It’s a slippery slope. Quoting an editorial piece is always going to be a bad idea, so like others have mentioned, there’s nothing wrong with citing FN per se.
A perfect example of how Media Matters is correct regarding FOX news is how a misleading and fabricated piece from the Tabloids like the Daily Mail was reported by FOX as being well sourced.
If you want to go to the news bit from FOX jump to minute 2, 38 seconds to see how FOX just does not care how wrong the Daily Mail has been, and this is only one of the most recent shows of inaccuracy from FOX, inaccuracy that is **appreciated **in that network by the way. Because as many would notice, pieces like that are not disowned by FOX at all, on the contrary, chances are that the hacks will get promoted.
I recently quoted a FoxNews.com Associated Press story on a Great Debates thread, and didn’t get called on it.
It was a mistake on my part. I found the article googling and somehow mentally missed the source, beyond that it was a product of the normally reliable Associated Press. I would have used the Straight Dope edit feature to change the link to a mainstream news site having the same story. But by the time I noticed the faux pas, the five minute edit limit was up.
FoxNews.com has a high ratio of opinion to news, and I believe the opinion/news ratio at the television FoxNews is even higher. Obviously, an opinion piece doesn’t get to be treated as factual source.
If I ever see FOX finally dropping the “FOX news” logo from appearing in their opinion shows, then I would take that into consideration.
But it is not just the so called opinion pieces, even the “harder” business news got into the act too:
FOX misrepresented and never asked the scientists what they actually said regarding any “coming ice age” (And yes, that was not true) and FOX just interviewed a hack from the tobacco and oil think tanks as “expert commentary”.
Again, I would think one could find many examples of bias coming from the other side, but once again, this is something else besides showing bias, if that was the case I would expect to see just that their “expert” is just giving a different position than what most scientists reports, that would be bad enough and expected. **But what it should not be expected, even by any reasonable conservative even, is to see an outfit like FOX being willing to distort what the science says **before getting into their expected bias.
This comes across to me as “Fox is wrong because I say so.” You may be right but I’ve seen little evidence backing it up.
Right, it is clear that you did not see the videos, but if that is too hard, one should just click on the “Show more” button under the videos, there are the sources that the makers of the videos used to show why it is silly to claim that it is just “because I say so”
As reliable as MSNBC. Depends on the source but they’re mostly reliable.
Have the students watch old episodes of the Teletubbies as well. Or Fraggle Rock.
Those students would gain as much by watching reruns of Punky Brewster as they would by watching Fox News.
Fox. News. Is. Fiction.
We’ve got millions of voters who think Fox News is the Truth that the lame-stream media has been hiding from them. And for each rabid viewer, there are several more who hear the Truth second hand.
Fox News is the organizing and communication channel that created a fringe group that took over half of the Republican Party and has the other half cowering in fear before them.
Fox News is under the control of some of the wealthiest people in the world.
Ignore Fox News at your own peril.
That’s because you handwave away all the evidence that’s offered. For example, you argued that the Media Matters list is meaningless because:
This is an appeal to probability, if I’m being generous.
Unbiased news ceased to exist the minute the first person with an opinion wrote an article. Despite what “mainstream” journalists say, you have to search hard to find a story that isn’t influenced in some way by the reporter’s viewpoints, or their editor’s, or someone along the chain. Even the story chosen to be reported on can reflect bias (and is probably the most common form of bias - what do you want your readers/viewers to know? Or not know? Choice of story is all important - ever hear of “killing” a story?)
And yes, I had journalism training in college, so I have some bit of inside knowledge about the process.
Fox News (the actual news, not the opinion shows) is about as reliable as any other network news, PER STORY. Its the stories they choose to air that probably reflect some bias, as much as CNN, NBC, CBS, CNBC, etc’s. choices reflect their bias.
That should be easy enough to prove. Can you tell us some major news stories Fox News covered that wasn’t also covered by the others?
They kept covering Benghazi like a front-page story long after the others had moved on.
But the others covered it, though.
I don’t really know of any situation in my academic career when I would have cited a news source. About the only scenarios where I could imagine using such a source, the accuracy and bias would not matter per se, because you’d have to be working on some topic where the journalism itself was the primary source in which case you might want to capture biased journalism, unbiased journalism, accurate journalism, and inaccurate journalism. Or it could be a scenario with a very simple fact you don’t want to bother verifying further. Say a news article mentions the date some famous criminal was convicted, you can probably trust that and it’s a lot more reasonable than trying to dig up records from the court house. However, that information will also usually be in more traditional research sources as well.
For plain news reporting, when a FoxNews.com article ends up being a link on google news that I read I’ve never noticed any real problems with it. Fox News obviously is widely disrespected but a large portion of their stories are the same major news stories every outlet is running with and thus vary hardly at all from one another.
The Wall Street Journal is much more respected, but I wouldn’t cite any of their news articles as primary source material either.
Fox news should be treated with the same rules as a Republican party press release since they’re functionally the same thing.
A declaration that Fox is less reliable than other media must, by definition, be compared to the other media. A list of anecdotes, no matter how long, is not a comparison. And since we are talking about the overall accuracy of Fox, stats that show Fox is inaccurate in one area does not mean it’s inaccurate in all areas (although it is certainly a problem). If Fox is so blatantly biased and inaccurate surely there’s a study that shows this when compared to other sources?
A few days ago I thought Fox was biased/inaccurate but I’m starting to doubt that.
I’ve been watching Foxnews.com for the past year on the day when the job report comes out each month. This is always big news and Fox does the same thing every time. If the report is worse than expected, it is front and center on their site in huge font. If the report is better than expected, it is nowhere to be seen anywhere on their site.
But don’t you think liberal media uses the same sort of tricks? According to this study NPR’s Morning Edition was much more positive in stories about Democrats than Republicans in the 2008 presidential election. Link to graphic.
The question (I believe) isn’t if Fox is biased–it most certainly is. The question is, is Fox more biased than other news sources. I’m starting to think “no”.
Yeah, I wonder how that works, see one **very **important subject that FOX has even memos telling their reporters to use false equivalency and use dubious sources, and scientists report that FOX news are inaccurate 93% of the time, and it makes you doubt. :dubious:
As it is, most that look at the issue complain that other mainstream sources until recently reported very little on the subject, pointing once again to another explanation that many have reported many times before, there is really no liberal media.
In any case, other outfits besides FOX were analyzed on this issue and other reports show that they are more accurate, and that that because they actually not give much of a say to discredited sources.