# Fox News Channel is not biased **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 20, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089 "2005-06-20T18:14:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/181 "2005-06-25T14:19:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Close. What I want is consistency. I’ll happily accept only one piece of evidence as proof… assuming the same standard is accepted applied to NPR. Which is what I’m trying to do here. 1)Brit Humes show is not a news program but a news discussion program: the televised equivalent of the op-ed page. Points deducted. 2)Brit Humes remarks can not be considered to be representative of the Fox News department or the network as a whole. Points deducted. 3)Brit Hume has only visited the deepest part of the ocean once, for twenty minutes. It is worth noting that Brits comments as the host are far more indicative of personal bias than likely any comments made on NPR. He starts off with democrats trying to make themselves a target of a comment aimed at liberals like [moveon.org](http://moveon.org). He then tries to place [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) at the heart of the democratic party, making the democrats the target of the remark. Do you agree or disagree **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/182 "2005-06-27T18:18:31Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Me too. With Fox, the bias is more transparent. It’s woo-hoo for the good guys! With NPR, it’s often in the tone — e.g., a singsong reference to Bush’s Social Security privatization plan; in the choice of one word over another — e.g., a Republican Party agenda, but a Democratic Party timetable; or in the cadence of speech — e.g., the Republicans in Congress seemed … addled by the criticism. NPR also seems to devote more time to expressing the Democratic view in stories where both views are given — frequently opening with the D, inserting a brief R, and then closing with the D. The R tends to get buried, and has less emphasis. I touched on this earlier. While I do not see overt bias at NPR, there is the possibility of more subtle effects that it is very difficult to quantify. These are the things more likely to be overlooked even by people attempting to mitigate the effects of their own bias. As to the comment on the order things are presented, we know that this does not happen all the time at least, as **Bricker** ’s story related the opposite. > [@](#): > > Perhaps, but not for the reason you’re stating. It is unreasonable to posit that a biased man can check his own bias, because his bias is the filter through which he’s checking. That’s why NPR doesn’t seem particularly biased to biased leftists, and Fox News doesn’t seem particularly biased to biased rightists. I disagree. While subtleties may remain, I believe it is quite possible to ameliorate the effects of personal bias. I like to think of it in terms of how I act when intoxicated. First, I honestly recognize that I am intoxicated. This is particularly difficult for most people, just as the recognition of their own bias is. Second, I ask myself, “What would I do/how would I act in this situation if I was completely sober?” Though my interpretation of appropriate behavior is clouded, it is not actually as hard as you may think to seperate your own feelings from the question and realize that, “No, it is not in fact a good idea to pee in the middle of the road.” The end effect is that people assume I a sober until I fall over. While someone like Hume has already fallen over and is puking into the gutter, a reasonable person should be able to control themselves if they put forth the effort. Putting forth this effort is difficult as you are actively trying to give balanced credibility to an opinion you believe is flawed. But, if you have respect for the other side of the issue and are humble and realistic enough to realize it is entirely possible that you yourself are wrong, it can be done. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/183 "2005-07-20T10:49:30Z")
> [@El Zagna](#): > > Due to circumstances beyond my control I’ve had to watch a lot of Fox news in the past year or so. sorry 'bout your luck. what were you in for? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/184 "2005-07-20T13:23:13Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > I’m a liberal, I’m interested in politics, and I enjoy running on about my beliefs. So why do I hardly ever say anything in GD? Because of threads like this, and the one on NPR that preceded it. That is, because all I ever get to do is scold other liberals for lazy and/or dishonest debating. Man, it’s getting so you have to be a chemist to quantify the “thoughtful liberal” quotient around here, since it has to be measured in parts per million. > > **Bricker** , **flight** , **Spavined Gelding** , and a couple others: keep fighting the good fight. I haven’t the heart. We love you, too, Varlosz. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/185 "2005-07-20T15:42:11Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > sorry 'bout your luck. > > what were you in for? You bumped this thread for THAT??? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/186 "2005-07-20T16:04:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You bumped this thread for THAT??? Quitcher belly-achin’ - it’s his most coherent post in weeks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/187 "2005-07-20T16:16:04Z")
Well, OK, since it’s been bumped \*and \*discussed maybe I should respond. I’m not in for anything; I’ve been restoring an [old house](http://www.thehammondhouse.com) in Calvert, Texas, and when I’m up there working on it I tend to stay with my folks in Marlin. The local cable company decided about a year ago to no longer carry CNN because they were charging too much, or so I was told. Instead of offering their customers an upgrade option that would include CNN, they just removed it from their lineup. Curiously enough, this occurred shortly after Bush’s reelection - draw your own conclusions. So anyway, since my Mom’s a news junkie, we’ve been reduced to watching Fox, sometimes it seems 24 hours a day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089.md?page=9)