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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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/
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?
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
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.
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.)
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.
You seem to a rather unique definition of “anecdote”.
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. 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.
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.
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.
:rolleyes:
Once again, what they do is worse than just bias.
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.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all I see are references to Fox’s articles on AGW. Are there other topics?
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.
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.
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.
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 or 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.