Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 10-18-2013, 10:13 PM
Lamar Mundane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,932
Sean Hannity did a show recently with several people whose lives have been negatively affected by Obamacare. A writer for Slate saw it and thought it sounded really fishy, so he contacted the people who were on it and interviewed them himself. One guy said his small business was hurt so he had to reduce the hours of his workers and make them part-time.

Quote:
First I spoke with Paul Cox of Leicester, N.C. He and his wife Michelle had lamented to Hannity that because of Obamacare, they can’t grow their construction business and they have kept their employees below a certain number of hours, so that they are part-timers.

Obamacare has no effect on businesses with 49 employees or less. But in our brief conversation on the phone, Paul revealed that he has only four employees. Why the cutback on his workforce? “Well,” he said, “I haven’t been forced to do so, it’s just that I’ve chosen to do so. I have to deal with increased costs.” What costs? And how, I asked him, is any of it due to Obamacare? There was a long pause, after which he said he’d call me back. He never did.
Two other couples said that their current plans weren't compliant with the ACA rules so they were being discontinued and a replacement policy would be 50 or 75% more expensive. Interviewing them turned up that neither couple had checked for rates under Obamacare. The Slate writer found plans that were better than what they currently had for 60+% cheaper than what they were paying currently.

Hannity's entire show was a complete pile of B.S. It was all lies.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/insi...usaolp00000008
  #302  
Old 10-18-2013, 10:32 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Psst, posts #273 and #279, yeah, I also missed the early one. But we did quote.
  #303  
Old 10-18-2013, 10:58 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
IMO you're pulling out specific examples that you know of, not remembering any incidences in your media, and calling Fox biased. Dan Rather backed a bogus report because it attacked Bush.
And he lost his job over it.

Quote:
IMO Zimmerman got shafted by the media with the stupid "white hispanic" nonsense and they way he was portrayed.
And when news about the edited audio tape broke, the producer responsible for the misleading edit was fired.

I've looked around for stories about Fox News personnel being fired for filing wildly inaccurate, if not outright slanderous, stories. The only story i could find was one about a pair of reporters who were fired for reporting (truthfully, as near as I can figure) about contaminated milk.

Plenty of examples of wildly inaccurate and/or slanderous stories being reported on Fox News of course, just nothing about Fox ever doing anything about it.

Last edited by Miller; 10-18-2013 at 11:18 PM.
  #304  
Old 10-18-2013, 11:34 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Are you serious?
Without knowing the accuracy and content of those stories there's absolutely no proof from your example that they're equivalent - or did I just get whooshed?
Sorry, I thought that equating the prominence and influence of Ward Churchill (whom nobody would have ever heard of if Fox hadn't devoted hour after hour to him) with that of the sitting president made the sarcasm obvious.

But that's what Fox (and right-wing media in general) does. They find some nobody on the fringe left, and act like what he says or does is as important and representative as what McConnell or Boehner says, which is what MSNBC concentrates on.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 10-18-2013 at 11:35 PM.
  #305  
Old 10-19-2013, 12:51 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
I am hardly an expert on "experts," but the one time I was interviewed on TV, the interviewer had no idea what I was going to say and simply asked questions. There was neither a vetting process nor a preparatory interview.
The "one time." I linked to several hundred videos of this guy as the Fox News go-to guy. Maybe he never said anything as controversial as this but it isn't like he was some unknown quantity who went rogue or something.
  #306  
Old 10-19-2013, 12:54 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I posted cites to two independent studies that show Fox to be less biased.
I posted several polls and studies that showed that Fox News viewers were more misinformed or uninformed about news than viewers of other news shows, people who get their news from a Comedy network or people who don't pay much attention to the news at all.

Why do you think that is?
  #307  
Old 10-19-2013, 06:18 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Dan Rather backed a bogus report because it attacked Bush.
Dan Rather backed a dubious report that turned out after further investigation to be fraudulent. The person who gave the network the documents lied to Rather about how he got them. The end result? Even though it could barely even be said to have been Rather's fault, he apologized, the network retracted the story completely, and he lost his job over it. This is such a completely failed comparison that I barely even know where to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I'll respond to just this one.

Please, show me a cite of an independent study. The only one I've seen is the one that GIGO posted but it was limited to just AGW. I posted cites to two independent studies that show Fox to be less biased.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...post1061895260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagnant View Post
The "majority" lean left. And yet you pick MSNBC, more commonly known as the worst of the bunch. Nice move!

Anyways, here's a few studies:

http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/defa...g-Fox-News.pdf <- Fox news viewers less informed on global warming, more likely to deny scientific consensus
http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/defa...g-Fox-News.pdf <- Fox news viewers considerably more likely to be misinformed about the PPACA
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-good-bad-news <- Fox news viewers WILDLY more likely to believe complete misinformation about the PPACA
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarr...squeRumors.pdf <- Fox news far more likely to believe false rumors about the Manhattan Mosque
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._Oct03_rpt.pdf <- Fox news viewers waaaaaaayyyy more misinformed on the Iraq war than anyone else (but this is old news)
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Dec10_rpt.pdf <- Fox news viewers in 2010 pretty much more misinformed on every issue that mattered to voters in the election than any other news station. Including MSNBC.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/arti...ws-politifact/ <- Fox won lie of the year two years in a row, and has lied over a WHOLE bunch of other things.

So yeah. Take that crap and stuff it. And you know what? At the end of the Libya debacle, after the dust settles, I am willing to bet money that Fox viewers will be the most misinformed on that too.

So again, I ask the question: why is it that the only conservative network is, hands down, the most dishonest one? Why. The. (*)(*)(*)(*). Can't. You. Do. Better?!
Courtesy of, well, me. Fox is easily the worst network on TV nowadays. The only sources popularly used that could be said to be worse are talk radio like Limbaugh and sites like PrisonPlanet and Infowars.
  #308  
Old 10-19-2013, 03:00 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Dan Rather backed a dubious report that turned out after further investigation to be fraudulent. The person who gave the network the documents lied to Rather about how he got them. The end result? Even though it could barely even be said to have been Rather's fault, he apologized, the network retracted the story completely, and he lost his job over it. This is such a completely failed comparison that I barely even know where to start. . . .
And the underlying facts were true! Bush did fail to show up for his Reserves assignment.
  #309  
Old 10-19-2013, 03:40 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
And the underlying facts were true! Bush did fail to show up for his Reserves assignment.
Is the reward still standing for anybody in his ANG unit who saw him show up?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/14/bush.texans/

ETA: nice to see that Laura thought the documents were "probably" forgeries. Credit where it's due, that was Rove's best stunt ever.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 10-19-2013 at 03:43 PM.
  #310  
Old 10-19-2013, 05:14 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,195
Using Hannity or O"Reilly as an example of incorrect reporting is not really fair, as they are political entertainment programs and not news. Or if you think that's fair, then the proper comparison is not against Dan Rather, but Pierce Morgan, Lawrence O'Donnell, John Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. They're the 'other' media's equivalent to Hannity and O'Reilly.

What would be fair would be to show examples of egregious bias from Shepard Smith, who is the actual news anchor at Fox.
  #311  
Old 10-19-2013, 05:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Using Hannity or O"Reilly as an example of incorrect reporting is not really fair, as they are political entertainment programs and not news. Or if you think that's fair, then the proper comparison is not against Dan Rather, but Pierce Morgan, Lawrence O'Donnell, John Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. They're the 'other' media's equivalent to Hannity and O'Reilly.

What would be fair would be to show examples of egregious bias from Shepard Smith, who is the actual news anchor at Fox.
There was once a time when Shepard Smith disparaged the climate change deniers, but that was the exception. Currently the bias in a subject like Climate Change has been a reflection of what other mainstream sources deal with it, by not talking much about it.

However when the subject is talked about it, FOX is still bad. In the previous discussion I posted several examples of FOX news proper (and even FOX business) just reporting climate change denial with extreme false equivalencies.

http://www.desmogblog.com/fox-news-s...-basic-physics
Quote:
There was a time, believe it or not, when Fox New’s Shepard Smith openly mocked global warming deniers—seriously comparing them to a man who got stuck in a portable toilet. (Hat tip to D.R. Tucker for showing me this clip.) But since then, Fox has become a veritable misinformation machine on this topic.

One way the station sows doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change is through constantly putting climate “skeptics” on the air. A study by American University’s Lauren Feldman and her co-authors, for example, found that in the period of 2007-2008, 46 percent of Fox’s guests discussing global warming were climate change doubters. By contrast, only 40 percent of guests defended the scientific consensus.

That’s not just phony "balance"--that’s coverage strongly tilted towards unreality. And if anything, I suspect that Fox has grown still more unbalanced during the Obama years.
  #312  
Old 10-19-2013, 05:57 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Since this came up again, I will repost this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Fox News really is all that bad......For Science in particular.

Quote:
Is News Corp. Failing Science? (.pdf)
© 2012 Union of Concerned Scientists

UCS’s analysis finds that:

• Over a recent six-month period, 93 percent of Fox News Channel’s representations of climate science were misleading (37 out of 40 instances).

UCS’s examination finds that the misleading citations include broad dismissals of human-caused climate change, disparaging comments about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a body of knowledge, and cherry picking of data. Fox News Channel citations also included several discussions in which misleading claims dominated accurate ones. Furthermore, much of this coverage denigrated climate science by either promoting distrust in scientists and scientific institutions or placing acceptance of climate change in an ideological, rather than fact-based, context.
  #313  
Old 10-19-2013, 05:58 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Using Hannity or O"Reilly as an example of incorrect reporting is not really fair, as they are political entertainment programs and not news. Or if you think that's fair, then the proper comparison is not against Dan Rather, but Pierce Morgan, Lawrence O'Donnell, John Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. They're the 'other' media's equivalent to Hannity and O'Reilly.
I think Stewart would slaughter Hannity and O'Reilly in accuracy, even including his jokes.

Maddow bends over backwards to be fair (but admittedly not balanced, though at least she is honest about her liberal bias), and corrects any mistakes on the air as soon as she finds them. There's no comparison between her and a guy like Hannity, who will repeat discredited stories for YEARS.
  #314  
Old 10-19-2013, 06:12 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
BTW, I still think that when the day comes that opinion shows like Hannity drop the omnipresent "FOX NEWS" logo, then that will be the day I would think it is no longer fair to point at shows like Hannity as examples of how bad FOX news is.

There is no clear separation of what is opinion or just plain news, and even on the opinion shows, the bumpers used in those shows also claim "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide".
  #315  
Old 10-19-2013, 06:24 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Am I alone in thinking that Sean Hannity has the most punchable face ever?
  #316  
Old 10-19-2013, 06:55 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Am I alone in thinking that Sean Hannity has the most punchable face ever?
Nope. I'm on the record on this very board as stating, nay, promising my future constituents that despite having only seen snippets of him on Jon Stewart's show, when I'm God-Emperor of the Universe I shall appoint an Imperial Guy Who Punches Sean Hannity In His Goddamned Mouth Whenever It Looks Like He Might Speak. Dental plan, decent bennies, job security out the ass.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-19-2013 at 06:56 PM.
  #317  
Old 10-19-2013, 07:06 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Nope. I'm on the record on this very board as stating, nay, promising my future constituents that despite having only seen snippets of him on Jon Stewart's show, when I'm God-Emperor of the Universe I shall appoint an Imperial Guy Who Punches Sean Hannity In His Goddamned Mouth Whenever It Looks Like He Might Speak. Dental plan, decent bennies, job security out the ass.
Throw in my own personal ball washer and I'll take the job.
  #318  
Old 10-20-2013, 08:16 AM
Ograbme is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 77
Hannity before the shutdown:
Quote:
Republicans right now, if they really want to - not just symbolically - if they want to repeal health care, Dr. Carson, Obamacare, they've got to shut the government down. And be labeled 'the full faith and credit of the United States is in jeopardy.' Which is not true. But if they really want to do that, that's what it will take. I want them to do it.
Hannity during the shutdown:
Quote:
Welcome to the Harry-Barry shutdown show...Who wants this? This is dysfunctional. This is the worst of the worst.
  #319  
Old 10-20-2013, 08:18 AM
Ograbme is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 77
double post

Last edited by Ograbme; 10-20-2013 at 08:18 AM.
  #320  
Old 10-20-2013, 10:34 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Throw in my own personal ball washer and I'll take the job.
Woah, woah, dude. I'm getting a *lot* of applications.
  #321  
Old 10-20-2013, 11:48 AM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,911

Moderating


All right.

If everyone has gotten their attempts at humor out of their systems, please refrain from further hijacking this thread.

Similarly, arguments over the quality of pundits really deserve their own thread rather than hijacking this one.

[ /Moderating ]
  #322  
Old 10-20-2013, 11:49 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,240
A new book by David Folkenflik reports that Fox News PR staff are paid to post pro-Fox comments on websites to counter any criticism of the network. The staffers each maintain dozens -- perhaps as many as a hundred -- alias profiles from which to post the comments. They do things like using throwaway Internet connections so site admins won't realize the commenters are coming from Fox.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing this is not typical behavior among news organizations.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...account/196509

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 10-20-2013 at 11:49 AM.
  #323  
Old 10-21-2013, 04:37 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
A new book by David Folkenflik reports that Fox News PR staff are paid to post pro-Fox comments on websites to counter any criticism of the network. The staffers each maintain dozens -- perhaps as many as a hundred -- alias profiles from which to post the comments. They do things like using throwaway Internet connections so site admins won't realize the commenters are coming from Fox.
<eyes some of the previous posters suspiciously>
  #324  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:38 AM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
A new book by David Folkenflik reports that Fox News PR staff are paid to post pro-Fox comments on websites to counter any criticism of the network. The staffers each maintain dozens -- perhaps as many as a hundred -- alias profiles from which to post the comments. They do things like using throwaway Internet connections so site admins won't realize the commenters are coming from Fox.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing this is not typical behavior among news organizations.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...account/196509
And here's a book by a 28-year CBS reporter that claimed that TV news had a liberal bias.
  #325  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:43 AM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
<studies on viewer knowledge>
Courtesy of, well, me. Fox is easily the worst network on TV nowadays. The only sources popularly used that could be said to be worse are talk radio like Limbaugh and sites like PrisonPlanet and Infowars.
My thoughts are:
1) There are probably topics where viewers of liberal media are less informed, like nuclear power and GMO crops.
2) It's hard to connect viewer knowledge with media bias. E.g. readers of People magazine are likely less informed than Fox viewers; is that due to political bias?
  #326  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:45 AM
Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karrius View Post
That's not what I said either, though. "Fox did this a dozen times, MSNBC did this once, they're both basically the same" doesn't cut it for me.

I will, however, ask proof for the two following:

-That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and whatever other media you choose as "mainstream" have ever defended an organization as vile as the ones Fox are defending.

-That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, have ever photoshopped pictures of somebody else's face to portray them in a negative light. The only thing I can think of is the Time magazine blackening of OJ Simpson. (I don't consider the "kayaking during ankle-high flood" stuff to count, here).

Because while I won't go for the stab you seem to be aiming for, those two I HIGHLY doubt are done by anybody else.

Also, I consider there to be a HUGE difference between falsely reporting a story, and falsely reporting a story that is specifically opening up a child for harassment, abuse, and violence. This is the equivalent to publishing a story put out by the KKK naming and attacking a specific person - only targeting a child. Decent news organizations - decent people - just wouldn't do that.

I'm still waiting for this evidence, and will assume not receiving it is essentially admitting that Fox News is unique among news stations in supporting anti-American terrorism.
  #327  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:49 AM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Post 288.
  #328  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:49 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
And here's a book by a 28-year CBS reporter that claimed that TV news had a liberal bias.
And we discussed that already, What you have there is an unreliable narrator.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200...e-facts/147058

http://fair.org/extra-online-article...-on-substance/
Quote:
Instead of numbers or specific instances of biased coverage, Goldberg prefers broad generalizations, especially when it comes to the media's alleged pro-feminist bias. The broadcast news has done "a million" stories about deadbeat dads, goes a typical claim, but has aired "hardly a word about prostate cancer." Actually, a quick search of Nexis shows that prostate cancer has been mentioned 393 times on the three major networks since January 2000--while the phrase "deadbeat dads" came up exactly 19 times.

Borrowing an argument from the conservative Media Research Center, Goldberg contends that the big networks "re-discovered" homelessness at the beginning of the Bush administration after ignoring the story during the Clinton years (see Goldberg's chapter "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness"). But Goldberg evidently isn't watching very carefully: The segments he cites (ABC, 2/11/01; CNN, 8/4/01) both pointed out that the current rise began in 1999 and 2000--that is, during the Clinton years.

(Goldberg has previously complained--in a February 2, 1990 New York Times op-ed piece--that the media are too soft on the homeless, the unemployed and other underdogs, failing to point out that "many of the homeless are truly drug addicts or alcoholics or simply lazy," or that some laid-off workers "thought kids who studied were wimps, or worse.")

An asymmetrical world

When Goldberg points to alleged bias in media news, it's often just evidence that the world is asymmetrical. For instance, he's outraged that reporters who label Rush Limbaugh "conservative" fail to call Rosie O'Donnell "liberal." The fact that Limbaugh's show is virtually always about hard-core right-wing politics, while O'Donnell's is much more likely to be about Broadway shows or snack foods, seems to elude him. Goldberg writes that Dan Rather characterized George W. Bush's presidential agenda as "Republican-right," and wonders why he didn't "talk about President Clinton and his 'Democratic-left agenda.'" Could it have anything to do with the fact that Bush ran as a proud standard-bearer of the GOP's right wing, while Clinton boasted of moving his party from the left to the center?

Large chunks of the book deal with forms of bias that could hardly be called liberal. For example, Goldberg chides NBC anchor Tom Brokaw for failing to do a story about a defective airplane engine made by NBC parent General Electric. This kind of pro-corporate cover-up is something progressive media critics have been pointing out for years.
  #329  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:51 AM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Right. So you end up with a bunch of he-said-he-said stuff. Sounds like they're all equally biased to me.
  #330  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:52 AM
Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Post 288.
I'm sorry, but you asked me "You don't think the media has defended the Muslim Brotherhood?" doesn't really work as an argument. It's up to you to prove it. For example:

You don't think conservatives support fox news just because they want to murder non-whites?

You don't think conservatives want to put all homosexuals into concentration camps?

You don't think Deeg is obviously just a paid Fox shill?

So far, all of these have just as much backing as your statements! Obviously we can take them to be true.
  #331  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:53 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
My thoughts are:
1) There are probably topics where viewers of liberal media are less informed, like nuclear power and GMO crops.
Last I checked the misinformation in those subjects affects all, liberal and rightist alike, many times when there is a survey done about allowing a site to use GMO or Nuclear power the opposition goes to the 80-90%, unless all that surveyed people became liberals, the simple explanation is old NIMBY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
2) It's hard to connect viewer knowledge with media bias. E.g. readers of People magazine are likely less informed than Fox viewers; is that due to political bias?
No, that is old GIGO.
  #332  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:01 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Right. So you end up with a bunch of he-said-he-said stuff. Sounds like they're all equally biased to me.
Again, Health care, Climate change, and other items already demonstrate that you are reaching for a false equivalency.
  #333  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:37 PM
MaxTheVool is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Right. So you end up with a bunch of he-said-he-said stuff. Sounds like they're all equally biased to me.
That is supreme intellectual laziness. Is there at least one example of Fox News displaying pro-right bias. Certainly. Is there at least one example of some other major network displaying pro-left bias. Almost certainly, given the sheer number of topics that get covered every year.

So you look at that and say "well, I guess they're equally bad", and you probably also proudly pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for being the only one wise and objective enough to really view the world the way it is, while all the partisan sheeple just baaaaa baaaaa about how bad the other side is.


Except, of course, that your position is based entirely on totally absolving yourself of responsibility for actually THINKING, instead you just kind of get to assume that the world fits into your preconceived model.

Ask yourself this: is it POSSIBLE that one side's media (at least as they happen to exist here and now today) is worse than the other? Is there any reason that it MUST be the case that somehow each side is equally bad?
  #334  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:41 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
And I think you're a victim of confirmation bias. Until I see an independent study comparing the multiple media outlets I will continue to believe they are all equally biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karrius View Post
I'm sorry, but you asked me "You don't think the media has defended the Muslim Brotherhood?" doesn't really work as an argument. It's up to you to prove it. For example:

You don't think conservatives support fox news just because they want to murder non-whites?

You don't think conservatives want to put all homosexuals into concentration camps?

You don't think Deeg is obviously just a paid Fox shill?

So far, all of these have just as much backing as your statements! Obviously we can take them to be true.
Fine. Here's a story of a CNN journalist defending the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces. Doesn't look like she's been fired.
  #335  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:46 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
That is supreme intellectual laziness. Is there at least one example of Fox News displaying pro-right bias. Certainly. Is there at least one example of some other major network displaying pro-left bias. Almost certainly, given the sheer number of topics that get covered every year.
I would agree with you except I've posted independent studies that show Fox to be less biased in some topics. Until I saw those studies I believed Fox to be more biased, perhaps grossly so. As I've already stated GIGO posted a study showing Fox to be more biased regarding AGW. The rest of the thread is swapping a lot of anecdotes. A reasonable conclusion is that overall they are equally biased but on individual topics it swings one way or another.
  #336  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:48 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
And I think you're a victim of confirmation bias. Until I see an independent study comparing the multiple media outlets I will continue to believe they are all equally biased.
This was a response to GIGO. Sorry for any confusion.
  #337  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:51 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Fine. Here's a story of a CNN journalist defending the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces. Doesn't look like she's been fired.
Dana Loesch?. She is/was a CNN contributor, not a CNN journalist. Her day job is running a right-wing radio show. I don't think you fire occasional contributors as much as just not invite them back. Anyway, your cite says that Loesch said hateful things (of course), and the real journalists at CNN immediately piled on her for it. I don't think this is a good example of CNN defending a hateful organization.
  #338  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:52 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
MediaMatters.com calls her a CNN journalist. Since I don't watch CNN I'll take their word for it.
  #339  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:53 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Fine. Here's a story of a CNN journalist defending the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces. Doesn't look like she's been fired.
I don't understand what that link is meant to prove.
  #340  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:58 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
MediaMatters.com calls her a CNN journalist. Since I don't watch CNN I'll take their word for it.
They do no such thing. They call her a contributor, like in this article which, coincidentally, mentions how she was suspended following the incident you referred to.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...butor-o/192294

Keep on tryin'.
  #341  
Old 10-21-2013, 01:12 PM
MaxTheVool is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I would agree with you except I've posted independent studies that show Fox to be less biased in some topics. Until I saw those studies I believed Fox to be more biased, perhaps grossly so. As I've already stated GIGO posted a study showing Fox to be more biased regarding AGW. The rest of the thread is swapping a lot of anecdotes. A reasonable conclusion is that overall they are equally biased but on individual topics it swings one way or another.
But, even assuming that there are enough anecdotes on all sides that you generally haven't been able to determine if one side is worse, there's a huge difference between saying "I am unable to decide if either side is worth, I do not have sufficient evidence" versus saying "I have determined the the two sides are EQUALLY bad".

Think about it... what are the odds that any two things are every EQUALLY anything? I mean, Fox News is some amount partisan. Let's say that there's a partisanness scale of 0 to 100. Fox news might be, I dunno, 57. Then the MSM (as a whole) can be measured on the same scale. What are the odds that it's ALSO precisely 57?


It's like people who say "well, sure, there's Ann Coulter on the right, but there's Michael Moore on the left, and they're EQUALLY BAD". No they're not. How could they be? WHY would they be?
  #342  
Old 10-21-2013, 01:25 PM
Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
By that standard that you're using, Deeg, can we accurately say this link has a Fox News Journalist saying a woman deserved to be raped?

Also, do you realize that in trying to prove CNN was just as left-wing as Fox is right-wing, you posted a cite to CNN supporting a right wing nutjob?

Last edited by Karrius; 10-21-2013 at 01:26 PM.
  #343  
Old 10-22-2013, 02:31 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
They do no such thing. They call her a contributor, like in this article which, coincidentally, mentions how she was suspended following the incident you referred to.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...butor-o/192294

Keep on tryin'.
You are correct, my bad--I just glanced through the article and misinterpreted. She is a regular commentator on CNN, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
But, even assuming that there are enough anecdotes on all sides that you generally haven't been able to determine if one side is worse, there's a huge difference between saying "I am unable to decide if either side is worth, I do not have sufficient evidence" versus saying "I have determined the the two sides are EQUALLY bad".
It seems like you're splitting hairs here. Given something as nebulous as media bias there's no practical way to conclude that two outlets are exactly equal, especially if they are biased in opposite directions. Of the three studies I've seen two are for Fox, one against, so it seems reasonable to conclude that the outlets are roughly equal. Maybe I've found the only two studies that are favorable to Fox and there are thousands of others; if that was true would could conclude that Fox is worse. Until I see evidence of other studies, though, I'll keep my opinion.
  #344  
Old 10-22-2013, 03:31 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Of the three studies I've seen two are for Fox, one against, so it seems reasonable to conclude that the outlets are roughly equal. Maybe I've found the only two studies that are favorable to Fox and there are thousands of others; if that was true would could conclude that Fox is worse. Until I see evidence of other studies, though, I'll keep my opinion.
I have posted several studies that explicitly show that Fox News Viewers are either uninformed or misinformed compared to viewers of other news outlets, people who get their news from Comedy Central or people who do not listen to the news at all!

For the third time, I am asking you why do you think that is?
  #345  
Old 10-22-2013, 04:53 PM
MaxTheVool is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
It seems like you're splitting hairs here. Given something as nebulous as media bias there's no practical way to conclude that two outlets are exactly equal, especially if they are biased in opposite directions.
Part of what makes this issue so pernicious is that it IS, in fact, very hard to measure or quantify. Suppose that during the week after the Benghazi attack, Fox spent 25% of air time covering Benghazi, and mentioned Obama's name 8 times per hour of coverage, while NBC spent 15% of air time covering Benghazi, and mentioned Obama's name 4 times per hour of coverage.

Does that prove anything? Is there some objective standard of "this is the CORRECT amount of coverage for Benghazi" that we can look at, and see which of Fox vs NBC diverge from it more? Of course not. If there were some simple proof that demonstrated that Fox was 85% biased to the right while NBC was only 14% biased to the left, it would be well known, and we would already be discussing it.

Instead, I think you have to view the situation on a more holistic level, and think about various issues:
-financial ties and motivations of Fox executives
-testimony from former Fox employees about practices there
-who Fox's audience is
-the fact that Fox is a single organization and the MSM is a whole bunch of them
-and of course, what you see broadcast on Fox day after day after day, vs the MSM


I strongly believe that there are conscious choices and directives made inside Fox news to promote and benefit the Republican party, which express themselves in a number of different ways. And I also strongly believe that there is no equivalent conscious bias in any of the MSM outlets, with the possible exception of MSNBC. Do you agree or disagree?
  #346  
Old 10-22-2013, 07:23 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Maybe I've found the only two studies that are favorable to Fox and there are thousands of others; if that was true would could conclude that Fox is worse. Until I see evidence of other studies, though, I'll keep my opinion.
I challenged your studies over six months ago, and got no response from you. I'll try again.

IMO both studies show absolutely nothing. The first uses this methodology to find bias:

Quote:
To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.

As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.
As I noted in March, that means that if MSNBC cites the Brookings Institution saying a US default would have a negative impact on interest rates, it counts as liberal bias. If Fox doesn't cite anyone, but simply asserts that a US default would be good for the world economy, that counts as neutral.

Can you see the problem here? One of the biggest problems with Fox News (and IMO it's disingenuous to concentrate on its couple of hours of alleged straight news, when the vast majority, especially in prime time, is commentary and opinion) is that it just makes shit up. It should be a good thing to cite credible sources for your assertions, but this study penalizes MSNBC for doing so.

The second study is so confusingly written that it's hard to pin down exactly what its criteria are, but it seems to concentrate on whether stories were favorable or unfavorable to Dems and Pubs.

Again, that has a very tenuous connection to bias. If the story is about whether Obama referred to Benghazi as a terrorist incident in his Rose Garden speech, and Obama says he did, and Romney says he didn't, that is a matter of fact, not bias. Yet a story that says Romney was wrong will presumably indicate liberal bias.

You claimed in your post several months ago that you've never watched Fox News. Watch it. Just watch Hannity, any day, and compare it with Maddow, any day. If it's not immediately obvious which one cares more about fairness and accuracy, then you're beyond help.

And just to repeat, I don't claim MSNBC is fair and balanced, I claim they are fair and accurate. They report on stories unfavorable to Pubs as often as they can, so in that sense they're like Fox. But unlike Fox, they report the stories accurately. They don't make shit up, they don't deliberately and obviously take stuff out of context, they concentrate on very important and influential Pubs rather than schmucks like Ward Churchill, whom nobody would ever hear of without their broadcasts, and they don't repeat for months or years things that have been thoroughly discredited.

Fox does all of those things, and it does it so often that it is the rule, rather than the exception.
  #347  
Old 10-22-2013, 07:42 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,264
I have to say I never understood the balanced part.
Running primarily negative stories about Ted Bundy doesn't mean a news source is biased, because Ted Bundy is an asshole.
Likewise running primarily negative stories about the douche-bags in the Republican party who do douche-bag stuff doesn't make you biased as long as you're telling the truth.
The difference is that Fox runs stories that paint the Democrats as douche-bags, BUT THEY MAKE IT ALL UP! It's all lies. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff to get outraged regarding Democrats so why make shit up? It's just crazy.
  #348  
Old 10-23-2013, 03:04 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
For the third time, I am asking you why do you think that is?
I've already replied. In short I think it has little if anything to say about media bias. If that was all we had to judge bias then I'd give it more credence but we don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
I strongly believe that there are conscious choices and directives made inside Fox news to promote and benefit the Republican party, which express themselves in a number of different ways. And I also strongly believe that there is no equivalent conscious bias in any of the MSM outlets, with the possible exception of MSNBC. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree that Fox likely promotes the GOP. I totally disagree that other outlets don't do similar for the Democrats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
lots of good stuff
I agree that the first study uses a methodology that has its flaws. However it's the only study I've seen that tries to measure all of media bias and attempts to do so independently. Until another one comes along it's the one I have to use. I disagree with your objections to the second study. All measurements that are subjective will have similar complaints and overall I think the study reasonable. On this we are at an impasse.

I am easily swayed by good data. If there are other studies that compare the outlets (not the viewers) then I will take them into account and do my best to do it in good faith.
  #349  
Old 10-23-2013, 05:05 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I've already replied. In short I think it has little if anything to say about media bias. If that was all we had to judge bias then I'd give it more credence but we don't.
So what you're saying is that all media outlets are biased. But it doesn't concern you in the least that viewers of one media outlet in particular are demonstratively less informed and more misinformed than viewers of other media outlets, Comedy shows or no media outlets for their news.

Why do you think that, if all media outlets are equally biased, that would be the case? Or maybe this is evidence that not all media outlets are equally biased since the bias doesn't have to be towards left or right political views, but towards fact-based commentary and reporting as opposed to espousing falsehoods.

The many, many studies which show Fox News viewers to be far more less informed and misinformed tells me (and should tell you) that Fox News has a bias against telling the truth. Which should be a lot more offensive than any partisan slant it might have. Don't you agree?

Last edited by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear; 10-23-2013 at 05:05 PM.
  #350  
Old 10-23-2013, 05:09 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I agree that the first study uses a methodology that has its flaws. However it's the only study I've seen that tries to measure all of media bias and attempts to do so independently. Until another one comes along it's the one I have to use.
Sorry, but demonstratively bad data is not good until something else comes along. It's worth (or lack thereof) stands on it's own. A flawed study with a flawed methodology is flawed and should not be taken as gospel simply because it's the best thing out there. If anything, the opposite is true: If flawed citations are all you got, that bolsters the other side.

Quote:
I am easily swayed by good data.
And bad data too, evidently.

I will say this about bias: You're showing yours.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017