# Definitive evidence that FOX isn't fair and balanced? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2008, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806 "2008-09-23T07:12:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806/21 "2008-09-24T17:03:55Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Let’s see if this rings any bells for anyone, since I don’t remember where I saw it: > > A week or so ago, I saw a report that was counting the amount of time the campaigns and campaign proxies were aired “unfiltered” (I think that was the term used) on the various news programs and news networks. By unfiltered, they meant simply showing clips of various speeches/comments–in essence carrying the messages of the campaigns and giving them screen time. > > Fox News had the biggest skew toward Republican candidates and proxies. But all of the programs had at least some skew toward Republican candidates and proxies. The most important part of that, however, was that the period in question coincided with the RNC, so I would expect (demand, perhaps) a Republican skew at that time. > > Did anyone else see this report? Maybe you mean [this one?](http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806/22 "2008-09-24T20:42:58Z")
> [@Dan\_Norder](#): > > That study is irredeemably flawed from the get go based upon its methodology. It’s using floor speeches by politicians as a baseline for determining middle of the road ideology/lack of bias. C’mon, get serious. If that wasn’t a valid method, you’d expect to see a random outcome. Since the outcome when applied to politicians generally matches their layout on the political landscape, it seems to work. As a programmer, I’d say that using non-hardcoded data to separate things is a very very good method to avoid human error. Why do you think otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806/23 "2008-09-24T20:45:56Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > It puts the Drudge report to the \*left \*of center? Is it possible that you have the key wrong, and that \>50 = right-leaning? Other than that, I can’t see how this could possibly be taken seriously. Drudge doesn’t make his own news, he just copies from other sources. Assuming most news sources are liberal, the think tanks they reference will be most often liberal think tanks. I’d say this is actually a fairly good test of the methodology of the research. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2008, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806/24 "2008-09-24T21:58:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Drudge doesn’t make his own news, he just copies from other sources. Assuming most news sources are liberal, the think tanks they reference will be most often liberal think tanks. > > I’d say this is actually a fairly good test of the methodology of the research. First, isn’t “assuming most news sources are liberal” begging the question? I think that assumption is much more of a right wing marketing slogan than reality. Second, Drudge is more than a simple collection of links in at least two ways – prominence/position/duration he gives a story and its follow-up, and the Drudge headline is very often laughably misleading. Lastly, if Drudge doesn’t make his own news, what was he doing in the survey? Or was he included in the survey because attention paid by drudge = more hits to that source = more coverage in the media in general? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806/25 "2008-09-24T22:30:09Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > First, isn’t “assuming most news sources are liberal” begging the question? I think that assumption is much more of a right wing marketing slogan than reality. Well again, note that liberal or conservative isn’t hardcoded into the study. It just lies people out as they relate to one another through a sort of gravity system. The majority of news outlets polled–which is a random sampling–ended up coming in nearest to Democratic politicians. If Drudge gets his news from a random sampling of news sources, their bent will effect his per the study methodology. So regardless of whether most news sources are liberal or not, the Drudge Report will end up as the average of most media news outlets. And, he did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definitive-evidence-that-fox-isnt-fair-and-balanced/464806.md?page=1)