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.
There are probably topics where viewers of liberal media are less informed, like nuclear power and GMO crops.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
