# FOX as a Source? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998 "2013-03-04T15:05:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bpelta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Bpelta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bpelta)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/1 "2013-03-04T15:05:23Z")
A professor of journalism at West Liberty University recently [banned](http://www.mediaite.com/online/professor-bans-students-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-it-makes-me-cringe/) her students from using FOX News as a source because it’s “biased;” she wrote that it “makes her cringe” and she’d “almost rather you print off an article from the Onion.” Apparently, after public pressure, [she’s](http://www.wtrf.com/story/21200533/controversy-rising-over-wlu-syllabus) “since changed her stance and allowed students to use all academic sources.” My question for the Teeming Millions: Is FOX News reliable enough to be used as a source in an academic paper by undergrad college students? ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/2 "2013-03-04T15:11:15Z")
It’s a great source if you’re taking a course on Propaganda. 😉 As long as you treat everything Fox puts out as editorial, you don’t have a problem. You could certainly attempt to cite them as a “factual” source, but then your argument would fall apart in the face of contrary factual sources with professional methodology and a smidgen of journalistic integrity. But of course students should be “allowed” to cite Fox the way they should be allowed to cite the Bible in a science class. You can’t stop somebody who is working really, really hard for that 'F." ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/3 "2013-03-04T15:15:21Z")
For full disclosure, I am in Canada and have never watched Fox News so most of what I know about the channel is what has been said on this forum. I’d imagine that it would be reliable enough if care was taken to ensure you were isolating facts reported. It is my understanding that the main issue with Fox News is the interweaving of opinion and fact throughout most of their broadcast versus Fox News actually reporting incorrect facts (except of course the political affiliation of whichever republican is in the hot seat at the moment). I think it would be a good exercise to have the students watch Fox News, come away with their impressions and then watch again to see if those impressions are backed by actual reported facts or if it is something created by the opinions expressed. ---
**Author:** ![ShouldaTakenTheBluePill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb8c5e/32.png) [@ShouldaTakenTheBluePill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShouldaTakenTheBluePill)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/4 "2013-03-04T15:33:19Z")
I would be very skeptical of anything purported to be fact to be used for supporting a fact-based article. For example, if one is attempting to show dissent in the scientific community on the topic of global warming, i wouldn’t recommend quoting Bill O’Reilly’s show directly, you could cite CEI’s “research” directly. Spoiler alert, CEI is a think tank funded by the oil industry. If however, one wanted to examine the gap between opposing viewpoints in American “journalism,” (and i imagine this would be fascinating to an outsider), one could compare/contrast the difference between the way O’Reilly at FOX and Rachel Maddow at MSNBC cover the same story. Or maybe Glen Beck vs. Keith Olberman on the healthcare reform debate… A case study on American dysfunctionality? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/5 "2013-03-04T15:46:11Z")
Why would a student cite something from a TV show on an academic paper (that wasn’t specifically about TV shows)? When would ‘$News\_show said that…’ be a valid factual cite? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/6 "2013-03-04T15:50:11Z")
It is somewhat unfair to disallow the use of Fox News because of bias. All media outlets are biased. The reason not to use Fox is that they are dishonest, intentionally disseminating false information, in coordination with a particular political party. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/7 "2013-03-04T15:55:19Z")
Fox as a source of what? Cooties? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/8 "2013-03-04T16:05:17Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Why would a student cite something from a TV show on an academic paper (that wasn’t specifically about TV shows)? When would ‘$News\_show said that…’ be a valid factual cite? Didn’t read the article, but I assume they are using Fox’s web site, not the TV show. Could be wrong about that. Ok, I’ll be the decenter here and argue that the teacher was wrong about a knee jerk reaction to Fox news. What she should have said was that no editorials could be used from ANY source (including, of course, Fox), and perhaps that students would need to corroborate any assertion with at least 2 independent sources. I don’t read Fox, nor watch the TV news show, but my understanding is that if we are talking about straight news, it’s as accurate as anyone else. If we are talking about editorials or opinion pieces, then it’s obviously skewed pretty highly…but then, IMHO, so are most of the other news web sites and TV shows, including the one’s I generally read (such as CNN and BBC). ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/9 "2013-03-04T16:51:41Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Why would a student cite something from a TV show on an academic paper (that wasn’t specifically about TV shows)? When would ‘$News\_show said that…’ be a valid factual cite? The linked article makes it appear that the first two instructions for completing a “politics journal assignment” [were](http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/559x240xsyllibus.jpg.pagespeed.ic_.gWjBW_8ifY.jpg): 1. Do not use The Onion as a source. 2. Do not use Fox News as a source. It does not specifically say what a “politics journal assignment” is. So I am going to take a guess. Maybe it is something like “keep track of what the candidates are saying at campaign stops” or “document how the candidates are spinning the issues” or something of that nature. Maybe if this were a full-time doctoral program, you could expect the students to go follow the candidates around the country and take notes themselves, but for a typical undergraduate class, the students are probably going to have to rely on secondary sources. They could rely on the candidates’ web sites, I suppose. But these won’t always give the full story (and probably won’t mention any flubs the candidate made and will mention the opponent’s flubs out of context). I think that ultimately they are going to have to resort to using what the news media have reported about the candidates’ activities. But, let’s say you were assigned to write a paper about how the 2008 campaign was conducted. What would be a factual source? Could you rely on newspaper archives? But not tapes or transcripts of TV news? ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/10 "2013-03-04T16:55:57Z")
At best the student is inviting a greater level of scrutiny into his claims. At best the bias of Fox news is open for debate. There are more reputable news channels to cite. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/11 "2013-03-04T17:50:55Z")
The professor certainly should teach the students enough so they understand what makes for a quality source in news reporting. Though this instance seemed to focus on the national network, student might unfairly think they should dismiss quality reporting from local affiliates simply because the station is a FOX network affiliate. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/12 "2013-03-04T18:12:28Z")
As I [noted in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16060359&postcount=214) the only systematic studies that I’ve seen on media bias conclude that Fox is better (or no worse) than other main-stream media. That said I wouldn’t trust any news media as a source for anything that can be verified independently. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/13 "2013-03-04T19:24:37Z")
It seems to me that students should be using primary and not secondary sources for news (Fox or other). So if Fox News is reporting on a scientific study or a survey or a public speech or a traffic accident, the student should go directly to the study/survey/speech/police report, etc. If the source is someone appearing on Fox News, that would be primary. For example “In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Congressman Barney said ‘blah blah blah.’” That would be an acceptable source. ---
**Author:** ![Bpelta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Bpelta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bpelta)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/14 "2013-03-04T19:30:41Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > As I [noted in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16060359&postcount=214) the only systematic studies that I’ve seen on media bias conclude that Fox is better (or no worse) than other main-stream media. Said discussion regards bias. (I think an argument can be constructed that all the networks are bad on bias, but FOX just happens to be more _blatant_ about theirs.) But I don’t think this discussion should be about bias, but accuracy. You can offer a biased vision of the world which still approximates a relatively fair vision of reality (e.g. MSNBC), but FOX is often considered to offer up a lot of stories which are bogus, so I hope my question really boils down to whether they can be considered a relatively accurate secondary source. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/15 "2013-03-04T20:11:01Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > It does not specifically say what a “politics journal assignment” is. So I am going to take a guess. Maybe it is something like “keep track of what the candidates are saying at campaign stops” or “document how the candidates are spinning the issues” or something of that nature. But in both of those cases FOX news, and all the other new outlets, are a factual record. You could quote FOX news to show how the right was spinning things and it would be a legitimate quote, because then they aren’t an authority, they are the material you’re quoting. > [@](#): > > But, let’s say you were assigned to write a paper about how the 2008 campaign was conducted. What would be a factual source? Could you rely on newspaper archives? But not tapes or transcripts of TV news? All of those things are the factual sources. That is how the campaign was conducted, all the speeches, spin, bias, everything. Quoting the news outlets material is one thing, and quoting them as an authority is another. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/16 "2013-03-04T20:27:21Z")
> [@Bpelta](#): > > Said discussion regards bias. (I think an argument can be constructed that all the networks are bad on bias, but FOX just happens to be more _blatant_ about theirs.) But I don’t think this discussion should be about bias, but accuracy. You can offer a biased vision of the world which still approximates a relatively fair vision of reality (e.g. MSNBC), but FOX is often considered to offer up a lot of stories which are bogus, so I hope my question really boils down to whether they can be considered a relatively accurate secondary source. Yeah, good point. I’d be interested in seeing a study (if there is on) on factual reliability. My guess, though, is that the professor banned Fox because she considered it horribly biased. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/17 "2013-03-04T21:17:21Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Yeah, good point. I’d be interested in seeing a study (if there is on) on factual reliability. My guess, though, is that the professor banned Fox because she considered it horribly biased. As pointed before there are a lot of flaws on the methodology they used in that survey you pointed before, but far more useful, regarding the OP, is that we are not dealing mostly with bias here, but accuracy. > **[Podcasts | Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcasts/)** > > Be informed and entertained with original podcasts by Scientific American > [@](#): > > “What we found in our analysis was that a staggering 93 percent of all occurrences in the last six months in the prime time news of Fox News were misleading occurrences of climate science. Okay, for The Wall Street Journal opinion section in the last year, we found a surprising 81 percent of the occurrences were misleading. And of the accurate ones, these were all letters to the editor that were submitted in response to misrepresentations in editorials or other letters. So, a broad swath of News Corporation viewers and readership are being misled about the science.” And so, in an academic setting, that is enough to not use FOX news for reports. > **[Fox News on climate: skip the science, report the “controversy”](https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/fox-news-on-climate-skip-the-science-report-the-controversy/)** > > A leaked e-mail from Fox News indicates a managing editor has officially … > [@](#): > > Accusations of biased reporting against Fox News are common enough that they’re no longer, well, news. And examples of poor reporting on the science of climate change are painfully common. But it’s apparently the season of the leak, and a progressive media organization has obtained a leaked e-mail from Bill Sammon, a managing editor at Fox News, in which he directly orders his reporters to provide misleading science coverage. > > Reportedly, a Fox staffer forwarded an internal e-mail to Media Matters, a progressive organization that monitors conservative media outlets. Entitled “Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data…” it continues: > > > [@](#): > > > > …we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies. > > To a large extent, this represents the triumph of the creationist movement’s strategy of claiming there’s a controversy about evolution, then demanding coverage of the controversy, rather than the science of evolution. It also requires a similar form of scientific ignorance, in that Sammon doesn’t seem to recognize the difference between a measurement of temperature change and the theory that explains these changes. > > And the position specifically abdicates any responsibility to identify facts, instead favoring an attempt to appear balanced. Yes, critics have called the temperature record into question. But these criticisms do not appear to be scientifically valid. And besides that, certifiably scientific failure, there are many other examples of inaccuracies and fabrications that others in the past reported to claim that a case can be made that FOX news is not really a legitimate news reporting organization. > **[30 reasons why Fox News is not legit](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/30-reasons-why-fox-news-not-legit)** ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/18 "2013-03-04T22:11:16Z")
I am in the rather odious position of defending Fox… 😉 > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As pointed before there are a lot of flaws on the methodology they used in that survey you pointed before, but far more useful, regarding the OP, is that we are not dealing mostly with bias here, but accuracy. I can totally believe that Fox is inaccurate in it’s reporting of AGW. My caveats, however, are: 1. MSM are notorious for getting facts wrong. Fox had a high rate of errors but what was the error rate of, say, CNN? It’s possible they were equally bad. 2. Assuming that Fox is much worse regarding AGW, what is the liberal MSM track record for “conservative” positions? My guess is that overall the error rate of Fox roughly matches the other news outlets. (I did not listen to the podcast so if these caveats are discussed then my apologies.) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > [30 reasons why Fox News is not legit | Media Matters for America](http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/10/27/30-reasons-why-fox-news-is-not-legit/156164) Correct me if I’m wrong but this seems to be largely anecdotal. I’m sure conservatives could find anecdotes that lambaste liberal news. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/19 "2013-03-05T00:27:36Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > It seems to me that students should be using primary and not secondary sources for news (Fox or other). So if Fox News is reporting on a scientific study or a survey or a public speech or a traffic accident, the student should go directly to the study/survey/speech/police report, etc. > > If the source is someone appearing on Fox News, that would be primary. For example “In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Congressman Barney said ‘blah blah blah.’” That would be an acceptable source. I second this. However, and I may be misreading the second paragraph, but I’d use the _transcript_ of the interview Congressman Barney had with Bill O’Reilly. Instead of an article recapping and likely offering opinions about what was said because the quotes from the interview can be taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/20 "2013-03-05T01:19:36Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I am in the rather odious position of defending Fox… 😉 > > I can totally believe that Fox is inaccurate in it’s reporting of AGW. My caveats, however, are: > > 1. MSM are notorious for getting facts wrong. Fox had a high rate of errors but what was the error rate of, say, CNN? It’s possible they were equally bad. > 2. Assuming that Fox is much worse regarding AGW, what is the liberal MSM track record for “conservative” positions? My guess is that overall the error rate of Fox roughly matches the other news outlets. > > (I did not listen to the podcast so if these caveats are discussed then my apologies.) 1. not so, on this you are wrong. 2. Missing the point, this is an example where FOX news is on the record of having instructions on just reporting FUD on this subject. > [@Deeg](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong but this seems to be largely anecdotal. I’m sure conservatives could find anecdotes that lambaste liberal news. And as a previews discussion showed, of course, but it is not bias what we are dealing with, but simple scientific accuracy. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998.md?page=2)