# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/621 "2014-11-23T02:01:26Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > “Is Fox News really all that bad?” > > No. It is really no different than any of the other news channels (including the “moderate” CNN. Of course not. After all the evidence presented in this thread, you’re going to go with that line. Some opinions are just impervious to facts, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/622 "2014-11-23T02:08:35Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > No. It is really no different than any of the other news channels (including the “moderate” CNN). This is factually inaccurate. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course not. After all the evidence presented in this thread, you’re going to go with that line. Some opinions are just impervious to facts, I guess. Or, what he said. ---
**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:** [November 23, 2014, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/623 "2014-11-23T09:04:18Z")
> [@Cardboard](#): > > “Is Fox News really all that bad?” > > No. It is really no different than any of the other news channels (including the “moderate” CNN). > > But liberals need go-to boogeymen. > > Fox News is one of them. > > The Koch Brothers are another. > > Sarah Palin was, but her time has passed. Then surely, you can find examples where other news channels have flubbed the reporting of a case in such a serious and clearly parisan manner? > [@TonySinclair](#): > > As noted in another thread: > > [Fox News story on House Benghazi report ignores the entire report](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/22/1346743/-Fox-News-story-on-House-Benghazi-report-ignores-the-entire-report) > > The Republican-chaired House Intelligence Committee investigation into Benghazi concluded that there was no wrongdoing or coverup by the Obama administration. All the other major news outlets reported that, e.g. [Benghazi Coverup Allegations Rejected in Bipartisan House Probe - Bloomberg](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/benghazi-coverup-allegations-rejected-in-bipartisan-house-probe.html). > > Fox’s account had a meaningless side issue for the headline, and misleadingly stressed that the report concluded that there was no protest before the attack, while not mentioning that the report acknowledged that at the time Susan Rice gave her summary of intelligence findings on TV, there were several reports of a protest, from many sources. Fox completely ignored the main conclusion, i.e. no coverup by the administration. > > I don’t know what could make it more clear that Fox is for right-wing propaganda, not news. They don’t even pretend to be objective any more. Cardboard, just read the thread. The “other people do it too” argument is vapid and baseless at this point. By any objective measure, FOX fails harder. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2014, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/624 "2014-11-24T06:28:05Z")
That seems to happen a lot this thread. It gets revived and suddenly some new Fox News Fanboy barges in and decrees that both sides are equally bad, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there are several hundred posts of evidence in the thread itself that make such a statement demonstratively false. **tomndebb** said it best: “Some opinions are just impervious to facts, I guess.” ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/625 "2014-11-24T14:14:54Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > That seems to happen a lot this thread. It gets revived and suddenly some new Fox News Fanboy barges in and decrees that both sides are equally bad, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there are several hundred posts of evidence in the thread itself that make such a statement demonstratively false. > > **tomndebb** said it best: “Some opinions are just impervious to facts, I guess.” Fox News fanboy barging in. When I say im a fanboy that’s only half true. I don’t get Fox News and I dont watch it. I have not read the thread so dont know if this has been covered. I think stories such as Jonathan Gruber are exactly why Fox News is needed, as are other news outlets that dont necessarily toe the centrist politician line. This goes for MSNBC and RT, though RT is stretching credibility imo. Most news outlets didn’t touch the Gruber story. Only later was it occasionally brought up by other networks. Fox on the other hand did run with it from early on. I believe it was a legitimate story that would have went unheard had Fox not been around to report on it(and at times exaggerate it). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/626 "2014-11-24T14:34:06Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Fox News fanboy barging in. When I say im a fanboy that’s only half true. I don’t get Fox News and I dont watch it. I have not read the thread so dont know if this has been covered. I think stories such as Jonathan Gruber are exactly why Fox News is needed, as are other news outlets that dont necessarily toe the centrist politician line. This goes for MSNBC and RT, though RT is stretching credibility imo. Most news outlets didn’t touch the Gruber story. Only later was it occasionally brought up by other networks. Fox on the other hand did run with it from early on. I believe it was a legitimate story that would have went unheard had Fox not been around to report on it(and at times exaggerate it). If you haven’t read the thread and don’t watch Fox News, how can you offer an opinion about this discussion? If you don’t watch Fox News, how do you know how they covered the Gruber discussion? Really, you’re making your own gravy here. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/627 "2014-11-24T14:42:00Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > though RT is stretching credibility imo. They had AIDS denialist Liam Scheff on for an interview. This sentence only works if “stretching” means “completely without even the slightest modicum of”. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/628 "2014-11-24T15:40:40Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Then surely, you can find examples where other news channels have flubbed the reporting of a case in such a serious and clearly parisan manner? > > Cardboard, just read the thread. The “other people do it too” argument is vapid and baseless at this point. By any objective measure, FOX fails harder. Sorry if I’m reiterating a point made earlier, but this is what Fox (and the GOP) do quite well. The idea is that others do it and we are reporting the other side, so really “it’s just a wash”. -“So some scientists claim there is human cause for climate change. But others say differently. I guess it’s just a wash, and we’ll never really know.” ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/629 "2014-11-24T15:52:55Z")
> [@CGav8r](#): > > Sorry if I’m reiterating a point made earlier, but this is what Fox (and the GOP) do quite well. The idea is that others do it and we are reporting the other side, so really “it’s just a wash”. > > -“So some scientists claim there is human cause for climate change. But others say differently. I guess it’s just a wash, and we’ll never really know.” Absolutely spot on. When anybody says “I just hate it when both sides distort the news” that’s a win for the Republicans. Both sides don’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/630 "2014-11-24T16:00:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > If you haven’t read the thread and don’t watch Fox News, how can you offer an opinion about this discussion? > > If you don’t watch Fox News, how do you know how they covered the Gruber discussion? > > Really, you’re making your own gravy here. I do read political blogs. I know roughly the proportion of times Gruber was mentioned on US news shows. Fox discussed him far more often than the others did. CNN mentioned the story a few times, NBC and ABC very little. In fact I believe either NBC or ABC have all but ignored the story. [http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/nov/18/jonathan-gruber-mentions-tv-fox-news-779-msnbc-79/](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/nov/18/jonathan-gruber-mentions-tv-fox-news-779-msnbc-79/) I also tried to watch clip coverage on the internet. Fox News clips showed up far more often than any other newtork. You really will need to try harder before thinking you have “skewered” me, or, at least think before posting. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/631 "2014-11-24T16:57:36Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > I do read political blogs. I know roughly the proportion of times Gruber was mentioned on US news shows. Fox discussed him far more often than the others did. CNN mentioned the story a few times, NBC and ABC very little. In fact I believe either NBC or ABC have all but ignored the story. > > [http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/nov/18/jonathan-gruber-mentions-tv-fox-news-779-msnbc-79/](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/nov/18/jonathan-gruber-mentions-tv-fox-news-779-msnbc-79/) > > I also tried to watch clip coverage on the internet. Fox News clips showed up far more often than any other newtork. > > You really will need to try harder before thinking you have “skewered” me, or, at least think before posting. So, in other words, CNN, NBC and ABC did discuss the issue an appropriate amount, while Foxnews discussed it ad nauseum. Whereas, the current Benghazi report showing there was absolutely no conspiracy was discussed on CNN, NBC and ABC an appropriate amount, while Foxnews discussed it not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/632 "2014-11-24T17:09:42Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > Amazing. Reading the above I am now informed that all the other news outlets, in the shenanigans department, are free of sin. > > Sorry, not buying that dog food. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Amazing. Reading the above I am now informed that you did not understand what you read. Aye, I can’t see that **davida03801** ’s post shows any signs of reading comprehension or the ability to draw valid conclusions from existing evidence. In fact, his post comes across as having no real relation to what he claims to have read and appears to almost revel in it’s ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/633 "2014-11-24T17:49:47Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > So, in other words, CNN, NBC and ABC did discuss the issue an appropriate amount, while Foxnews discussed it ad nauseum. > > Whereas, the current Benghazi report showing there was absolutely no conspiracy was discussed on CNN, NBC and ABC an appropriate amount, while Foxnews discussed it not at all. Your being far too rigid in what you insist as “an appropriate” amount. The appropriate level of coverage is in the eye of the viewer and network. A legitimate argument can be made that had Fox not ran with the story it would have remained a non story; that other networks were latterly dragged kicking and screaming into covering the story. This is not specific to Grubergate. Many such stories emerge this way. Still, if you are suggesting Fox discussed the story ad nauseum then thats a fair enough criticism. However, this does not mean all other networks subsequently covered it enough. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/634 "2014-11-24T18:10:50Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Your being far too rigid in what you insist as “an appropriate” amount. The appropriate level of coverage is in the eye of the viewer and network. A legitimate argument can be made that had Fox not ran with the story it would have remained a non story; that other networks were latterly dragged kicking and screaming into covering the story. This is not specific to Grubergate. Many such stories emerge this way. Still, if you are suggesting Fox discussed the story ad nauseum then thats a fair enough criticism. However, this does not mean all other networks subsequently covered it enough. This diversion into Gruber’s comments (or Benghazi, for that matter) is silly. The relative appropriateness of Fox’s level of coverage of /a given story/ vs other networks is irrelevant to whether /on average/ it tends to promote more misinformation than other outlets. Obviously, every network is going to get it wrong at least some of the time. Suppose the MSM got Gruber wrong. So what? If you dispute the validity of the studies cited up thread, that would be a fair argument. FTR, I believe Fox have Gruber’s comments more attention than they deserved, but that’s neither here nor there. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/635 "2014-11-24T18:38:35Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Your being far too rigid in what you insist as “an appropriate” amount. The appropriate level of coverage is in the eye of the viewer and network. A legitimate argument can be made that had Fox not ran with the story it would have remained a non story; that other networks were latterly dragged kicking and screaming into covering the story. This is not specific to Grubergate. Many such stories emerge this way. Still, if you are suggesting Fox discussed the story ad nauseum then thats a fair enough criticism. However, this does not mean all other networks subsequently covered it enough. Grubergate? Nah, _you_ don’t follow Fox News. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/636 "2014-11-24T20:01:15Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > A legitimate argument can be made that had Fox not ran with the story it would have remained a non story; that other networks were latterly dragged kicking and screaming into covering the story. This is what Fox News apologists like to say about things. However, the things that they say it about almost always wind up, in hindsight, to be non-stories. It’s not like Fox News is Woodward & Bernstein here. The kinds of stories that Fox News covered to the point that other mainstream media outlets were “forced” to report? Benghazi. The Birth Certificate. Total non-stories that they not only kept alive past their expiration dates, but whose reporting on said non-stories has led a [decent number of people](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/07/fox-news-poll-24-percent-believe-obama-born/) maintaining that Obama was not born here. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/637 "2014-11-24T20:14:43Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > reporting on said non-stories has led a [decent number of people](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/07/fox-news-poll-24-percent-believe-obama-born/) maintaining that Obama was not born here. Oh, yeah? Well the rules were different when Hawaii was made a state, and the current ones can’t be applied retroactively! And Hawaii was illegally annexed, so it’s not a state anyway. And Hawaiian courts display U.S. flags with _gold fringe_ on them! And Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii anyway. He was born in Kenya, and there’s original HD video of the birth! And everyone who claims to have seen the _original_ birth certificate is lying! And… _head explodes_ ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/638 "2014-11-24T20:40:25Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Oh, yeah? Well the rules were different when Hawaii was made a state, and the current ones can’t be applied retroactively! And Hawaii was illegally annexed, so it’s not a state anyway. And Hawaiian courts display U.S. flags with _gold fringe_ on them! And Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii anyway. He was born in Kenya, and there’s original HD video of the birth! And everyone who claims to have seen the _original_ birth certificate is lying! And… Of course the Panama Canal Zone is fine, why do you ask? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/639 "2014-11-24T21:09:56Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Your being far too rigid in what you insist as “an appropriate” amount. The appropriate level of coverage is in the eye of the viewer and network. A legitimate argument can be made that had Fox not ran with the story it would have remained a non story; that other networks were latterly dragged kicking and screaming into covering the story. This is not specific to Grubergate. Many such stories emerge this way. Still, if you are suggesting Fox discussed the story ad nauseum then thats a fair enough criticism. However, this does not mean all other networks subsequently covered it enough. Had you made those same graphs about “Benghazi Conspiracy” it would have looked exactly the same as this; 10000 fold more discussion on Fox than CNN, NBC, ABC. And, now, as we know with certainty, CNN, NBC and ABC gave it the appropriate dismissal as a non-story from the beginning. ---
**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:** [November 24, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/640 "2014-11-24T21:10:07Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Your being far too rigid in what you insist as “an appropriate” amount. The appropriate level of coverage is in the eye of the viewer and network. No, it isn’t. The appropriate level of coverage, what is covered, how it’s covered, and the accuracy with which it’s presented can all be objectively judged by the resulting knowledge and beliefs of the viewership about demonstrably objective facts. And in those terms [Fox News viewers fare the worst of any network viewers](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html). Amazingly, but not surprisingly, they got more answers wrong on factual questions than people who watched no news at all – Fox News is mendaciously **worse than useless** , because they were constantly fed distortions and manufactured pseudo-news (like the famous question-mark headlines, or the equally famous “people are now saying that …” when the only people who actually said it were Fox News pundits the previous night, etc.). Hey, when your sworn mission and sole responsibility is to be the ruthlessly unscrupulous public relations arm of the Republican Party, truth and accuracy are the first casualties. “Truth – we hardly knew ye!” would be a fine motto for Fox News. The fact that this abomination even exists in a modern democracy is a fascinating case study in media. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=33)