# 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:** 24
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/461 "2014-04-02T13:31:53Z")
I’m willing to take Jon Stewart’s word for it, myself. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/462 "2014-04-02T13:40:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > A better method to determine bias is to look at actual actions and their results. Fox has been demonstrated to lie on several occasions in this thread. Where are the examples (similar in nature and number) that other networks post lies? > Reporting in a way that leads their audience to believe that Iraq had WMDs, even years after even President Bush admitted that they did not, demonstrates bias. > Changing the reported party affiliation of politicians caught in scandals demonstrates bias. > Reporting as “news” about the imaginary “WTC Mosque” after their own news department had done a story on the project that showed that what they later reported was false demonstrates bias. > Reporting economic trends in ways that reverse their actual direction demonstrates bias. Don’t forget misleading, deliberately distorted or mis-scaled graphs - another Fox favourite. Here’s [a recent one](http://i.imgur.com/j8OmzVJ.jpg). [Here](http://i.imgur.com/44S97u8.png?1)’s the same graph photoshopped to \*actually \*use its own damned scale. It’s almost as if they were trying to make Obamacare look like it’s much less successful than it really is. But they couldn’t be doing that, what with being fair, balanced and fact-based. It’s a conundrum wrapped in an enema. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/463 "2014-04-02T13:46:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > A better method to determine bias is to look at actual actions and their results… > Find the other networks engaged in the same “errors” with the same frequency and we can consider whether Fox is less biased, but until then, pointing to baseless polls is meaningless. IOW, when the studies contradict the confirmation bias, embrace the confirmation bias. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/464 "2014-04-02T14:13:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IOW, when the studies contradict the confirmation bias, embrace the confirmation bias. > > Regards, > Shodan IOW, when someone says something that you cannot dispute, put other words in their mouth. Your Friendly Neighborhood Czarcasm ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/465 "2014-04-02T14:42:11Z")
I’m confused, **Deeg**. You say > [@Deeg](#): > > Given that…Fox leans heavily right but then suggest it’s _not_ biased? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/466 "2014-04-02T15:07:47Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > So I did a few hours of Googling and the only studies I could find that attempted to compare bias are the ones I’ve linked before and they show Fox to be less biased. No Doper has been able to cite a similar study showing otherwise (GIGO did post a cite showing Fox to be more biased regarding AGW). I really wonder how effective your googling is, when science is concerned FOX has been caught with more than just climate change for their “creative” ways they have with the facts. [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/06/04/fox-news-fact-check-2/](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/06/04/fox-news-fact-check-2/) > [@](#): > > Last week, the anchors at Fox News made headlines when they covered the recent Pew Research Center finding that 40% of all households in America have a female primary breadwinner. About 1/3 of these households consist of two-parent households where the mothers make more money than their husbands, and the remaining 2/3 consist of single mothers. > > Left completely in a tizzy after learning of this statistic, Fox assembled an entirely-male panel to mourn, in no uncertain terms, the downfall of society as we know it. This was quickly followed by another segment in which lead mouthpiece Erickson doubled down on his statements, and a third in which female anchor Megyn Kelly criticized the men for their backwards, offensive views. > > Many of the things said on these segments were hurtful to thousands of men, women, and children who were essentially being told that they are responsible for society crumbling into ruins. However, in addition to being offensive, many of the “facts” and much of the “science” on these videos were not quite correct. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/467 "2014-04-02T15:33:07Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I have yet to see a cite that shows Fox to be more biased than other news networks. Well, you’ve seen several showing that it’s viewers are considerably less well-informed, as well as extensive lists of the lies and omissions and general dishonesty of the network. And then you posted these: > [@Deeg](#): > > In this thread I have posted two independent studies that show Fox to be **less** biased than other networks. They are not without their flaws but they are better than the anecdotes and outrage you have brought to the table. …Which were then soundly torn apart by various people here who pointed out that the methodology was horribly flawed. And yet you’re still acting like it’s good evidence. > [@nole](#): > > [http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-year-of-apologies/](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-year-of-apologies/) > > Do you consider this honest reporting? No, but they do have the courtesy to publicly and openly apologize for their mistakes. Every network makes errors; the question is, “are these legitimate errors?”. In Fox’s case, it’s very difficult to take that claim seriously. And no matter how much you want to claim that MSNBC is “just as bad”, the fact is that in the sole objective measure we can really take of how good or bad any individual network is, [Fox loses to just about _everything_ other than comedy shows and talk radio](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16771193#post16771193). Yeah, MSNBC ain’t great, but they’re still notably better. And when it comes to anecdotal stuff… Okay, MSNBC has had some whoppers and some egregious mistakes. How many of those have gone on to completely dominate the cultural discourse on the left? What’s MSNBC’s Benghazi? What’s MSNBC’s “death panels”? One factor in this: they _correct their shit_. Notice how your article mostly mentions apologies and retractions, usually on air in the same time frame as it was originally announced, so that those who were misinformed are liable to see it? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/468 "2014-04-02T15:44:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > They’re human. . . . Are you **sure?** ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/469 "2014-04-02T16:11:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m willing to take Jon Stewart’s word for it, myself. The best thing about TDS is that you don’t _have_ to take Jon Stewart’s word for it because they show you the evidence. Lots and lots of evidence. And not “let’s edit out half the sentence to change the meaning, like Hannity does” evidence either. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/470 "2014-04-02T22:46:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Bad methodology. > Finding sites that try to measure “bias” fails on several points: > Supporters of Fox are more likely to care about refuting claims of bias than supporters of other groups, so there will be more studies commissioned to find that they are less biased. > The tests of “bias” are generally worthless. For example, your first link compared the frequency of negative reports and drew the conclusion that that demonstrated bias. It might have simply demonstrated that one side or the other had participated in more negative actions. Really? Independent studies are bad methodology compared to the anecdotes that have been proffered in this thread? I would have expected that in the dowsing thread. If Fox is so bad can’t _someone_ come up with a study that shows it? > [@andros](#): > > I’m confused, **Deeg**. You say but then suggest it’s _not_ biased? I have never said Fox isn’t biased; clearly it is. The question is, is it **more** biased than other news outlets? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I really wonder how effective your googling is, when science is concerned FOX has been caught with more than just climate change for their “creative” ways they have with the facts. > > [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/06/04/fox-news-fact-check-2/](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/06/04/fox-news-fact-check-2/) _sigh_ That link does little to solve our debate because **it doesn’t compare** Fox to other networks. I absolutely believe that Fox gets science wrong. I absolutely believe that, for example, CNN get science wrong on occasion. Is Fox worse than CNN? That link doesn’t give us any clue. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …Which were then soundly torn apart by various people here who pointed out that the methodology was horribly flawed. And yet you’re still acting like it’s good evidence. No, they were not soundly ripped apart. There were objections by people who can’t stand the thought that Fox is no worse than any other outlet. I don’t care one way or the other about Fox–really–and consider myself an impartial observer. Some of the arguments in this thread sound very similar to those made by dowsers. Find me some good studies that I can bring back to my friend that allow me to declare victory. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/471 "2014-04-02T23:11:05Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > If Fox is so bad can’t _someone_ come up with a study that shows it? Please, by all means, if you have a decent methodology for a study to determine the bias of a news source, then by all means, fire away. That’s the _problem_ here. > [@](#): > > _sigh_ That link does little to solve our debate because **it doesn’t compare** Fox to other networks. I absolutely believe that Fox gets science wrong. I absolutely believe that, for example, CNN get science wrong on occasion. Is Fox worse than CNN? That link doesn’t give us any clue. No, but _my sources do._ > [@](#): > > No, they were not soundly ripped apart. There were objections by people who can’t stand the thought that Fox is no worse than any other outlet. :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/472 "2014-04-02T23:31:13Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Please, by all means, if you have a decent methodology for a study to determine the bias of a news source, then by all means, fire away. That’s the _problem_ here. Well, some people seem to be basing strong convictions on anecdotes so the bar for an independent study is pretty low. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/473 "2014-04-02T23:37:35Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > _sigh_ That link does little to solve our debate because **it doesn’t compare** Fox to other networks. I absolutely believe that Fox gets science wrong. I absolutely believe that, for example, CNN get science wrong on occasion. Is Fox worse than CNN? That link doesn’t give us any clue. :rolleyes: It should be easy then to find evidence that CNN and others reported on those studies with the same spin and disregard for the evidence as FOX did. So yes, as per your own admission, FOX is still worse when we take into account this and how they report climate change. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/474 "2014-04-03T07:53:38Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > If Fox is so bad can’t _someone_ come up with a study that shows it? Please show me a study that proves the earth is round. No one is going to devote serious time and money to a formal study to prove the bleeding obvious, although conservatives and/or Fox might want to fund “studies” to show how wonderful they are. For the most part the evidence is the weight of accumulated anecdotal incidents of Fox’s persistent pattern of egregious falsehoods, like the ones that have been cited here, along with the absence of such pattern among other broadcasters. Here are two cites that further illustrate the point (my apologies if this was previously posted somewhere in this long thread, but I didn’t see it). [This is a current analysis by MediaMatters](http://mediamatters.org/research) of problematic reporting by all media, such as inaccuracies, lies, or omission of important news. It changes all the time but looking at the first page right now, there are 15 headlined items of such problem reporting and 15 more late-breaking items in the sidebar. Of the total of 30 reporting inaccuracies identified on the first page, 20 of them were committed by Fox News, 7 by other right-wing media, one by CNN, one is about an oil company website, and one is a critique of poor media coverage of climate change. To me that says a lot about Fox. It’s like lying was their special hobby. There’s also [this article from FAIR](http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-most-biased-name-in-news/) – it’s over ten years old but its takedown of Fox News is as valid today as it was then. > [@nole](#): > > Here is a PEW study that found MSNBC to be significantly more biased than FOX. The study you linked compares how MSNBC and Fox News handled coverage of Romney and Obama during the last election. Not sure it’s fair to extrapolate that to general bias in all things, but even if it were true, the discussion isn’t primarily about bias – it’s about intentional deception. Sure MSNBC is biased, but they don’t typically lie. With Fox, lying is their business model. See the links above. This is part of the reason why, as someone already posted, Fox viewers as a group are so very poorly informed. > [@nole](#): > > [http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-year-of-apologies/](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-year-of-apologies/) > > Do you consider this honest reporting? I think you need to read that article more carefully. Whoever wrote it was trying much too hard to build a case against MSNBC and not doing it very well. There were 10 alleged incidents. Going through them in order, they were an incident of bad taste, a genuine mistake in believing that an invited guest had not shown up because she had been booked into the wrong studio, a mistake in believing a satirical piece was true, possibly an intentional distortion of the Zimmerman tape, bad taste again, a rude off-camera gesture (WTF does that prove?), bad taste yet again vs. Laura Ingraham, probably genuine distortion about Rick Perry, bad taste yet again, and the fact that Ed Shultz has an independent contract with a union. So we have possibly two actual incidents of news distortion, which they corrected and for which they apologized. With Fox, news distortion is a way of life. ---
**Author:** ![rustyrunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed8c4c/32.png) [@rustyrunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rustyrunner)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/475 "2014-04-03T10:23:06Z")
Again I suggest watching Aljazeera if you can. Reading these posts I can’t help thinking it must be a more healthy alternative than Fox. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/476 "2014-04-03T10:44:14Z")
Oh goodie! Some new Fox Fanbois! Maybe they can comment on this for once: > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > [People who watch Comedy Central are better informed than people who watch Fox News](http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/16/11946/daily-show-fox-knowledge/) > > Say you’re a news station. If your viewers tend to be less knowledgeable about things in the news, would you say you’re doing a good job presenting it? > > > [@](#): > > > > A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed. > > > > People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all. > > > > [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/) > > That was from earlier this year. During the 2010 election, another study found similar results: > > > [@](#): > > > > Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it–though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican. > > > > [World Public Opinion](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php) > > Even way back in 2003 with regard to the Iraq War, you had this study come out: > > > [@](#): > > > > A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq. > > > > The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. > > > > [World Public Opinion](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php) > > These are [a few of the several surveys](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/) that show Fox News viewers are consistantly less informed about world events, science, the economy and politics than those who got their news from other sources. > > So what are we to conclude? Seems to me that it’s one of these only: > > [LIST=A] > [li]Fox News is really bad at informing their viewers.[/li][li]Fox News is really good at misinforming their viewers[/li][li]Fox News viewers are mostly mouth-breathers.[/li][li]A combination of any or all of the above.[/li][/LIST] > > So the answer the OP " Is Fox News really all that bad?" I have to say forget about bias. Look at how informed their audience is. If a news station consistently shows that their audience doesn’t know the news, how can anyone make the argument that the station is “good?” ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/477 "2014-04-03T11:04:38Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Well, some people seem to be basing strong convictions on anecdotes so the bar for an independent study is pretty low. Look, the fact is that there’s not a good methodology for discovering bias. You kind of have to go with anecdotal collections and fact-checking. The best ersatz I can really think of is “how well-informed are the viewers on topics the news reports”, which doesn’t address bias _per se_, but addresses the far more fundamentally important topic of how effective the news is at bringing the truth to the masses. See (listen up, **nole.** ), this is the main issue when you compare news sources. Yeah, MSNBC is biased as hell. It knows its audience, and it knows which stories are going to interest them, and it knows those stories are going to make the left look good. But it doesn’t usually _lie_. This is what people keep talking about when they say that it’s biased but fair - the selection of news stories is tailored to make the left look good, but actually lying about the issue? Not a common theme. By contrast, Fox goes a step further - they’re biased in their story selection, and _they also lie a lot_. For example, the lie that they’re fair and balanced. This shows up when you ask Fox viewers about issues that matter and issues that Fox covers and they turn out to be _way worse informed_! It’s like the difference between Think Progress/DailyKos/Raw Story and WND/Daily Caller/Gateway Pundit. Yeah, Think Progress has a heavy leftist bend, which they admit out front, and which their story selection tends to represent. They probably won’t run the story that makes Obama look bad. They’ll probably just run a fluff piece about how awesome Elizabeth Warren is instead. But they also won’t _make up_ the story that makes Romney look bad. They won’t lie as ostensibly to support their goals. That’s the difference. And that’s why Fox news viewers are consistently misinformed on important issues - issues which _Fox covers_. I wonder if you polled Fox viewers on Benghazi and the IRS scandal, two drums Fox beat nonstop for the better part of a year, whether they’d be better-informed than other networks. Somehow, I doubt it. Obviously, actually discerning “bias” is going to be difficult. Determining which network lies more or more often is hard to directly measure. But all the evidence we have points to Fox viewers being very ill-informed, and misinformed on issues Fox covers in particular. Throw on a particularly egregious list of whoppers (for which the network almost never apologizes or retracts), some particularly gross edits, and you can understand why most people who know about the evidence consider Fox news the worst, most biased, and most dishonest news network. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/478 "2014-04-03T11:17:56Z")
I’ve said numerous times that the OP asks “Is Fox News really all that bad,” not “Is Fox News really all that biased.” There can be bias and quality and there can be no bias but complete bullshit. Fox News is bad for lying. A left-leaning media source that lied as much as Fox News did would indeed be just as bad but two things about that: Nobody has managed to find this mythical network, newspaper or website and even if they did (and even if it had the scope and influence of Fox News) that still wouldn’t change that Fox News sucks. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/479 "2014-04-03T11:46:40Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The best ersatz I can really think of is “how well-informed are the viewers on topics the news reports”, which doesn’t address bias per se, but addresses the far more fundamentally important topic of how effective the news is at bringing the truth to the masses. . Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prove anything, because I suspect that people who choose Fox News as their primary source of information would test lower on topics the news doesn’t report, too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/480 "2014-04-03T12:11:35Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prove anything, because I suspect that people who choose Fox News as their primary source of information would test lower on topics the news doesn’t report, too. Why? This [AlterNet article from 2011](http://www.alternet.org/story/150251/scary%3A_people_who_watch_and_trust_fox_news_will_surprise_you) - which elsewhere in the article admits that the network “spread(s) misinformation and singlemindedly pursue(s) an extreme agenda” (lest you think it is sympathetic to the network) - says: > [@](#): > > Consider the facts: more than twice as many Americans watch Fox News as watch CNN, the next most popular cable news channel, and almost five times as many as watch MSNBC. Fox’s audience cuts across age, gender, race, education, and income level. The average Fox News viewer is a male between the ages of 30 to 49 – far from most people’s perception that mostly seniors watch Fox. So where Seddon pointed to a fabled minority audience of “not-so-bright … American citizens”, Fox is instead popular among a wide swath of well-educated, contributing members of society. An older, white demographic with a lot of them college-educated is not known for being stupid. But they are wrong about the stuff that Fox reports, that is for sure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=25)