# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/161 "2005-06-23T19:33:12Z")
> [@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. Did Pew also survey the political affiliation of the publishers and editors, the folks who actually decide what stories get planted on the (literal and metaphorical) front pages? As for the OP, > [@](#): > > **[Study Finds No Media Bias on War, Hits Fox News As Most One-Sided](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000837511)** > > The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s “State of the American News Media 2005,” released late Sunday, disputes charges of antiwar media bias but found that President Bush received more “negative” coverage in the 2004 campaign than did Sen. John F. Kerry. > > And it determined that Fox News Channel was the most one-sided of all major news outlets. In fact, the idea that Americans are engaged in “partisan” news consumption isn’t supported by the research. With the exception of Republicans who prefer Fox News, most media use mirrors the general population, the study found. > > … The Washington-based project examined more than 2,000 stories on the war in Iraq and found that 25% of the stories were negative and 20% were positive. “The majority of stories were just news," said the project’s director, Tom Rosenstiel. > > Fox News Channel was twice as likely to be positive than negative, while CNN and MSNBC were evenhanded. ---
**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:** [June 23, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/162 "2005-06-23T20:06:08Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Did Pew also survey the political affiliation of the publishers and editors, the folks who actually decide what stories get planted on the (literal and metaphorical) front pages? > > As for the OP, Of course not. That would constitute “looking behind the curtain” – a very large no-no, I believe. ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/163 "2005-06-23T20:31:48Z")
> [@flight](#): > > 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. I’m having a problem understanding your argument. If there is to be a bias at all, where does it come from if not from the internal bias of the reporter or institution for which he reports? Are you saying that there might be some kind of accidental bias that manifests out of nothing? ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/164 "2005-06-23T20:35:53Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Did Pew also survey the political affiliation of the publishers and editors, the folks who actually decide what stories get planted on the (literal and metaphorical) front pages? Yes. > [@](#): > > The survey broke news people down into three separate groups. Executives were those who have chief financial responsibility for the news company–publishers, CEOs, chief financial officers. Senior news executives included editors-in-chief, executive editors, managing editors and executive producers, down to assistant managing editors. Newsroom staff included everyone from bureau chiefs down to cub reporters. Please actually see the linked report if you have further questions about it. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/165 "2005-06-23T20:39:17Z")
I’ve read the report, and still don’t see any breakdown of the political affiliation of the publishers/editors/folks in charge contained therein. The old canard that “the media is liberal because journalists identify themselves as liberal” is meaningless without this data. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/166 "2005-06-23T21:11:54Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I’ve read the report, and still don’t see any breakdown of the political affiliation of the publishers/editors/folks in charge contained therein. The old canard that “the media is liberal because journalists identify themselves as liberal” is meaningless without this data. I don’t know what report you read, but the one I linked to breaks it down this way: Of the national executive financial officers, 16% are liberal, 60% are moderate, 19% are conservative, and 5% refused to answer or didn’t know. Of the local executive financial officers, 11% are liberal, 76% are moderate, 11% are conservative, and 2% are very conservative. Of the national senior executives (editors-in-chief, etc.), 2% are very liberal, 25% are liberal, 59% are moderate, 4% are conservative, and 10% refused to answer or didn’t know. Of the local senior executives, 24% are liberal, 60% are moderate, 11% are conservative, 1% are very conservative, and 4% refused to answer or didn’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/167 "2005-06-23T22:54:25Z")
> [@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. Get the heart. I would like to know what exactly you think was “dishonest debating.” ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/168 "2005-06-24T15:23:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m having a problem understanding your argument. If there is to be a bias at all, where does it come from if not from the internal bias of the reporter or institution for which he reports? Are you saying that there might be some kind of accidental bias that manifests out of nothing? Of course the bias comes from the reporter or institution. What I had intended to say (which is somewhat garbled I see as the do in my last sentence should have been don’t) is that a reporter who recognizes his own personal bias and therefore is always analyzing what he does to see if it is leaking into his reporting is more valuable than someone who thinks they are unbiased and therefore allows their biases to go unchecked. So, a high percentage of people who identify as conservative in an organization does not necessarily mean that it will skew the news that direction. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/169 "2005-06-24T15:37:23Z")
It can even go in the opposite direction - a medium sensitive to allegations of bias may overcompensate, giving opposing views even more weight than they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/170 "2005-06-24T15:37:45Z")
> [@flight](#): > > Of course the bias comes from the reporter or institution. What I had intended to say (which is somewhat garbled I see as the do in my last sentence should have been don’t) is that a reporter who recognizes his own personal bias and therefore is always analyzing what he does to see if it is leaking into his reporting is more valuable than someone who thinks they are unbiased and therefore allows their biases to go unchecked. > > So, a high percentage of people who identify as conservative in an organization does not necessarily mean that it will skew the news that direction. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/171 "2005-06-24T17:24:45Z")
> [@flight](#): > > Of course the bias comes from the reporter or institution. What I had intended to say (which is somewhat garbled I see as the do in my last sentence should have been don’t) is that a reporter who recognizes his own personal bias and therefore is always analyzing what he does to see if it is leaking into his reporting is more valuable than someone who thinks they are unbiased and therefore allows their biases to go unchecked. > > So, a high percentage of people who identify as conservative in an organization does not necessarily mean that it will skew the news that direction. True… but that sort of bias is tough to ferret out, because many of its manifestations pass unnoticed. In the other thread, the “Not enough minorities” comment, for example. At first blush, OF COURSE anyone can see that not enough minorities are represented. It’s obvious. It’s onyl when someone else - someone who doesn’t have the same basic assumptions – comes along does the question arise. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/172 "2005-06-24T21:29:14Z")
I don’t know how anyone can sit and watch FoxNews and then listen to NPR and even put them on the same level. FoxNews is painfully tailored to push Republican talking points at a sub-USA Today level of appreciation. NPR definately reflects a bias of its audience and funders and employees of an urbanite liberalism, but there is none of the careful scripting and coordination with any sort of coherent liberal or Democratic message, and it generally restricts itself to some fairly high journalistic standards of balance. But more importantly, NPR’s news and interview shows have featured intelligent conservatives for years now in one of the only forums they have to actually lay out their views in a way that not even FoxNews really does. And instead of the way that FoxNews packages its few and occasional liberal voices within its spin (basically just as sounding boards for them to rail against later with the last word), they generally go unpackaged, faced only with the normal journalistic codas instead of careful dissections and later featured as a punching bag on Hannity. No one on NPR runs around saying that it’s Cato guests are buffoons, traitors, or anything like the sort. That’s par for the course on FoxNews, which interjects its conservative pundits to give “analysis” on even straight news stories. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/173 "2005-06-24T21:33:26Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > I don’t know how anyone can sit and watch FoxNews and then listen to NPR and even put them on the same level. FoxNews is painfully tailored to push Republican talking points at a sub-USA Today level of appreciation. NPR definately reflects a bias of its audience and funders and employees of an urbanite liberalism, but there is none of the careful scripting and coordination with any sort of coherent liberal or Democratic message, and it generally restricts itself to some fairly high journalistic standards of balance. > > But more importantly, NPR’s news and interview shows have featured intelligent conservatives for years now in one of the only forums they have to actually lay out their views in a way that not even FoxNews really does. And instead of the way that FoxNews packages its few and occasional liberal voices within its spin (basically just as sounding boards for them to rail against later with the last word), they generally go unpackaged, faced only with the normal journalistic codas instead of careful dissections and later featured as a punching bag on Hannity. No one on NPR runs around saying that it’s Cato guests are buffoons, traitors, or anything like the sort. That’s par for the course on FoxNews, which interjects its conservative pundits to give “analysis” on even straight news stories. The bias at Fox is much more overt, and intentional, than the bias at NPR? I can agree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/174 "2005-06-25T01:02:14Z")
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. ---
**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, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/175 "2005-06-25T01:06:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The bias at Fox is much more overt, and intentional, than the bias at NPR? > > I can agree with that. Again, you seem to want this as a quid pro quo. It’s not going to happen. They are separate entities and should be treated as such. And have you read the link provided by **Hentor the Barbarian**? You can hop in the wayback machine to page 1 to see it. The spin is heavy but there is information there to be argued. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/176 "2005-06-25T03:05:59Z")
[http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240003](http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240003) > [@](#): > > Fox News’ Special Report parroted White House spin that Rove comments referred to two “philosophies,” not two parties > > Fox News host Brit Hume and White House correspondent Carl Cameron both made misleading claims in defense of controversial remarks by deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, who in a June 22 speech stated: “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Both Hume and Cameron mouthed the White House talking point that Rove was comparing two different “philosophies” – liberal and conservative – and wasn’t targeting Democrats. In fact, Rove specifically mentioned two prominent Democrats – Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) – as examples of those who merely want to “understand our enemies.” > > … > > During the “Fox News All-Star Panel,” Hume initiated a discussion of the issue with this disclaimer: “Now it’s probably worth noting at the outset here that Rove directed his criticism and his comparison at … liberals as opposed to conservatives. **He never did say Democrats. Democrats seem to have rushed to make themselves the targets of this attack by Rove**.” Moments later, however, Hume contradicted himself, as the weblog Daily Howler highlighted. When Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke suggested that Rove “went over the top,” that he should have said “some liberals,” and that he was “referring to [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org).” \*\*Hume responded, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) lies at the heart of the Democratic Party nowadays, doesn’t it, Mort?” \*\* > > But the full text of Rove’s speech shows that he did specifically target Democrats. Following his statement that “liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Rove went on to cite Dean and Durbin as examples Thanks to Brit Hume and Carl Rove for a current example of overt bias at Fox. ---
**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, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/177 "2005-06-25T04:00:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240003](http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240003) > > Thanks to Brit Hume and Carl Rove for a current example of overt bias at Fox. :anticipating Bricker’s remarks. And hey, he would have a point on this: Actually, all this proves is that Brit Hume has an overt bias…and that he is an idiot. He also looks like an elephant seal. Also, Brit Humes show is a news discussion show (pseudo-editorial if I remember correctly). Anything he says can be contextualized in the editorial format and thusly does not reflect upon the journalism department or the whole of fox news. The point is that all this is, is a piece of bias. It does not cover the whole of the Fox News Network. However it is a far larger piece than Bricker has in the NPR thread. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/178 "2005-06-25T04:18:10Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > :anticipating Bricker’s remarks. And hey, he would have a point on this: > > Actually, all this proves is that Brit Hume has an overt bias…and that he is an idiot. He also looks like an elephant seal. Also, Brit Humes show is a news discussion show (pseudo-editorial if I remember correctly). Anything he says can be contextualized in the editorial format and thusly does not reflect upon the journalism department or the whole of fox news. > > The point is that all this is, is a piece of bias. It does not cover the whole of the Fox News Network. However it is a far larger piece than Bricker has in the NPR thread. [http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2005/0603.html](http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2005/0603.html) > [@](#): > > FNC said it “continued its dominance” over CNN, its chief rival, and said its numbers were up 11 percent compared to May 2004. Meanwhile, CNN lost viewers. > > FNC’s top talent clearly dominated the prime-time hours. The O’Reilly Factor topped the charts with an average 1,985,000 viewers. It was followed by four other Fox shows: Hannity & Colmes, Greta Van Susteren, Shepard Smith, and Special Report With Brit Hume. Fox news has made a lot of hay by pointing at their ratings; problem is that for the ratings they do include their pseudo news shows, even when talking about ratings, they are not fair and balanced. ---
**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, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/179 "2005-06-25T13:04:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2005/0603.html](http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2005/0603.html) > > Fox news has made a lot of hay by pointing at their ratings; problem is that for the ratings they do include their pseudo news shows, even when talking about ratings, they are not fair and balanced. Look, I’m only saying exactly what Bricker is going to say when he comes in here. One piece of evidence is not proof. The fact that they are whores when it comes to ratings and attention proves only that they are ratings whores. You can also expect a hijack on whether or not [Moveon.org](http://Moveon.org) is actually the heart of the democratic party because that would make his statement correct and then it isn’t biased and yadda yadda yadda. Also, the link to the video in your first link is highly edited. Is there a spot where I can find an unedited video? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089/180 "2005-06-25T14:02:55Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Look, I’m only saying exactly what Bricker is going to say when he comes in here. One piece of evidence is not proof. 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fox-news-channel-is-not-biased/309089.md?page=10)