# 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:** 9
**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 26, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/161 "2012-11-26T21:24:43Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Fox didn’t admit it. A guest made the accusation. Unfortunately, this is true. Still, the clip was hilarious. Makes me wanna buy the dude’s book. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/162 "2012-11-26T21:29:09Z")
The amazing thing is that Ricks isn’t a lefty, at all. He was a slobbering fool for Rumsfeld. But the Republican Party (and Fox News) have apparently swept past him, leaving him outside the bubble to the point where even he can see what an evil bouncy-house of hot air Fox is. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/163 "2012-11-26T21:36:30Z")
> [@For You](#): > > [Fox News is a wing of the Republican Party](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhp9A43aeKM), you heard it right on Fox. All pretense is done, they have as much as admitted it. That was hilarious. But Foxnews did not admit to anything - you’ll have to go to the cite in **John\_Stamos’\_Left\_Ear’s** post for that. However they did cut their guest off early because he was not parroting their talking points. Funny stuff. ---
**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 27, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/164 "2012-11-27T20:28:28Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Fox News is doing it again, screaming “Benghazi” over and over again until their faces turn blue. Just ran across a great [editorial at the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution](http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/11/27/the-benghazi-narrative-spun-by-fox-now-in-ruins/) which says this better than I can (and did): > [@](#): > > For at least a few conservatives, Election Night opened eyes about the danger of confining yourself to the right-wing information echo chamber. Because out here in the real world, as opposed to ConservaWorld, it turned out that the polls weren’t skewed, Mitt Romney wasn’t surging and a majority of the American people really did want to re-elect Barack Obama as their president. > > Those who had relied on Fox “News” for their information were prepared for none of that. > > To my mind, though, the utter collapse of the Fox narrative regarding the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi should be at least as instructive for those who are willing to see things as they are, rather than how they wish them to be. For more than two months, the network and those in Washington who follow its lead tried to create a firestorm of controversy regarding Benghazi, but time and again, as facts came to light, each right-wing claim about Benghazi was exposed as false and inflammatory. > > Let’s review the litany, shall we? > > \*“It never would have happened if consulate security had been bolstered as requested!” > \* > No feasible level of consulate security could have saved the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team against an assault by 50 to 100 armed attackers. > > _“This only happened because under Obama, nobody is afraid of us anymore!” As Charles Krauthammer slickly phrased the argument on Fox, “these are the fruits of apology and retreat and lack of confidence in our own principles.”_ > > Under President Bush, seven U.S. consulates or embassies were attacked, including those in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, with considerable loss of life. But unlike Benghazi, none of those attacks became the pretext for crass partisanship. > > _“They refused to bring in the AC-130 gunships that could have saved the ambassador.”_ > > The closest AC-130 was 2,500 miles away, in Afghanistan. > > _“They had Special Forces units sitting there in Italy ready to intervene but instead the cowards just watched our people die!”_ > > The Special Forces units in question did not arrive in Italy until several hours after the attacks had ended, and were never in position to have played a role. > > _“UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people, and by doing so disqualified herself from consideration to become secretary of State.”_ > > Rice accurately communicated to the American people the best, most current information as assembled by our intelligence community. There is no evidence that the intel assessment was altered for partisan political reasons, and former CIA Director David Petraeus and current Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper have informed Congress of that fact. ---
**Author:** ![chargerrich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chargerrich/32/5399_2.png) [@chargerrich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chargerrich)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/165 "2012-11-27T20:40:53Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > This is false and dumb. You’re arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on. Guess it is a case of seeing things through different color glasses. Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left? As a moderate, I like to think I am more without bias than most but maybe in reality she is fan of trickle down economics. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/166 "2012-11-27T20:46:07Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > You’re arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on. > > Guess it is a case of seeing things through different color glasses. > > Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left? > > As a moderate, I like to think I am more without bias than most but maybe in reality she is fan of trickle down economics. 😃 Rachel Maddow is NOT far left, she is a solid liberal however. Trust me, I live near Berkeley, I know what far left looks like. ---
**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 27, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/167 "2012-11-27T20:50:02Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > You’re arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Of course because it’s a myth. I suggest you start a thread about it if you care to actually learn about this because that’s a whole other ball of fish. > [@](#): > > Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left? No, actually I said she is biased to the left. However she is not indicative of “most media outside of radio.” ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/168 "2012-11-27T21:52:47Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > You’re arguing that most media outside of Radio is not liberal? Wow, I was pretty sure that was something most would agree on. And that’s a perfect example of how Fox News viewers think that their right-wing views are actually mainstream, and that everyone but the kooky fringe left agrees with them. Not even the bucket of cold water in the face from three weeks ago can penetrate the tin foil. The major media outlets are owned by huge corporations. They were cheerleading for the war in Iraq, and pretty much acted as stenographers, rather than investigative reporters, for whatever Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld said, even when it should have been obvious they were lying. The NYT’s Judith Miller breathlessly reported every WMD “find” on page 1, and every time (giving them the benefit of the doubt), some intern wrote a two-line retraction on page 23 a couple weeks later. But all Fox News knows is that Dan Rather once got a source wrong, and therefore, to this day, anything that CBS reports is rejected out of hand as “liberal media bias.” All the networks, including PBS, have shows devoted to big business and investing. Some, including NBC, even have 24-hour channels devoted to it. When was the last time you saw a show about labor, except in the context of a strike hurting business (or in the case of teachers, our children), or in the context of labor unions having the temerity to support the candidate who has not made the destruction of unions one of his campaign promises? ---
**Author:** ![chargerrich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chargerrich/32/5399_2.png) [@chargerrich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chargerrich)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/169 "2012-11-27T21:57:28Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > And that’s a perfect example of how Fox News viewers think that their right-wing views are actually mainstream, and that everyone but the kooky fringe left agrees with them. I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal. Not saying that is bad, just an observation. ---
**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 27, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/170 "2012-11-27T22:00:09Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal. > > Not saying that is bad, just an observation. And on what specifically are you basing this observation? ---
**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:** [November 27, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/171 "2012-11-27T22:06:05Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > Are you going to also argue that Rachel Maddow is not far left? Is she agitating for the workers to seize the means of production and hang bosses from street lights, or suggesting it as a historical inevitability ? Perhaps does she support popular armed insurrections, and massed disobedience by enlisted soldiers ? Would she hypothetically be in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat ? Does she advocate enforced equality of income/means, or the abolition of personal property ? Has she ever uttered the phrase “property of use” or “squatting rights” ? Maybe she’s all hopped up on smashing the institutions of government, particularly the federal one, to be replaced by self-determined micro-communes ? If the answer to any/all of these questions is “no”, she’s not far left. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/172 "2012-11-27T22:07:59Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > I do not for even a moment think Fox news is mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that CNN is less biased than Fox. That said CNN is biased and I would posit that EVERY news organization is biased to some degree and that the majority of television news media is liberal. > > Not saying that is bad, just an observation. during the election cycles, after the first debate, every news station gave a majority negative overview of obama while giving a generally positive overview of romney, something like 2:1. while we can say MSNBC is the counter-lever to Fox, most others try to be actually journalistic and report things as they are. my stats are from a pew [study](http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/first_debate_how_much_it_changed_narrative), and i just find it hard to believe if they are all left-leaning that they’d give more favor to romney, which they did. [chart](http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/02/14861988-pew-study-campaign-coverage-negative-overall-but-romney-boosted-by-first-debate?lite). ---
**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:** [November 27, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/173 "2012-11-27T22:16:01Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > That was hilarious. But Foxnews did not admit to anything - you’ll have to go to the cite in **John\_Stamos’\_Left\_Ear’s** post for that. > > However they did cut their guest off early because he was not parroting their talking points. > > Funny stuff. [Addendum to this funny story](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/fox-news-tom-ricks-apologized-for-benghazi-criticism?ref=fpb): \*Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Monday responded to the much-discussed interview with Tom Ricks, claiming that the Pulitizer Prize winner apologized privately for criticizing the network’s coverage of the September attack in Benghazi, Libya. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Clemente accused Ricks of using the interview to generate publicity for his new book, The Generals. Clemente also seemed to take exception to the lack of public contrition from Ricks. “When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself – and his book," Clemente told THR via email. “He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly.” But that’s news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.\* ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/174 "2012-11-27T23:18:19Z")
> [@For You](#): > > [Addendum to this funny story](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/fox-news-tom-ricks-apologized-for-benghazi-criticism?ref=fpb): > > \*Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Monday responded to the much-discussed interview with Tom Ricks, claiming that the Pulitizer Prize winner apologized privately for criticizing the network’s coverage of the September attack in Benghazi, Libya. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Clemente accused Ricks of using the interview to generate publicity for his new book, The Generals. Clemente also seemed to take exception to the lack of public contrition from Ricks. > > “When Mr. Ricks ignored the anchor’s question, it became clear that his goal was to bring attention to himself – and his book," Clemente told THR via email. “He apologized in our offices afterward but doesn’t have the strength of character to do that publicly.” > > But that’s news to Ricks, who told THR in his own email that he never offered an apology to Fox — privately or publicly.\* Bee-bee-b-bebeep, This Just In.. Fox “News” now claims that “Many People” heard him apologize.. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/175 "2012-11-27T23:57:50Z")
In answer to the OP: Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/176 "2012-11-28T06:24:56Z")
Rachel Maddow _does_ have Republicans on her program. And she is forever trying to persuade others to come on her show. They seem a little hesitatant to show up. As have others here, I have heard her make corrections when she said something that was in error – even things that seemed to have no real significance. “Smarmy”? Oh, please. She has got to be one of the coolest and most unfront commentators on television. I also Tivo Maddow. And I add an extra hour to catch “The Last Word” With Lawrence O’Donnell. Are these commentators liberal? I would think so, but they talk about facts and data. They don’t make blind accusations. The producers do their homework. It was MSNBC, by the way, that had a Republican on their panels for the debates and I believe election night coverage, also. I have to laugh at their being called “the far left.” Please find another news source than Fox. You (generally speaking) will be better educated for having a better grasp of political terms. Meanwhile, most Americans depend on such socialist organizations as the public libraries, the United States Mail, police departments, fire departments, highway departments, and public schools. People who just watch Fox News for information probably don’t understand what the word “socialist” means. That is why I hate Fox News (except for the entertaining madness). Fox leaves people ignorant of facts. How did that Fox News Commentator come out on that naughty sex scandal of a few years ago? I’m surprised that he didn’t bite the dust then. He did walk out on an NPR interview once. Now THAT is smarmy. Just go to Bill’s webite and count the number of times you can see his name at one time. (I haven’t checked in a while, but it certainly used to cover everything.) Remember, when Cheney wanted to tell his story of the shooting accident, he made himself available only to Fox. That says a lot. ---
**Author:** ![chargerrich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chargerrich/32/5399_2.png) [@chargerrich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chargerrich)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/177 "2012-11-28T15:46:25Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > during the election cycles, after the first debate, every news station gave a majority negative overview of obama while giving a generally positive overview of romney, something like 2:1. > > while we can say MSNBC is the counter-lever to Fox, most others try to be actually journalistic and report things as they are. my stats are from a pew [study](http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/first_debate_how_much_it_changed_narrative), and i just find it hard to believe if they are all left-leaning that they’d give more favor to romney, which they did. > [chart](http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/02/14861988-pew-study-campaign-coverage-negative-overall-but-romney-boosted-by-first-debate?lite). I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate? He was listless, uninspired and was clearly beat. That said, the arguments were split over whether Romney won it or Obama lost it, but to state any outcome other than the obvious would have been too transparent for any bias IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/178 "2012-11-28T18:06:04Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate? > > He was listless, uninspired and was clearly beat. That said, the arguments were split over whether Romney won it or Obama lost it, but to state any outcome other than the obvious would have been too transparent for any bias IMO. i’m not sure i follow. the debate was just a point in time, from which a shift in the general complexion of each candidate came. it isn’t as if the media all felt obama lost so they’d better talk only about that from there on, regardless of anything else. it’s not as if they all agreed “he lost, so we need to at least feign negativity towards him for it.” remember he won the next 3 counting Biden’s, yet the trajectory of pos/neg remained the same as after the first. for that reason, i see it not as bias GENERATED nor quelled by the first debate, but merely as a point in time. if mainstream media was all that biased left, the second obama won a debate, general favor would have swung back positively. but for some reason it remained negative. the only take-away i can come up with is that any way you slice it, they clearly aren’t \*too \*bias left. otherwise the data would track in that direction. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/179 "2012-11-28T18:08:58Z")
^^also, i think part of why the GOP was so convinced Romney might win was due to this PEW-confirmed media portrayal favoring Romney. in most metrics, he seemed to carry the “momentum.” the general climate of the media was more favorable towards him than towards Obama and the total lent itself to a “gut feeling” that he was carrying sway. for a while, a lot of polls even tracked his way. i guess what i am saying is it’s hard to build a case the whole of the media was proboama and antiromney. that’s simply not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625/180 "2012-11-28T18:12:11Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > I have a hard time using the first debate as a litmus test for any level of bias. Who could of possibly said with a straight face that Obama won the first debate? Fox would have said Romney had won if Obama’s and Romney’s attitudes had been reversed. You know they would have. That’s what bias _is_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-fox-news-really-all-that-bad/636625.md?page=10)