“Bullshit” is not the same thing as “lies”. One can present non-false information in a way that renders it even more valueless than the fecal excretions of bovines. In that sense it appears, from this review, that “bullshit” is an apt way to describe Goldberg’s book. Yes, the review does appear to be somewhat biased, which is surely unfair as “Bias” is such an honest and even-handed book. Sorry that I did not find a more favorable review, reading the book myself is not a realistic option (I have better uses for my money and time).
As I pointed before in another thread, FOX distorts what most of the climate science experts are reporting:
As Ars Technica noticed: “Back in 2010, a memo leaked from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn’t even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force.”
So, yes, they are really that bad, and they do not care that they continue to pile on the evidence.
You mean Ruben? I can imagine if he had had a chance to take a good look at FNC, he would have surely thrown up his hands and retired, knowing that he could never design anything that convoluted and incomprehensible.
Next time, you might trying bringing actual evidence, like we did to demonstrate how the supposed left-wing media were pretty much lap dogs for George W Bush, especially in regards to the Iraq War.
Jon Stewart pointed out something rather egregious Fox commentators did:
Testifying before a Senate Committee, Hillary Clinton was asked a series of inane Gotcha questions and finally raised her voice to say:
[QUOTE=Hillary Clinton]
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.
[/QUOTE]
Several different Fox commentators played the same incomplete excerpt:
[QUOTE=Hillary Clinton]
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?
[/QUOTE]
and then reprimanded Secretary Clinton, saying it was her job to figure out what happened and do everything she could to prevent it from ever happening again.
Were they lying? Perhaps not, legally. Were their comments despicable? If you need to ask, you’re part of the problem.
Just in case this has not be mentioned in the thread. The Faux News hammering on the “you did not build that” out of context quote and the FALSE equivalences other media outlets give that and mistakes made by non-Faux outlets.
Boy, are you late to the party. Haven’t you heard ? The new forcefully-pried-out-of-context soundbyte to be hammering on is Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make ?”.
Let me preface by saying I do not watch Fox News, never have, and have generally assumed that Fox is biased (which it is). I consider myself a centrist and didn’t vote for W (voted Dem both times) or Obama (voted Rep/Lib). I have a friend, however, who is conservative and today we were talking about media bias. He mentioned a UCLA study that purported to show that Fox was one of the least biased news sources. I didn’t believe him but tonight did some research and here’s the study. It’s not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox’s coverage.
The study has its detractors and this Dope thread slams it without making any realistic counter IMO. However, this study (which apparently involves Harvard researchers) indicates that Fox News was less biased in its 2008 presidential coverage than CNN and MSNBC. A comparison between conservative and liberal talk radio (apparently there are liberal radio shows) indicates that liberal shows are more biased than conservative ones (albeit with relatively few samples).
Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources. The ratings in the end are subjective, of course, (what consistutes a “negative” article?) but the results are more rigorous than swapping anecdotes, which is what this thread does.
So, according to these studies, the answer to the original question is no–Fox News isn’t really that bad. I am, however, data/results driven and if there are other rigorous studies that show the opposite I can be convinced otherwise. (Besides, I’d like to “win” the debate with my friend. grin) Are there such studies?
I just looked at the first one you cited, and the way it decides bias is by how often a liberal or conservative think tank is cited. So if MSNBC cites the Brookings Institution several times, and Fox News just makes stuff up, Fox will get the less biased rating.
Four responses to the OP with two of them providing four serious critiques of the actual methodology that Groseclose used and you deem that not a “realistic counter”?
Can you even explain why Groseclose’s “methodology” is even considered real?
The original “study” was critiqued quite harshly in this thread a little after it was published. There are the usual partisan shots from the Left, but there are also a number of specific points raised that should demonstrate that Groseclose used utterly silly methods to produce the result he did, (and that it appears he wanted).
By “counter” I mean something like “that study is flawed; here’s a better one”. Any study that tries to boil down media bias into a couple of numbers is going to be inherently flawed in some way. Any study that purports to show something controversial will have no end of punishing critiques. That’s why I want to see some studies that show something different; at least I can then compare techniques.
Fox is simply a mechanism for increasing a few people’s wealth, like any other commercial enterprise. The product it manufactures is popular consent, in order to maintain policies that benefit its decision-makers.
The only thing that makes it in any way interesting is it’s the only commercial network where if it had no advertising and ran as an ostensible “loss” it would still turn an enormous profit for its creators. It’s really quite a perfect little machine: they spend millions to rake in billions via policy profiteering.
The thread referred to about the UCLA study was mine, and I put it on the MPSIMS board because I wasn’t attempting a refutation, but gawking at the sheer stupidity of what said study was purported to have said. I’m a full-blown skeptic myself, so I understand being driven by the expertise of data-driven studies, but when a geographer’s telling you the world’s flat,you don’t believe him.
I’ll leave the discussion about Pew to others, got a busy day and week.