# Is Fox News really all that bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625 "2012-10-03T21:14:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Hottius\_Maximus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hottius\_Maximus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hottius_Maximus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/201 "2013-01-12T03:54:25Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Your post consisted entirely of unsubstantiated opinion (except for a factual statement about Goldberg). **zoid** ’s response can be viewed in exactly the same vein, pure opinion. Because “liberal bias” is itself a biased judgement, an opinion. We have no rigid metric for defining “liberal” (some people have even started to claim that it is actually a sort of synonym for glibertarian), so whatever you perceive as a bias is absolutely nothing more than what you perceive. > > Media is a business, working for businesses (advertisers). The fundamental agenda of business does not coincide with what most would consider a “liberal” (left-ish) agenda. Hence, it is illogical to imagine that the media business would have a bias that conflicts with their fundamental agenda, suggestions that it would have a conflicted bias simply sound delusional. And yet you still give no hard evidence to prove your statement that Goldberg’s book is full of fucking lies. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/202 "2013-01-12T18:52:56Z")
> [@Hottius\_Maximus](#): > > And yet you still give no hard evidence to prove your statement that Goldberg’s book is full of fucking lies. “Bullshit” is not the same thing as “lies”. One can present non-false information in a way that renders it even more valueless than the fecal excretions of bovines. In that sense it appears, from [this review](http://www.crimsonbird.com/media/bias.htm), that “bullshit” is an apt way to describe Goldberg’s book. Yes, the review does appear to be somewhat biased, which is surely unfair as “Bias” is such an honest and even-handed book. Sorry that I did not find a more favorable review, reading the book myself is not a realistic option (I have better uses for my money and time). ---
**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:** [January 12, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/203 "2013-01-12T21:53:01Z")
As I pointed before in another thread, FOX distorts what most of the climate science experts are reporting: > **[False balance: Fox News demands a recount on US’ warmest year](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/)** > > “Is that just math you do as a skeptic to make yourself feel better?”… > [@](#): > > False balance: Fox News demands a recount on US’ warmest year > “Is that just math you do as a skeptic to make yourself feel better?” > [@](#): > > When the Berkeley Earth project examined temperature records, they used a statistical method that didn’t repair the breaks. Instead, they treated the two sides of the break as independent temperature records. Yet that team came up with a temperature reconstruction that was nearly identical to ones made using NOAA’s data. Since that time, NOAA has gone back and updated their records further, identifying additional breaks that had gone undetected and updating its algorithms to take advantage of advances in computing power. If anything, its current data is even more reliable. > > And that’s exactly what a NOAA spokesperson told Fox News. Yet the Fox News team felt compelled to go out and find three people who don’t believe him or the scientists he represents. > > One is a blogger who writes under the name Steve Goddard, who told Fox, “The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it starts out as.” But Goddard doesn’t explain why he thinks that’s the case, nor why Berkeley Earth came up with similar results when they weren’t using some of NOAA’s adjustments. And Fox doesn’t explain why they’re putting NOAA’s word up against someone who doesn’t study the climate and has only bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering. A cursory examination would have also revealed that Goddard has attacked climate researchers before, only to find out his criticisms were completely wrong and based on a trivial error. > > The report does include one scientist with some relevant experience, Roy Spencer. But again, Fox does not appear to have done any checking of Spencer’s background. Spencer has been known to let his personal views cloud his scientific judgement, as evidenced by his wholehearted support of intelligent design and disbelief of evolution. In the case of environmental issues, he’s made his personal views very clear, stating, “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.” A lot of his climate research isn’t well respected by the community, either. > > But Spencer is brought out anyway and given a chance to blast NOAA for its adjustments. At least he voiced a specific complaint, saying that urbanization has thrown off the temperature records. Unfortunately, that claim isn’t consistent with the available data. People have tracked the impact of urbanization both globally and in the US and found that it doesn’t influence the temperature record. The Berkeley Earth project, linked above, also found no influence of urbanization. Yet Spencer is allowed to point the finger at it unchallenged. > [@](#): > > What are we to make of this chaotic jumble of unreliable sources and internal contradictions? As far as Fox is concerned, apparently nothing; the article doesn’t draw any conclusion about the science whatsoever. **It’s a classic example of false balance** , allowing the reporter to present a biased picture while maintaining the appearance of impartiality. But the reporter does let Watts show his biases when he’s given the last word, and he uses it to insinuate that NOAA’s scientists should probably be in prison, saying, “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.” As Ars Technica noticed: “Back in 2010, a memo leaked from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn’t even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force.” So, yes, they are really that bad, and they do not care that they continue to pile on the evidence. ---
**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:** [January 12, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/204 "2013-01-12T21:57:15Z")
MN, wrong Goldberg. But interestingly both do like to follow bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/205 "2013-01-12T23:36:28Z")
You mean Ruben? I can imagine if he had had a chance to take a good look at FNC, he would have surely thrown up his hands and retired, knowing that he could never design anything _that_ convoluted and incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/206 "2013-01-12T23:41:23Z")
> [@For You](#): > > You mean Ruben? I can imagine if he had had a chance to take a good look at FNC, he would have surely thrown up his hands and retired, knowing that he could never design anything _that_ convoluted and incomprehensible. He was probably thinking of Jonah Goldberg, aka the Doughy Pantload. ---
**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:** [January 13, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/207 "2013-01-13T01:24:33Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > He was probably thinking of Jonah Goldberg, aka the Doughy Pantload. [Ed McMahon] You are correct sir! [/EM] Yes, I was referring to Jonah Goldberg, aka [“total failure in history”](http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html) Goldberg. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/208 "2013-01-13T03:22:09Z")
> [@Hottius\_Maximus](#): > > That being said, if nobody believes me about the left wing bias, then I cannot convince anyone although I do suggest that you read “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg. Next time, you might trying bringing actual evidence, like we did to demonstrate how the supposed left-wing media were pretty much lap dogs for George W Bush, especially in regards to the Iraq War. Hint: “Read this book” isn’t exactly evidence. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/209 "2013-01-26T19:39:05Z")
Jon Stewart pointed out something rather egregious Fox commentators did: Testifying before a Senate Committee, Hillary Clinton was asked a series of inane Gotcha questions and finally raised her voice to say: [QUOTE=Hillary Clinton] With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. [/QUOTE] Several different Fox commentators played the same incomplete excerpt: [QUOTE=Hillary Clinton] With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? [/QUOTE] and then reprimanded Secretary Clinton, saying it was her job to figure out what happened and do everything she could to prevent it from ever happening again. Were they lying? Perhaps not, legally. Were their comments despicable? If you need to ask, you’re part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/210 "2013-01-27T01:56:46Z")
Faux News thinks 8.6% \> 9.0%. > **[Fox News still makes awesome charts](https://flowingdata.com/2011/12/12/fox-news-still-makes-awesome-charts/)** > > Charts and graphs are great, because they can let you see a pattern that you might not see in a spreadsheet, but they only work when you use the actual data. Fox News isn’t doing themselves a… ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/211 "2013-01-30T20:51:27Z")
> **[Comedians Better Political Analysts & Fact Checkers Than Mainstream Media?...](https://egbertowillies.com/2012/07/26/comedians-better-political-analysts-fact-checkers-than-mainstream-media/)** > > Sorry, there was a YouTube error. Many of those more liberally inclined justifiable accuse Fox News of misinformation and extreme bias. The Jon Stewart Comedy Central video below shows the extent of Fox News bias. Sadly it is a disservice to every... Just in case this has not be mentioned in the thread. The Faux News hammering on the “you did not build that” out of context quote and the FALSE equivalences other media outlets give that and mistakes made by non-Faux outlets. > [@](#): > > It is true that Fox News misrepresented President Obama’s statement where he was stating that no one builds a business all by themselves given that society has provided the infrastructure and education to have made that business successful. It is also true that NBC misrepresented tapes of calls to 911 made by George Zimmerman just before he killed Trayvon Martin. ABC misrepresented the Aurora Colorado killer James Holmes as a member of the TEA Party. CNN and Fox News erroneously stated that the Supreme Court overturned the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). > > While NBC took appropriate actions by firing those involved, ABC provided an immediate apology, CNN provided an immediate correction and apology, Fox News not only continued the misrepresentation but further built stories around both fallacies. Is it any wonder that American confidence in television news is at an all time low? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/212 "2013-01-30T21:04:51Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > [http://egbertowillies.com/2012/07/26/comedians-better-political-analysts-fact-checkers-than-mainstream-media/](http://egbertowillies.com/2012/07/26/comedians-better-political-analysts-fact-checkers-than-mainstream-media/) > > Just in case this has not be mentioned in the thread. The Faux News hammering on the “you did not build that” out of context quote and the FALSE equivalences other media outlets give that and mistakes made by non-Faux outlets. Boy, are you late to the party. Haven’t you heard ? The new forcefully-pried-out-of-context soundbyte to be hammering on is Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make ?”. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/213 "2013-02-09T11:33:46Z")
[http://americablog.com/2013/02/fox-news-solar-only-works-in-germany-because-its-sunny-there.html](http://americablog.com/2013/02/fox-news-solar-only-works-in-germany-because-its-sunny-there.html) > [@](#): > > From the network that brought you WMD in Iraq, we learn that sure, solar power works in wacky places like Germany, but it would never work in the US because the Germans, bronze gods that they are, get far more sunlight than gloomy, cold, rainy America. I suppose some Faux News watchers believe that. Small wonder the organization has been polling lower. > **[Annual Poll Finds Fox News' Credibility Rapidly Declined](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-news-credibility-low-poll_n_2632084)** > > Annual Poll Finds Fox News' Credibility Rapidly Declined Fox News’ Credibility At ‘Record Low’: PPP Poll > [@](#): > > Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we’ve been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/214 "2013-03-03T04:30:33Z")
Let me preface by saying I do not watch Fox News, never have, and have generally assumed that Fox is biased (which it is). I consider myself a centrist and didn’t vote for W (voted Dem both times) or Obama (voted Rep/Lib). I have a friend, however, who is conservative and today we were talking about media bias. He mentioned a UCLA study that purported to show that Fox was one of the least biased news sources. I didn’t believe him but tonight did some research and [here’s the study](http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm). It’s not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox’s coverage. The study has its detractors and [this Dope thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613982) slams it without making any realistic counter IMO. However, [this study](http://www.journalism.org/node/8197) (which apparently involves Harvard researchers) indicates that Fox News was less biased in its 2008 presidential coverage than CNN and MSNBC. A comparison between conservative and liberal talk radio (apparently there are liberal radio shows) indicates that liberal shows are more biased than conservative ones (albeit with relatively few samples). Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources. The ratings in the end are subjective, of course, (what consistutes a “negative” article?) but the results are more rigorous than swapping anecdotes, which is what this thread does. So, according to these studies, the answer to the original question is no–Fox News isn’t really that bad. I am, however, data/results driven and if there are other rigorous studies that show the opposite I can be convinced otherwise. (Besides, I’d like to “win” the debate with my friend. _grin_) Are there such studies? ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/215 "2013-03-03T04:50:48Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources. I just looked at the first one you cited, and the way it decides bias is by how often a liberal or conservative think tank is cited. So if MSNBC cites the Brookings Institution several times, and Fox News just makes stuff up, Fox will get the less biased rating. Sounds fair to me. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/216 "2013-03-03T04:55:37Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I didn’t believe him but tonight did some research and [here’s the study](http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm). It’s not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox’s coverage. > > The study has its detractors and [this Dope thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613982) slams it without making any realistic counter IMO. Four responses to the OP with two of them providing four serious critiques of the actual methodology that Groseclose used and you deem that not a “realistic counter”? Can you even explain why Groseclose’s “methodology” is even considered real? The original “study” was critiqued quite harshly in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350444) a little after it was published. There are the usual partisan shots from the Left, but there are also a number of specific points raised that should demonstrate that Groseclose used utterly silly methods to produce the result he did, (and that it appears he wanted). ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/217 "2013-03-03T05:02:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Four responses to the OP with two of them providing four serious critiques of the actual methodology that Groseclose used and you deem that not a “realistic counter”? > > Can you even explain why Groseclose’s “methodology” is even considered real? > The original “study” was critiqued quite harshly in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=350444) a little after it was published. There are the usual partisan shots from the Left, but there are also a number of specific points raised that should demonstrate that Groseclose used utterly silly methods to produce the result he did, (and that it appears he wanted). By “counter” I mean something like “that study is flawed; here’s a better one”. Any study that tries to boil down media bias into a couple of numbers is going to be inherently flawed in some way. Any study that purports to show something controversial will have no end of punishing critiques. That’s why I want to see some studies that show something different; at least I can then compare techniques. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/218 "2013-03-04T15:04:51Z")
On OP: Fox is simply a mechanism for increasing a few people’s wealth, like any other commercial enterprise. The product it manufactures is popular consent, in order to maintain policies that benefit its decision-makers. The only thing that makes it in any way interesting is it’s the only commercial network where if it had no advertising and ran as an ostensible “loss” it would still turn an enormous profit for its creators. It’s really quite a perfect little machine: they spend millions to rake in billions via policy profiteering. ---
**Author:** ![Bpelta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Bpelta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bpelta)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/219 "2013-03-04T16:04:22Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Let me preface by saying I do not watch Fox News, never have, and have generally assumed that Fox is biased (which it is). I consider myself a centrist and didn’t vote for W (voted Dem both times) or Obama (voted Rep/Lib). I have a friend, however, who is conservative and today we were talking about media bias. He mentioned a UCLA study that purported to show that Fox was one of the least biased news sources. I didn’t believe him but tonight did some research and [here’s the study](http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm). It’s not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox’s coverage. > > The study has its detractors and [this Dope thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613982) slams it without making any realistic counter IMO. However, [this study](http://www.journalism.org/node/8197) (which apparently involves Harvard researchers) indicates that Fox News was less biased in its 2008 presidential coverage than CNN and MSNBC. A comparison between conservative and liberal talk radio (apparently there are liberal radio shows) indicates that liberal shows are more biased than conservative ones (albeit with relatively few samples). > > Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources. The ratings in the end are subjective, of course, (what consistutes a “negative” article?) but the results are more rigorous than swapping anecdotes, which is what this thread does. > > So, according to these studies, the answer to the original question is no–Fox News isn’t really that bad. I am, however, data/results driven and if there are other rigorous studies that show the opposite I can be convinced otherwise. (Besides, I’d like to “win” the debate with my friend. _grin_) Are there such studies? The thread referred to about the UCLA study was mine, and I put it on the MPSIMS board because I wasn’t attempting a refutation, but gawking at the sheer stupidity of what said study was purported to have said. I’m a full-blown skeptic myself, so I understand being driven by the expertise of data-driven studies, but when a geographer’s telling you the world’s flat,you don’t believe him. I’ll leave the discussion about Pew to others, got a busy day and week. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/220 "2013-03-07T20:59:39Z")
The metaphysical beauty of Fox, in [one four minute segment](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/fox-newsiest-segment-in-fox-news-history.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=12)