# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/141 "2005-06-22T15:16:49Z")
> [@flight](#): > > First, I think you meant property didn’t you? Propriety, as in ownership of property. > [@](#): > > Second, why do we need to define rights that way? So that we all begin life with equal rights, and so that rights aren’t just pulled out of the ass of some magistrate or potentate. > [@](#): > > Third, I think this is a topic for another thread. Please inform Sophistry and Illusion. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/142 "2005-06-22T15:23:32Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Why should I take your word over theirs? I can easily think of a comeback to this. However, I don’t want this to turn into another hijack, so I will give the thread time to go back to a regular train of thought. Maybe if Liberal persists, I will post, again, but not for now. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/143 "2005-06-22T15:26:45Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Propriety, as in ownership of property. As I know you have a large vocabulary, I though you may have been using a form of the word I was not familiar with so I [looked it up](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propriety) before posting. I don’t have my OED here with me, but [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) doesn’t seem to agree with you. Is it a legal term? > [@](#): > > So that we all begin life with equal rights, and so that rights aren’t just pulled out of the ass of some magistrate or potentate. The initial statements of rights in our Constitution, and most other governments were done in just that way. Though, they did make somewhat more rational choices to match the identified rights with their ideals for their new government than by excremental divination. We, as the governed, have agreed to these rights by not overthrowing the government. Consent of the governed is key to our political structure. > [@](#): > > Please inform Sophistry and Illusion. I think it was my statement you had a problem with, he just agreed. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/144 "2005-06-22T15:28:51Z")
> [@flight](#): > > …excremental divination… Can you call band name on your own post? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/145 "2005-06-22T15:46:22Z")
I think it is very important for rules to be based on precedent, not just a straightforward reading of the rules. Thus, I have typed in the term into search and am looking for example of people quoting their own post to come up with band names. No examples so far, but I see some very, very funny threads. 😃 [Any Gay muppets?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4717419) [Skippy Tits!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247380) [Spoonerisms](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4762710) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/146 "2005-06-22T16:41:26Z")
> [@Sophistry and Illusion](#): > > Never mind. If you aren’t even willing to concede that people in general have an obligation not to deceive and mislead others, then debate between us will not be fruitful. If you cannot at least make an effort to explain your axioms, and why you hold them to be so patently necessary and evident–why, in sum, you believe what you believe–then you are absolutely correct. > [@flight](#): > > The Bill of Rights specifically gives the press (media) certain rights because they recognized the abosulte necessity of a well informed public to the stability of the union. With extra rights come extra responsibilities, such as accurately informing the public. Apart from the discussion on the origin of rights (and I disagree firmly with **Lib** on this point), I am afraid I don’t understand why freedom of the press from government intrusion and manipulation necessarily requires an additional social burden on it. The freedom of the press is precisely that–freedom. To print laughable screeds, to criticize and harangue, to editorialize, to spin, to sway . . . without answering to the Govenrment. But they still must answer to their customers. Those who pay their salaries. We, as citizens of the United States, do not have a _right_ to unbiased reportage. We do not have a _right_ to have unvarnished truth spoonfed us. Hell, we’ve already pretty well established that bias _must_ occur to some degree–we simply cannot have plain facts anyway. At very least, someone is making editorial decisions on what stories to run, when, and in what order. The press is free to publish as they see fit without Government manipulation. But they are ultimately only responsible to their customers and their shareholders. To be perfectly frank, I would love to see a world in which everyone wants to tell the truth, and in which everyone strives to the utmost to look juduciously at all sides of an argument. But I still don’t see why the media have an ethical or moral obligation to do so. I’m willing to be swayed–if I weren’t, I wouldn’t have asked for explanations in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/147 "2005-06-22T16:47:17Z")
> [@andros](#): > > If you cannot at least make an effort to explain your axioms, and why you hold them to be so patently necessary and evident–why, in sum, you believe what you believe–then you are absolutely correct. Well, whether basic axioms like “it is generally immoral to deceive or mislead others” are viable is a topic for another thread. I just assumed that such axioms were part of our common morality. But again, to prevent hijacking this thread (further), I won’t defend my position. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/148 "2005-06-22T16:47:54Z")
> [@flight](#): > > As I know you have a large vocabulary, I though you may have been using a form of the word I was not familiar with so I [looked it up](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propriety) before posting. I don’t have my OED here with me, but [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) doesn’t seem to agree with you. Is it a legal term? See its usage in the context of this article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third\_party\_(United\_States)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)). > [@](#): > > The initial statements of rights in our Constitution, and most other governments were done in just that way. Though, they did make somewhat more rational choices to match the identified rights with their ideals for their new government than by excremental divination. We, as the governed, have agreed to these rights by not overthrowing the government. Consent of the governed is key to our political structure. May I ask when my consent will be solicited? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/149 "2005-06-22T17:20:04Z")
> [@Sophistry and Illusion](#): > > Well, whether basic axioms like “it is generally immoral to deceive or mislead others” are viable is a topic for another thread. I just assumed that such axioms were part of our common morality. But again, to prevent hijacking this thread (further), I won’t defend my position. You’re right, it’s a hijack. The issue at hand is “Is FOXNews biased?” and not “Should FOXNews be unbiased?” My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/150 "2005-06-22T17:22:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > May I ask when my consent will be solicited? Not to be a total bitch . . . but your consent is given every moment you choose to remain a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/151 "2005-06-22T19:43:23Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Not to be a total bitch . . . but your consent is given every moment you choose to remain a citizen. Not that I agree with him, but that isn’t quite true. You don’t really have a choice in the matter unless you can get another country to take you or find some uninhabitable rock that hasn’t yet been claimed by anyone. This is out of reach for most people. > [@Liberal](#): > > See its usage in the context of this article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third\_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_)…(United\_States). Unless I am mistaken, the use in that article is identical to the dictionary definition I referenced. I think you may be confused because they talk of “propriety ownership”. I believe they mean “just and proper ownership”, not “ownership as in regards to property” as I believe you think they mean. > [@Liberal](#): > > May I ask when my consent will be solicited? Man, I knew you were going to ask that, and it is the obvious question. In this case we are not talking about complete agreement on issues, which would be impossible, but… OK, you know what, this is going to get out of hand quickly. I have not debated this issue here before and it would take quite a while distracting from the topic at hand. How about I concede that it is a good point (which it is), but one that is not particularly germain to the topic at hand. In fact, it is a sidetrack _of_ a sidetrack. I thought I had a pretty good point early in regards to a metric for meauring bias before this got started. Would anyone care to comment on the potential of that? ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/152 "2005-06-23T02:17:23Z")
> [@andros](#): > > You’re right, it’s a hijack. The issue at hand is “Is FOXNews biased?” and not “Should FOXNews be unbiased?” > > My apologies. My fault. I offered the PIPA study as evidence that Fox has a pro-administration bias, and couldn’t resist the urge to get on my soapbox. Someone should reduce that sumbitch to tinder already. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/153 "2005-06-23T02:34:00Z")
> [@Sophistry and Illusion](#): > > My fault. I offered the PIPA study as evidence that Fox has a pro-administration bias, and couldn’t resist the urge to get on my soapbox. Someone should reduce that sumbitch to tinder already. Soap, forsooth! I use a refrigerator box. Shame it’s made of balsa, though. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/154 "2005-06-23T06:44:17Z")
> [@flight](#): > > I thought I had a pretty good point early in regards to a metric for meauring bias before this got started. Would anyone care to comment on the potential of that? Sounded good to me. Studies like the PIPA one do seem to demonstrate pro-Administration bias in Fox’s news reporting. Of course, the study is compatible with the conclusion that NPR always harps on anti-Administration points, but it doesn’t demonstrate that this is the case. So you are right–we need a similar study showing liberal bias. Like you, though, I think the prospects for uncovering such a study are slim. Anyone who knows of such a study is hereby invited to share. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/155 "2005-06-23T09:39:31Z")
I have thought about it a bit, and I am unsure this method would be the best. If it comes back negative for NPR bias then we get bragging rights, but I want hard proof, for myself as well as political opponents. The test we have would only measure misinformation, not attitudes. It is possible to accurately inform everone of a situation yet spin it enough that very different attitudes could be formed. PIPA shows that this is not necessary for FOX, but some way of categorizing it may be necessary for NPR if they pass the first cut. Ugh, this is not easy to do. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/156 "2005-06-23T10:10:33Z")
> [@Sophistry and Illusion](#): > > So you are right–we need a similar study showing liberal bias. Like you, though, I think the prospects for uncovering such a study are slim. Anyone who knows of such a study is hereby invited to share. A [Pew Study](http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=830) has shown that 34% of national journalists consider themselves to be liberal, while only 7% of them self-identify as conservative. However, there is evidence that they mean classical liberalism as opposed to modern American liberalism, since more of them believe that people should be free to pursue goals without government interference than believe that government should provide for peoples’ needs. (The majority of libertarians in local news is even larger.) It is therefore possible to equivocate on this matter, since the term “liberal” might not mean the opposite of conservative, but rather lacking the bias of either a modern liberal or a modern conservative. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/157 "2005-06-23T14:51:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A [Pew Study](http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=830) has shown that 34% of national journalists consider themselves to be liberal, while only 7% of them self-identify as conservative. However, there is evidence that they mean classical liberalism as opposed to modern American liberalism, since more of them believe that people should be free to pursue goals without government interference than believe that government should provide for peoples’ needs. (The majority of libertarians in local news is even larger.) It is therefore possible to equivocate on this matter, since the term “liberal” might not mean the opposite of conservative, but rather lacking the bias of either a modern liberal or a modern conservative. But I have no problem getting the news from people who self identify conservative _or_ liberal. While that may send up a flag of something to look for, it does not necessarily bespeak of bias. In fact, I have more trust in someone who is able to recognize their own prejudices because it is at least possible for them to keep them out of the news. If they do recognize those prejudices then there is no hope. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/158 "2005-06-23T16:49:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/159 "2005-06-23T17:15:40Z")
rub his nose in it. It is simply common sense. Thus, when you see me, or anyone else using an odd way to defend their position, you shouldn’t just leave them be, or simply state that their analogy is incorrect, you should show how there are wrong, if you ever want anything to change. Be aware, however, that people will show how there are correct, anyway. I have the feeling I am one of those you feel is incorrect, since you mentioned that Rick fights the good fight, and not me. Funny, I feel the same way about him. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/160 "2005-06-23T17:32:56Z")
Yes, you’re correct. Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and so forth. But, as I said, I’m just not up to it – playing debate nanny is no fun, and it doesn’t win any friends. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089.md?page=9)