# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/61 "2013-03-06T18:19:00Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Are you claiming that liberal media are never inaccurate? Nope. You’ll know when I make that claim when I post something like “The liberal media is never inaccurate.” How about responding to what I _did_ post? ---
**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 6, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/62 "2013-03-06T18:21:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Nope. You’ll know when I make that claim when I post something like “The liberal media is never inaccurate.” > How about responding to what I _did_ post? Ok, so we both agree that Fox is inaccurate. We both agree (apparently) that liberal media is inaccurate. Who has provided a cite that Fox is _more_ inaccurate than liberal media? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/63 "2013-03-06T18:26:35Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Overall, yes. Maybe not exactly 50-50 but it’s close. Apparently you are going to argue otherwise, which is a convenient excuse for waving away all studies that show Fox to be less biased. It’s not “a convenient excuse”. It’s a huge, glaring flaw in your logic. Sure, it’s _possible_ that each side did a roughly equal number of dumb things. Is it likely? Not really. In any event, you can’t infer anything from empirical data (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the study was wholly objective) if the underlying assumption is unverified. It’s like citing a study that finds no evidence of rabbit habitation in Country X as evidence that rabbits have been hunted to extinction in Country X. That _might_ be what the study shows, but there might never have been any rabbits in X in the first place. ---
**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 6, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/64 "2013-03-06T18:33:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not “a convenient excuse”. It’s a huge, glaring flaw in your logic. Sure, it’s _possible_ that each side did a roughly equal number of dumb things. Is it likely? Not really. In any event, you can’t infer anything from empirical data (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the study was wholly objective) if the underlying assumption is unverified. You didn’t respond to the part about airtime, which is to some degree a counter to your argument. But why is a natural balance unlikely? It’s sort of like arguing that more than 50% are above than average. Given the recent presidential elections the natural balance is pretty near 50/50 (with a slight edge to liberals). An assertion otherwise is going to require some data for me to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/65 "2013-03-06T18:34:23Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Ok, so we both agree that Fox is inaccurate. We both agree (apparently) that liberal media is inaccurate. Who has provided a cite that Fox is _more_ inaccurate than liberal media? Before we go any further, let’s drop that “liberal media” crap, o.k.? It’s not a given that non-Fox media sources are of one mind, let alone “liberal”, so why don’t we just refer to them individually, otherwise you get to condemn all of them as inaccurate if just one of them has standards as low as Fox. And once again, if you want to show that _another media outlet_(not just non-Fox media as a whole) is just as inaccurate as Fox, it is up to you to show examples. ---
**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 6, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/66 "2013-03-06T19:38:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Before we go any further, let’s drop that “liberal media” crap, o.k.? It’s not a given that non-Fox media sources are of one mind, let alone “liberal”, so why don’t we just refer to them individually, otherwise you get to condemn all of them as inaccurate if just one of them has standards as low as Fox. Fine, although in the context of the Dope Fox is usually the effigy for conservative media and is harpooned for being such. But I will endeavor to use “other”. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And once again, if you want to show that _another media outlet_(not just non-Fox media as a whole) is just as inaccurate as Fox, it is up to you to show examples. But I’m not the one who made the original assertion. Given two sources it is reasonable to assume they are equal until proven otherwise. In the case with Fox I have yet to see it proven otherwise. I have provided two different sources that indicate that Fox is less _biased_ then other sources. This doesn’t prove that they are more accurate but I believe “bias” and “accuracy” are somewhat linked and in absence of other data I think it reasonable to assume Fox is no less reliable than other sources. But if it allows us to move past anecdotes, here’s an article taking both Fox and CNN to task for errors in the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare: [http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/179144/how-journalists-are-covering-todays-scotus-health-care-ruling/](http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/179144/how-journalists-are-covering-todays-scotus-health-care-ruling/) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/67 "2013-03-06T19:54:11Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > But if it allows us to move past anecdotes, here’s an article taking both Fox and CNN to task for errors in the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare: [http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/179144/how-journalists-are-covering-todays-scotus-health-care-ruling/](http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/179144/how-journalists-are-covering-todays-scotus-health-care-ruling/) Yep-they both made mistakes in that case…but if you want to show any equality in reporting you’ve got to show us stories where Fox got it right and another media goit it wrong, to balance the examples where Fox got the story wrong but other media didn’t. Post #32, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/68 "2013-03-06T20:13:37Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > But if it allows us to move past anecdotes, here’s an article taking both Fox and CNN to task for errors in the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare: [http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/179144/how-journalists-are-covering-todays-scotus-health-care-ruling/](http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/179144/how-journalists-are-covering-todays-scotus-health-care-ruling/) Too late to add: Although the story mentions both Fox and CNN, the story itself seems to concentrate almost entirely on CNN, with one brief mention of Fox > [@](#): > > Fox later released a statement about its coverage. Was that statement an apology along the lines of what CNN almost immediately issued, or something else entirely? How a media source handles mistakes is a big part of its trustworthiness, in my opinion. ---
**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 7, 2013, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/69 "2013-03-07T04:15:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yep-they both made mistakes in that case…but if you want to show any equality in reporting you’ve got to show us stories where Fox got it right and another media goit it wrong, to balance the examples where Fox got the story wrong but other media didn’t. Post #32, remember? Since the only part of my post you responded to is the anecdotal part, I can only assume you want to keep debating with anecdotes. I’m not interested. ---
**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 7, 2013, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/70 "2013-03-07T04:26:45Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Since the only part of my post you responded to is the anecdotal part, I can only assume you want to keep debating with anecdotes. I’m not interested. It has to be noticed that already there were other studies linked too in the last Media Matters link, so it is clear that not even items that are outside anecdotes are interesting to you. Of particular interest is this study, from a conservative outfit, showing that on this subject the bias detectors of the conservatives are really faulty (it throws into doubt many things that they claim are examples of bias when they themselves demonstrate bias in their research.) > **[TIMELINE: Fox News' Role In The "Climate Of Doubt"](https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/timeline-fox-news-role-climate-doubt)** > > PBS' Frontline recently aired a documentary titled "Climate of Doubt," examining how conservative groups, frequently funded by the fossil fuel industry, have pushed Republicans to reject the scientific consensus on manmade global warming. Here, Media... > [@](#): > > 2001 Analysis: Fox News Regularly Cast Doubt On Science. An analysis of evening news coverage from January 20, 2001 to April 22, 2001 by the conservative Media Research Center found that there “were only seven references to the existence of global warming skeptics,” and “[s]ix of those were on the Fox News Channel.” MRC mentioned that one of the “skeptics” cited by Fox was Richard Lindzen, whose funding from Exxon-linked groups and consulting for fossil fuel companies was previously outlined by PBS. MRC’s full report stated that “on the other networks, the theory of human-induced global warming was undisputed; on FNC, it was more properly treated as just another opinion that had supporters and opponents” and included this graphic: > > [Media Research Center, 5/7/01] [Media Research Center, 5/7/01] [PBS, 4/24/07] Even conservative scientists involved in the subject are not in agreement with FOX, what FOX is doing here is what is called “False Equivalency” the worst thing is that to make FOX sound as the only “balanced” one in the bunch, what Media Research Center did was to actually help demonstrate who is relying on crackpots to make news. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/71 "2013-03-07T05:07:19Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Since the only part of my post you responded to is the anecdotal part, I can only assume you want to keep debating with anecdotes. I’m not interested. You seem to a rather unique definition of “anecdote”. ---
**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 19, 2013, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/72 "2013-03-19T23:22:40Z")
Sorry for the late response. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > It has to be noticed that already there were other studies linked too in the last Media Matters link, so it is clear that not even items that are outside anecdotes are interesting to you. It shouldn’t be up to me to trawl through all the links, should it? If your source(s) make a point it would help if you spelled it out. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of particular interest is this study, from a conservative outfit, showing that on this subject the bias detectors of the conservatives are really faulty (it throws into doubt many things that they claim are examples of bias when they themselves demonstrate bias in their research.) > … The part you quoted isn’t of much value because it doesn’t compare Fox with other sources. I did, however, look through a few of the reports and found one by the International Journal of Press/Politics which is, as far as I can tell, a reasonable source. It _does_ make a [comparison of Fox with CNN and MSNBC](http://mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/intnljournal-climatetone.jpg). If one takes AGW seriously (which I do) then we can conclude Fox is heavily biased against it. It’s hard to make a definitive statement of how much more biased Fox is regarding AGW because a unbiased baseline is impossible to calculate. A non-AGW believer would take Really Not All That Bright’s argument and claim that only Fox was reporting without bias. So now we’ve got a study that shows Fox to be more biased in one topic (AGW), less biased in another topic (2008 presidential election), and an overall study that appears to show Fox to be less biased, with the caveat that the measurement is considered flawed by some. At this point the most reasonable conclusion is that the major media outlets are all biased about the same; the difference being in _where_ they are 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 20, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/73 "2013-03-20T00:12:14Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Sorry for the late response. > It shouldn’t be up to me to trawl through all the links, should it? If your source(s) make a point it would help if you spelled it out. > The part you quoted isn’t of much value because it doesn’t compare Fox with other sources. I did, however, look through a few of the reports and found one by the International Journal of Press/Politics which is, as far as I can tell, a reasonable source. It _does_ make a [comparison of Fox with CNN and MSNBC](http://mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/intnljournal-climatetone.jpg). If one takes AGW seriously (which I do) then we can conclude Fox is heavily biased against it. It’s hard to make a definitive statement of how much more biased Fox is regarding AGW because a unbiased baseline is impossible to calculate. A non-AGW believer would take Really Not All That Bright’s argument and claim that only Fox was reporting without bias. > > So now we’ve got a study that shows Fox to be more biased in one topic (AGW), less biased in another topic (2008 presidential election), and an overall study that appears to show Fox to be less biased, with the caveat that the measurement is considered flawed by some. At this point the most reasonable conclusion is that the major media outlets are all biased about the same; the difference being in _where_ they are biased. No, on this you are really showing all how you like to omit other studies made in the last Media Matters link. > [@](#): > > Study: Nearly 60 Percent Of Fox News Primetime Shows From 2007-08 Were Dismissive Toward Climate Change. A study published by The International Journal Of Press/Politics examined primetime cable news broadcasts from 2007 and 2008, and found that Fox “discussed climate change most often,” but “the tone of its coverage was disproportionately dismissive.” According to the study, “Fox broadcasts were more likely to include statements that challenged the scientific agreement on climate change, undermined the reality of climate change, and questioned its human causes.” This chart from the study shows that Fox News was dismissive toward climate change nearly 60 percent of the time: > > [The International Journal Of Press/Politics, 2011] > > Study Found 60 Percent Of Regular Fox Viewers Are Misinformed About Scientific Consensus. A study from the University of Maryland examined variations in misinformation by exposure to news sources and found that Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely” to be misinformed about the scientific consensus on climate change. Of those who said they watched Fox News “almost every day,” 60 percent believed that “most scientists think climate change is not occurring” or that “views are divided evenly.” By contrast, only 25 percent of CNN viewers, 20 percent of MSNBC viewers, and 35 percent of broadcast news viewers held that misconception. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace later criticized the study, saying it called those who “questioned whether climate change is occurring” misinformed. In fact, the study asked whether “most scientists” believe that climate change is occurring – an indisputable fact. [Media Matters, 12/17/10] It is really silly to claim they are biased just the same. You are missing the point of the false balance, the real balance should produce a result similar to what CNN and others do, that is that most of the scientists agree with what is going on and on the other side the scientists supporting the denial are very few and biased. By telling viewers that there a controversy and showing non-scientists as experts what FOX is doing is not balance but giving crackpots a chance to make news, this is worse than just having bias. ---
**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 20, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/74 "2013-03-20T17:35:42Z")
Right, we’ve already concluded that Fox is “heavily biased” (my words) against AGW. However, AGW is only one small part of news. Given that there are other studies that show Fox to be less biased on other topics, it cannot be reasonably claimed that _overall_ Fox is more biased than other sources based just on the AGW study. ---
**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 20, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/75 "2013-03-20T17:39:52Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Right, we’ve already concluded that Fox is “heavily biased” (my words) against AGW. :rolleyes: Once again, what they do is worse than just bias. > [@Deeg](#): > > However, AGW is only one small part of news. Given that there are other studies that show Fox to be less biased on other topics, it cannot be reasonably claimed that _overall_ Fox is more biased than other sources based just on the AGW study. Missing the point also, you are ignoring that you are basing that in studies that, when faced with science, demonstrate who is wrong. The fact that those outfits are not changing their tune faced with this evidence should be evidence enough for others to doubt all the methodology that they use on what they suppose is the bias in the media that is not FOX. ---
**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 20, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/76 "2013-03-20T17:49:10Z")
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all I see are references to Fox’s articles on AGW. Are there other topics? ---
**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 20, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/77 "2013-03-20T17:52:29Z")
And there are many outside of America that do notice what is taking place, it is not just regarding Global warming, the right is not only using bias, they are protecting a kind of consumer of the news from inconvenient realities. > **[The GOP lives in an alternate reality | Paul Harris](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/republicans-cpac-conservative-media-bias)** > > Paul Harris: Republicans can't tell fact from fiction because they only listen to biased conservative media > [@](#): > > At the conservative gathering CPAC last week the enormity of this media world was remarkable. The hall was packed with talk radio shows, conservative publishers and authors signing their latest books, many of which were bestsellers. This is a world where it is seriously believed that the United Nations is trying to take over the US, and Obama is a Kenyan socialist, an Islamist, a Marxist or the biological son of communist-sympathiser Frank Marshall Davis. This is a world where Obama wants to take away all guns, where he has dictatorial powers worthy of an emperor and where the US media is a liberal conspiracy pushing abortions and being gay. This is the world where Glenn Beck, former Fox TV host turned popular publisher of The Blaze website, is hugely powerful and shock jock Rush Limbaugh is king. > > Nothing of its kind exists to the same degree on the left, despite the recent best propagandistic efforts of MSNBC. Limbaugh is a man who can bring GOP politicians down if he wants. If they stray from orthodoxy, he can bring them back into line with some vitriol on his show. The words of MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, or even New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, do not carry anything near the same weight with Democrats. > > No wonder some GOP members cannot tell fact from fiction. This is a party whose right-wing is gripped in the embrace of its own media and vice versa. They feed off each other, like a snake eternally eating its own tail. For them the centrist Obama, who takes huge donations from Goldman Sachs and is a national security hardliner, is a radical socialist. America’s booming stock market is in fact a state-run economy barely worthy of being called a Soviet Republic. It is where the mainstream media is a vast leftist conspiracy, rather than a bland purveyor of “he said, she said” news stories. It is an America on the verge of being forced to surrender all its guns, rather than actually owning 300m of them. Once again, bias does not hide bad news, the perspective on a subject can and is changed, but there is really no excuse to use “they all use bias” when the intention is to hide or \*\*create \*\*information against a subject. with global warming and other subjects this is not bias, it is fraud. ---
**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 20, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/78 "2013-03-20T18:00:58Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but all I see are references to Fox’s articles on AGW. Are there other topics? Remember, the point is that until the day the ones from the right come clean and drop the blatantly obvious fraud regarding global warming and the false spin they report on other media being “biased” on that, one should indeed take many other subjects that they accuse of bias, coming from the “liberal media”, with a monumental grain of salt. Getting back to more traditional spin and not fabrications, the bias FOX has in favor of creationists shows also the kind of viewer they expect. [http://mediamatters.org/issues/evolution-intelligent-design](http://mediamatters.org/issues/evolution-intelligent-design) ---
**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 20, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/79 "2013-03-20T20:28:19Z")
I will point out yet again that your source does not (on my quick scan through the list) have a comparison of Fox with other news outlets. It would also be helpful if you used a source that hasn’t “declared war” on Fox. I’m sure you wouldn’t accept sources like [mises.org](http://mises.org) or [reason.org](http://reason.org) (and with good cause). ---
**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 20, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998/80 "2013-03-20T20:37:26Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I will point out yet again that your source does not (on my quick scan through the list) have a comparison of Fox with other news outlets. It would also be helpful if you used a source that hasn’t “declared war” on Fox. I’m sure you wouldn’t accept sources like [mises.org](http://mises.org) or [reason.org](http://reason.org) (and with good cause). And you only show that you continue to miss the point, I already granted that there is bias, what we are discussing is what is going beyond that bias, and what some sources do with science and academic research. The fact that that demonstrates how broken the bias detectors are on the conservative side is just gravy. BTW You are wrong on Media Matters just having a beef with FOX, CNN and others get flack from them as, once again, most of the media is not liberal, but corporate. > **[Where Are The Media's Iraq War Boosters 10 Years Later?](https://www.mediamatters.org/war-iraq/where-are-medias-iraq-war-boosters-10-years-later)** > > On the tenth anniversary of the American-led invasion of Iraq, Media Matters looks back at the work of some of the media's most prominent pro-war voices. Instead of facing consequences for backing the invasion based on information that... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-as-a-source/651998.md?page=5)