problems." Sixty-seven percent
> of Americans feel that "on the whole," immigration
> is a "good thing for this country today."
>
> 69 percent of Americans think it is the
> responsibility of the federal government to make
> sure all Americans have access to health coverage;
> 76 percent find access to health care more
> important than maintaining the Bush tax cuts;
> three in five would be willing to have their own
> taxes increased to achieve universal coverage.
>
>
> On all of these, I'm probably on the conservative
> side, except stem-cell research and abortion. I
> wouldn't pay more for electricity to stop
> something I don't believe exists, and the
> government needs to stay away from health care.
> But as you can see, when you get down to the
> issues, most people are progressive, not
> conservative.

Wow! A poll. Must mean something if you can get numbers like that. Who did the poll? Polls are more varied than political opinions. Ask questions to get the answer you want, not the factual answers. If this wasn't true then NYT would never poll.

Bill O Really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Wow! A study. Hmmm....must be factual because
> someone published a study. You need to examine
> their base motivation first. I bet you'd find a
> lot of liberal funding going into this study. I
> see Ben & Jerrys there. Not exactly conservative.

For someone who so readily and willingly accepts everything spewed by one single media outlet, you sure have a lot of answers for why everyone else is wrong.

Perhaps you've been listening to that one single news outlet far too long, and they've convinced you that everyone else has a liberal bias and is out to destroy america, or something.

It's funny that you can accept that everyone else is biased, but since you get your news from an outlet that reinforces your beliefs, you would never question their biases.

Well the conservative think tank I used to work for insisted on having Fox on in the lobby... only acceptable news channel for them.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> For someone who so readily and willingly accepts
> everything spewed by one single media outlet, you
> sure have a lot of answers for why everyone else
> is wrong.
>
> Perhaps you've been listening to that one single
> news outlet far too long, and they've convinced
> you that everyone else has a liberal bias and is
> out to destroy america, or something.
>
> It's funny that you can accept that everyone else
> is biased, but since you get your news from an
> outlet that reinforces your beliefs, you would
> never question their biases.

There you go again. I never once stated that I listen to Fox. I only stated that liberals act as if Fox is biased and ignore all others with a liberal bias. That seems OK to them. I believe all news presented is biased and the majority is liberal.

Fox has a great business model. They provide news for conservatives and can garner a market from the conservative viewers. All other news outlets chose to split their market share with liberal viewers. The have to also split the cash. Just look at the ratings. Then there's PBS and NPR that can't sustain itself without Govt funds (welfare) since they also have to share that liberal market but they can't put out a good product. It all boils down to what market you're attracting, not about how "truthful and wise" your news is. There is no such thing as unbiased news. That's my point. So why fuss about Fox only?

Bill O Really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There you go again. I never once stated that I
> listen to Fox. I only stated that liberals act as
> if Fox is biased and ignore all others with a
> liberal bias. That seems OK to them. I believe all
> news presented is biased and the majority is
> liberal.
>
> Fox has a great business model. They provide news
> for conservatives and can garner a market from the
> conservative viewers. All other news outlets chose
> to split their market share with liberal viewers.
> The have to also split the cash. Just look at the
> ratings. Then there's PBS and NPR that can't
> sustain itself without Govt funds (welfare) since
> they also have to share that liberal market but
> they can't put out a good product. It all boils
> down to what market you're attracting, not about
> how "truthful and wise" your news is. There is no
> such thing as unbiased news. That's my point. So
> why fuss about Fox only?


What gives you away as a fox news viewer is that you keep saying that all the other outlets are biased toward liberalism.

When you are at the extreme right end of the continuum, everything else appears left to you.

I'm too lazy to find the studies that show that CBS is almost as conservative as Fox, but not as ideologically exclusionary, ABC is next in line, still on the conservative side, NBC is mixed, when it comes to military reporting, being owned by the largest defense contractor, they tend to be ultra conservative, but in social issues NBC does tend to lean to the left. NPR and PBS tend to be quite neutral. The problem that Fox has with NPR is that they report both sides, which can often make Fox look bad since they never report both sides unless the other side is a really good straw man or red herring presented to their viewers as "the left's view".

Republicans love being the victim--they look around and see bias everywhere. If you want a great example, look at this story on Fox News today titled "Unlike Bush's 'Google Bomb,' Google Quickly Defuses Obama's."

The story is about how people sometimes trick Google's search algorithm into returning a particular web page when a search term is entered. Several years ago, the term "miserable failure" was rigged to turn up Bush's biography. Google eventually developed an algorithm to detect that type of situation and to return different results. Once Google developed the algorithm, it was easy to use it again when Obama was targeted.

Fox does report Google's side of the story but continues to seed doubt about why it took so much less time to fix the Obama bomb than the Bush one and whether the "liberals at Google" are just biased against Bush. They use this same trick on the air frequently. Instead of reporting that "Obama is a secret muslim" they report that "some people say Obama is a secret muslim."

You can tell from the story's title and the opening paragraph what impression they are trying to leave with the reader, but if called on it they can demonstrate that they were "fair and balanced."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485632,00.html

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> What gives you away as a fox news viewer is that
> you keep saying that all the other outlets are
> biased toward liberalism.
>
> When you are at the extreme right end of the
> continuum, everything else appears left to you.
>
> I'm too lazy to find the studies that show that
> CBS is almost as conservative as Fox, but not as
> ideologically exclusionary, ABC is next in line,
> still on the conservative side, NBC is mixed, when
> it comes to military reporting, being owned by the
> largest defense contractor, they tend to be ultra
> conservative, but in social issues NBC does tend
> to lean to the left. NPR and PBS tend to be quite
> neutral. The problem that Fox has with NPR is
> that they report both sides, which can often make
> Fox look bad since they never report both sides
> unless the other side is a really good straw man
> or red herring presented to their viewers as "the
> left's view".

Wow! Another study. There must be studies about studies. I guess the liberals have to do studies to make their point that Fox is biased. Probably mostly funded by Soros. 9 to 1 isn't enough so let's do a study; Damn that Fox News. Just paying a bunch of grad students. Hail Dan Rather and his fake documents as unbiased. Bill Moyer, comedian. Katie Couric swoons over Palin.

All Katie did was ask her what news sources she read. And Palin couldnt give a straight answer...spin that!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All Katie did was ask her what news sources she
> read. And Palin couldnt give a straight
> answer...spin that!

/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 01:00AM by Alias.