Fox News, Empirically the place to go for fair and balanced election coverage

Ah. PEJ pretends to be non-partisan and therefore can be trusted.

I get it now. Good one, Scylla.

Frankly, any neutral story about that team would have, “Red Wings Suck!” liberally interspersed throughout the story, perhaps as frequently as every two sentences. At least, that’s what the Denver Post taught me.

In point of fact, I’m voting for Obama.

Even right wing commentators mentioned how silly the Palin Choice was, seeing the embarrassing negative ads made by McCain, the bad polls, the really clumsy character assassination of Obama, etc. One has to conclude that the McCain campaign was the one that already produced too many negative activities. So many that when Fox News comes as fair and balanced in a survey like this it has to be attributed on Fox News giving a break to McCain and not covering all the underhanded McCain/Palin moves.

Well yes. I allow for the possibility of a flawed study providing incorrect conclusions. My post here may be construed as an invitation to analyze the methodology and demonstrate that it it is invalid.

However, the simple possibility that it may be flawed is not an argument that it is.

I didn’t think you had. If I were inventing the numbers I would not dare make them demonstrate as much bias against MSNBC and NBC as this one does.

The methodology is here:

http://journalism.org/node/13441 Go to it.

Hey! I resemble that remark!
:slight_smile:

Actually, this couldn’t be more wrong. This is why we have double-blind studies. Careful minds guard themselves against selection bias, adverse selection, and other biases.

The human mind will tend to find what it is looking for.

This study doesn’t include commentary, so there’s the rub. Fox is like 99% commentary, but garbage like Hannity doesn’t get counted in the study.

Is it too simplistic to suggest the answer is simply that McCain has done more negative things?

Yes. Yes, it is.

McCain does not do negative things, and if you think he does, you are, in fact, guilty of negative thinking.

I understand that Fox Gnaws coverage of the Black Death was entirely negative. Now, I’m not saying that means Fox is biased, I’m only implying that.

As you know, I really don’t like it when words are put in my mouth that I did not say. I do not like it when arguments are attributed to me that I didn’t make.

At no point did I say PEJ pretends to be partisan. I don’t appreciate your suggesting that I did.

Get over yourself. Seriously.

I am making logical deductions from your posts. If my deductions are incorrect, you are welcome to demonstrate why they are not. You have not done so. You have merely gone into a hissy fit.

I will no longer respond to your hissy fits here in GD. If you wish to comment appropriately to GD, I’ll respond here; otherwise, feel free to Pit me.

Ok I did.

That describes the how and why of who they chose to sample (which networks, newspapers, etc) and what time slots they sample from. It also describes how they assign coders and have checks and balances to no one coder can skew the results.

I see no mention of how the coders code (is saying Obama ahead in the polls a “positive” story?). Nor do I see anything controlling for time given to a story.

Frankly the methodology you linked to is totally unenlightening for our purposes (not your fault I know but still…).

In fairness, Fox News’ hard news pieces have actually been pretty fair lately. In case anyone missed it, Sheppard Smith actually called out Joe the Plumber for being a complete freaking idiot and made a point of noting that Obama has always been pro-Israel.

Obviously, the opinion pieces are ridiculously slanted, but then they don’t claim to be fair. Well, except O’Reilly, and surely nobody takes him seriously anymore?

Shep Smith is actually pretty good. He’s like an oasis of professionalism and reason on that nework.

Except that time he ran over another reporter on purpose while covering the 2000 election, of course.

Double-blind studies have to do with not knowing the source of the information or the point of the study while conducting it, among other things.

After the study has been completed, it does make sense, as a “consumer” of the study, to view the conclusion with more scrutiny if the study is claiming something highly improbable. It has nothing to do with the fact that studies have to be double-blind.

By the way, was the study you mention double-blind? That is

  • Was text from the broadcasts excerpted and the news organization’s name removed (so that the researchers did not know if that piece of news came from, say CNN or Fox News)?
  • Also, were people hired to look for specific phrases and to count them, without telling them that the purpose of the study was to find out how biased different news organizations are?

Because if the above things were not done, the study is not double-blind and susceptible to bias.

Like in this case?

IMHO when bias is the subject, it is the only time that then the opinion of the people on both the right and the left have to be accounted. So many times I have seen that right wingers come saying Fox is fair and balanced, many on the left then think that that is to be expected from right leaning people, it is their news after all.

However when the opinion of the left is considered the right wing is really unfair, many on the left see the corporate press as being centrist, maybe a little to the left. But overall they do not see outfits like CNN, ABC or NBC as fair and balanced or that they are news outlets that fairly deal with items that are considered important to the left like their complaints against corporations taking more control of fewer news outlets.

In other words, many on the left do not see the mainstream TV media as “their news” It is only recently that I could identify unapologetic left leaning commentators in MSNBC specially, and one has to notice that is cable/internet news, clearly they have an audience that is more left leaning than traditional TV viewers.

If we take the citation on the OP seriously, I think that the corporate press is hitting on McCain because McCain choose to run to the extreme right and** it is impossible now to be fair to points that equate Obama with Muslims or terrorists.** I would expect that in the future, when a more reasonable campaigner appears from the republicans (no, not Palin) that then we will see Fox news be once again unfair and unbalanced and it will be the mainstream media that will be “fair and balanced” once more for the researchers on the OP.