# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/321 "2013-10-20T16:48:23Z")
All right. If everyone has gotten their attempts at humor out of their systems, please refrain from further hijacking this thread. Similarly, arguments over the quality of pundits really deserve their own thread rather than hijacking this one. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/322 "2013-10-20T16:49:00Z")
A new book by David Folkenflik reports that Fox News PR staff are paid to post pro-Fox comments on websites to counter any criticism of the network. The staffers each maintain dozens – perhaps as many as a hundred – alias profiles from which to post the comments. They do things like using throwaway Internet connections so site admins won’t realize the commenters are coming from Fox. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing this is not typical behavior among news organizations. [http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/20/fox-news-reportedly-used-fake-commenter-account/196509](http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/20/fox-news-reportedly-used-fake-commenter-account/196509) ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/323 "2013-10-21T09:37:29Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > A new book by David Folkenflik reports that Fox News PR staff are paid to post pro-Fox comments on websites to counter any criticism of the network. The staffers each maintain dozens – perhaps as many as a hundred – alias profiles from which to post the comments. They do things like using throwaway Internet connections so site admins won’t realize the commenters are coming from Fox. \ ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/324 "2013-10-21T16:38:04Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > A new book by David Folkenflik reports that Fox News PR staff are paid to post pro-Fox comments on websites to counter any criticism of the network. The staffers each maintain dozens – perhaps as many as a hundred – alias profiles from which to post the comments. They do things like using throwaway Internet connections so site admins won’t realize the commenters are coming from Fox. > > I’m not sure, but I’m guessing this is not typical behavior among news organizations. > > [http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/20/fox-news-reportedly-used-fake-commenter-account/196509](http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/10/20/fox-news-reportedly-used-fake-commenter-account/196509) And [here’s a book](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_%28book%29) by a 28-year CBS reporter that claimed that TV news had a liberal bias. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/325 "2013-10-21T16:43:31Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > \ > Courtesy of, well, me. Fox is easily the worst network on TV nowadays. The only sources popularly used that could be said to be worse are talk radio like Limbaugh and sites like PrisonPlanet and Infowars. My thoughts are: 1. There are probably topics where viewers of liberal media are less informed, like nuclear power and GMO crops. 2. It’s hard to connect viewer knowledge with media bias. E.g. readers of _People_ magazine are likely less informed than Fox viewers; is that due to political bias? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/326 "2013-10-21T16:45:13Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > That’s not what I said either, though. “Fox did this a dozen times, MSNBC did this once, they’re both basically the same” doesn’t cut it for me. > > I will, however, ask proof for the two following: > > -That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and whatever other media you choose as “mainstream” have ever defended an organization as vile as the ones Fox are defending. > > -That CNN, MSNBC, NPR, have ever photoshopped pictures of somebody else’s face to portray them in a negative light. The only thing I can think of is the Time magazine blackening of OJ Simpson. (I don’t consider the “kayaking during ankle-high flood” stuff to count, here). > > Because while I won’t go for the stab you seem to be aiming for, those two I HIGHLY doubt are done by anybody else. > > Also, I consider there to be a HUGE difference between falsely reporting a story, and falsely reporting a story that is specifically opening up a child for harassment, abuse, and violence. This is the equivalent to publishing a story put out by the KKK naming and attacking a specific person - _only targeting a child_. Decent news organizations - decent people - just wouldn’t do that. I’m still waiting for this evidence, and will assume not receiving it is essentially admitting that Fox News is unique among news stations in supporting anti-American terrorism. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/327 "2013-10-21T16:49:15Z")
Post 288. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/328 "2013-10-21T16:49:50Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > And [here’s a book](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_%28book%29) by a 28-year CBS reporter that claimed that TV news had a liberal bias. And we discussed that already, What you have there is an unreliable narrator. [http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/01/28/bernard-goldbergs-bias-against-the-facts/147058](http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/01/28/bernard-goldbergs-bias-against-the-facts/147058) > **[Bias Short on Substance](https://fair.org/extra/bias-short-on-substance/)** > > Proving that irony is alive and well post-September 11, a book deriding the national press corps for its suppression of conservative views has received enormous attention in that same "liberal" media. Bernard Goldberg's Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes... > [@](#): > > Instead of numbers or specific instances of biased coverage, Goldberg prefers broad generalizations, especially when it comes to the media’s alleged pro-feminist bias. The broadcast news has done “a million” stories about deadbeat dads, goes a typical claim, but has aired “hardly a word about prostate cancer.” Actually, a quick search of Nexis shows that prostate cancer has been mentioned 393 times on the three major networks since January 2000–while the phrase “deadbeat dads” came up exactly 19 times. > > Borrowing an argument from the conservative Media Research Center, Goldberg contends that the big networks “re-discovered” homelessness at the beginning of the Bush administration after ignoring the story during the Clinton years (see Goldberg’s chapter “How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness”). But Goldberg evidently isn’t watching very carefully: The segments he cites (ABC, 2/11/01; CNN, 8/4/01) both pointed out that the current rise began in 1999 and 2000–that is, during the Clinton years. > > (Goldberg has previously complained–in a February 2, 1990 New York Times op-ed piece–that the media are too soft on the homeless, the unemployed and other underdogs, failing to point out that “many of the homeless are truly drug addicts or alcoholics or simply lazy,” or that some laid-off workers “thought kids who studied were wimps, or worse.”) > > An asymmetrical world > > When Goldberg points to alleged bias in media news, it’s often just evidence that the world is asymmetrical. For instance, he’s outraged that reporters who label Rush Limbaugh “conservative” fail to call Rosie O’Donnell “liberal.” The fact that Limbaugh’s show is virtually always about hard-core right-wing politics, while O’Donnell’s is much more likely to be about Broadway shows or snack foods, seems to elude him. Goldberg writes that Dan Rather characterized George W. Bush’s presidential agenda as “Republican-right,” and wonders why he didn’t “talk about President Clinton and his ‘Democratic-left agenda.’” Could it have anything to do with the fact that Bush ran as a proud standard-bearer of the GOP’s right wing, while Clinton boasted of moving his party from the left to the center? > > Large chunks of the book deal with forms of bias that could hardly be called liberal. For example, Goldberg chides NBC anchor Tom Brokaw for failing to do a story about a defective airplane engine made by NBC parent General Electric. This kind of pro-corporate cover-up is something progressive media critics have been pointing out for years. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/329 "2013-10-21T16:51:37Z")
Right. So you end up with a bunch of he-said-he-said stuff. Sounds like they’re all equally biased to me. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/330 "2013-10-21T16:52:01Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Post 288. I’m sorry, but you asked me “You don’t think the media has defended the Muslim Brotherhood?” doesn’t really work as an argument. It’s up to you to prove it. For example: You don’t think conservatives support fox news just because they want to murder non-whites? You don’t think conservatives want to put all homosexuals into concentration camps? You don’t think Deeg is obviously just a paid Fox shill? So far, all of these have just as much backing as your statements! Obviously we can take them to be true. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/331 "2013-10-21T16:53:39Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > My thoughts are: > > 1. There are probably topics where viewers of liberal media are less informed, like nuclear power and GMO crops. Last I checked the misinformation in those subjects affects all, liberal and rightist alike, many times when there is a survey done about allowing a site to use GMO or Nuclear power the opposition goes to the 80-90%, unless all that surveyed people became liberals, the simple explanation is old NIMBY. > [@Deeg](#): > > 1. It’s hard to connect viewer knowledge with media bias. E.g. readers of _People_ magazine are likely less informed than Fox viewers; is that due to political bias? No, that is old GIGO. 🙂 ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/332 "2013-10-21T17:01:06Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Right. So you end up with a bunch of he-said-he-said stuff. Sounds like they’re all equally biased to me. Again, Health care, Climate change, and other items already demonstrate that you are reaching for a false equivalency. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/333 "2013-10-21T17:37:48Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Right. So you end up with a bunch of he-said-he-said stuff. Sounds like they’re all equally biased to me. That is supreme intellectual laziness. Is there at least one example of Fox News displaying pro-right bias. Certainly. Is there at least one example of some other major network displaying pro-left bias. Almost certainly, given the sheer number of topics that get covered every year. So you look at that and say “well, I guess they’re equally bad”, and you probably also proudly pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for being the only one wise and objective enough to really view the world the way it is, while all the partisan sheeple just baaaaa baaaaa about how bad the other side is. Except, of course, that your position is based entirely on totally absolving yourself of responsibility for actually THINKING, instead you just kind of get to assume that the world fits into your preconceived model. Ask yourself this: is it POSSIBLE that one side’s media (at least as they happen to exist here and now today) is worse than the other? Is there any reason that it MUST be the case that somehow each side is equally bad? ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/334 "2013-10-21T17:41:51Z")
And I think you’re a victim of confirmation bias. Until I see an independent study comparing the multiple media outlets I will continue to believe they are all equally biased. > [@Karrius](#): > > I’m sorry, but you asked me “You don’t think the media has defended the Muslim Brotherhood?” doesn’t really work as an argument. It’s up to you to prove it. For example: > > You don’t think conservatives support fox news just because they want to murder non-whites? > > You don’t think conservatives want to put all homosexuals into concentration camps? > > You don’t think Deeg is obviously just a paid Fox shill? > > So far, all of these have just as much backing as your statements! Obviously we can take them to be true. Fine. Here’s a story of a CNN journalist [defending the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/13/cnn-journalists-blast-loeschs-outrageous-commen/186183). Doesn’t look like she’s been fired. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/335 "2013-10-21T17:46:10Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > That is supreme intellectual laziness. Is there at least one example of Fox News displaying pro-right bias. Certainly. Is there at least one example of some other major network displaying pro-left bias. Almost certainly, given the sheer number of topics that get covered every year. I would agree with you except **I’ve posted independent studies that show Fox to be less biased in some topics.** Until I saw those studies I believed Fox to be more biased, perhaps grossly so. As I’ve already stated GIGO posted a study showing Fox to be more biased regarding AGW. The rest of the thread is swapping a lot of anecdotes. A reasonable conclusion is that overall they are equally biased but on individual topics it swings one way or another. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/336 "2013-10-21T17:48:53Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > And I think you’re a victim of confirmation bias. Until I see an independent study comparing the multiple media outlets I will continue to believe they are all equally biased. This was a response to GIGO. Sorry for any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/337 "2013-10-21T17:51:14Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Fine. Here’s a story of a CNN journalist [defending the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/13/cnn-journalists-blast-loeschs-outrageous-commen/186183). Doesn’t look like she’s been fired. _Dana Loesch?_. She is/was a CNN contributor, not a CNN journalist. Her day job is running a right-wing radio show. I don’t think you fire occasional contributors as much as just not invite them back. Anyway, your cite says that Loesch said hateful things (of course), and the real journalists at CNN immediately piled on her for it. I don’t think this is a good example of CNN defending a hateful organization. ---
**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:** [October 21, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/338 "2013-10-21T17:52:54Z")
[MediaMatters.com](http://MediaMatters.com) calls her a CNN journalist. Since I don’t watch CNN I’ll take their word for it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/339 "2013-10-21T17:53:17Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Fine. Here’s a story of a CNN journalist [defending the U.S. Marines who allegedly urinated on the dead bodies of Taliban forces](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/13/cnn-journalists-blast-loeschs-outrageous-commen/186183). Doesn’t look like she’s been fired. I don’t understand what that link is meant to prove. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/340 "2013-10-21T17:58:49Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > [MediaMatters.com](http://MediaMatters.com) calls her a CNN journalist. Since I don’t watch CNN I’ll take their word for it. They do no such thing. They call her a contributor, like in this article which, coincidentally, mentions how she was suspended following the incident you referred to. [http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/01/17/dana-loesch-not-identified-as-cnn-contributor-o/192294](http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/01/17/dana-loesch-not-identified-as-cnn-contributor-o/192294) Keep on tryin’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=18)