Once again, even grating that all have biases, the issue from the OP is referring to accuracy. The evidence is there that shows that in one of the most important subjects of the modern era is being actively misrepresented by FOX.
Exactly. The network was created by GOP operatives to be their publicity arm. It is literally chartered for that purpose. That makes it different from a “biased” source – it is merely a direct arm of a party, like a 19th century newspaper.
LOL. It’s up there with the National Enquirer.
(Bolding mine.)
FWIW I’m a university librarian, so helping undergrads choose sources for their papers is part of my job. I’m wondering if the professor was misquoted in the WTRF follow-up story or misunderstood by the reporter, because the story suggests that she now allows FOX News as a source…but FOX News is not an academic source.
If a student came to me for help with an assignment that required “academic sources” (I usually see the term “scholarly sources” used instead) I would take that to mean peer-reviewed journal articles and books from academic publishers. It is sometimes appropriate, even necessary, to cite popular news sources as part of an academic paper, but if the assignment requires that students use only academic sources then FOX News doesn’t count. Neither does MSNBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, or National Geographic. It’s not even really a question of reliability or bias, it’s that these are all sources produced for the general public and not by/for scholars.
And yet, according to this graphic from the study I linked above, Fox is more balanced than CNN or MSNBC when reporting on the 2008 presidential campaigns.
But we’re talking (I assume) about overall accuracy and I have no doubt that liberal media are inaccurate on topics that fit their agenda. I will point out again that the links you are providing do not compare the accuracy of the different outlets but merely hammer Fox on a particular topic (albeit an important one). It’s quite possible that liberal outlets are equally inaccurate, just at the opposite end of the spectrum.
No, according to that graphic Fox was more positive about Republicans. You are assuming that the facts were neutral.
Discounting your labeling of non-Fox media as “liberal”, why would you assume that other media would have to be as inaccurate as Fox? Do you know of some natural law that states that one network cannot be worse than any other?
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. I believe that the graphic above disproves the notion that Fox is a mouthpiece for the GOP and that Fox’s tone is less biased than CNN or MSNBC. The study says nothing about the accuracy of stories; in my view the accuracy of the different outlets is still unproven one way or the other.
No, just my own opinion of the media business. Some Dopers seem to think that a natural law states that conservative media must be inaccurate. I believe that Fox could be inaccurate trash, I just haven’t seen much evidence of that. (GIGObuster’s links show Fox to be inaccurate regarding AGW. What I haven’t seen is how inaccurate non-Fox outlets are.)
So you think that if others point out specific instances where Fox News either inaccurately reports on/totally skips a major story, all you have to do to is say “They do it toooo!”? Sorry bucky, but that just isn’t good enough. Go back to post #32, where I asked
Got anything?
edited to add:
But they aren’t just saying it-they’re showing it.
I’d allow a Fox citation to give evidence that the cited matter is exaggerated, wrong, biased or a lie. Fox news is less accurate than a stopped watch.
The usual response to an assertion is “cite?”. I have seen no cites that prove Fox to be less accurate. Swapping anecdotes still won’t prove anything.
That only shows that Fox is unbiased if there are an equal number of negative stories to report on each side. Do you really think that’s the case?
There are examples to show that Fox news is inaccurate at times-the onus is on you to show that other media outlets are just as bad, because that seems to be your assertion in this thread.
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.
The study doesn’t just discuss tone of reports, however, but also total number of stories. For example, according to the study:
So not only was NPR more favorable towards Democrats, it gave them much more airtime, by a wide margin that can’t be waved away as the natural order of things.
Are you claiming that liberal media are never inaccurate?
Absolutely, and IMNSHO, it’s much more reliable than most of the mainstream media.
Can’t…say…what…I want…in Great Debates…must…hold it…
Just for the record, I have seen no evidence that this is true, either. 