# What are the prospects for a left-wing analogue to Fox News? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544 "2004-12-18T18:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/181 "2005-04-26T23:45:12Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > The real purpose of a truly left-oriented cable show will be to help define the spectrum, putting an end to the ridiculous assertions that CNN and the major networks are as biased to the left as Fox News is to the right. (This will not likely happen with Gore’s network. if it reflects Gore’s DNC-style centrism, but IWT might pull it off.) There you go again. Calling it a ridiculous assertion does not make it a ridiculous assertion. Several posts ago I cited examples of left wing bias at CNN and all I got back was some dumb ad hominem stuff, some expletives and some distraction. So where’s the evidence that CNN is not biased? Or where’s the evidence that my cites, or anything in _South Park Conservatives_, is false? BTW Neill Boortz has a standing $10,000 offer to anyone who can show that a Fox news item is deliberately slanted. Does Soros or Michael Moore or any of the lefty millionaires have an equivalent offer related to CNN or the NY Times? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/182 "2005-04-26T23:50:38Z")
> [@Turki-lurki](#): > > A left wing equivalent of Fox news would just be another propaganda outlet. It would not inform rational debate, just stir up more furor by loudly enunciating half truths. Agreed. The _last_ thing this country needs is another network of howler monkeys screeching at the top of their lungs. It adds nothing to the debate and only serves to confuse. Propaganda is propaganda no matter which side of the aisle it belongs to. **Shodan** , do you have any cite on NPR or PBS being biased left? I listen to _All Things_ Considered all the time and have yet to hear any sort of bias. It’s, IMHO, the most unbiased news available. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/183 "2005-04-26T23:54:13Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > So what will be their marketing strategy? I see two choices. > > (1) “By god we are liberal and proud of it”. . . . > > (2) “We are fresh, hip and new!” . . . Don’t forget the possibility of (3) “Fair and Balanced!” I mean, IWT would have a more legitimate claim to that title than Fox has . . . still not a perfectly legitimate claim, but leftists have just as much right as righties to lie! 🙂 > [@Evil One](#): > > Trying to run a national cable news network will be shockingly expensive. I have worked in local TV newsrooms where the annual budget was over a million dollars a year. They will need at least ten million to even attempt it. I don’t think they will be able to raise enough cash to make a big enough splash to attract the advertisers they need to survive. Gore’s Current TV – [http://www.current.tv/](http://www.current.tv/) – apparently is envisioned as a commercial network. According to the FAQ, it’s not a exactly a “news” network: > [@](#): > > **Is this a news network?** > > If by “news” you mean “what CNN does,” then no. > > If by “news” you mean “all the cool, interesting things happening in people’s lives today,” then yes. We’re not embracing the traditional news value of being first on every single breaking story. > > Make no mistake, though, there will be news. > > Google Current will be news. Indeed, it will be a whole new kind of news you can’t get anywhere else. We also have a News Vanguard group producing more traditional (and yet totally innovative and awesome) documentary pieces even as we speak. And of course we will be showcasing the best Viewer Created Content that comes through the Current Studio. > > **That was a surprisingly tortured answer.** > > Well, this is actually a new format. “News” is one thing, “reality TV” another. What’s the name for TV about the full breadth and richness of real life? TV that talks about what’s going on in the world in a smart, fun, useful way? > > Seriously, if you can come up with a cool descriptor, you’ll be Current’s BFF. Email me with ideas. I’ll post some here if they’re good. > > \ > > **Listen, you’re not fooling anybody. Al Gore is the chairman. I know this is just DNC TV.** > > The proof will be in the programming, but seriously, it’s not. Current is going to transform TV by opening it up and bringing in new voices - not by broadcasting just one point of view. > > **What’s this new format?** > > Current will be a stream of short video segments - each just two to five minutes long - with recurring themes and styles. In other words, they’re not trying to compete head-to-head with Fox, nor with CNN, they’re trying to do something entirely different. Maybe they’ll attract a market base that, at present, is not satisfied with any existing cable “news” outlet. We’ll just have to wait and see if it works. IWT is trying to do something even more differenter, but it has some serious professional/executive types who seem to think they can pull it off. It’s going to be organized as a non-profit corporation. The amount they’re trying to raise to launch it is $7 million, **all** of it from donations. They will refuse all commercial and government contributions, to maintain their independence; needless to say, they will sell no advertising. They’ll have a worldwide fundraising drive next year and hope to go on the air in 2007. Their Development Plan (pdf file at [http://iwt.tv/bizplan.pdf](http://iwt.tv/bizplan.pdf)) says: > [@](#): > > **Why hasn’t this happened before?** > There were no means to directly engage people around the world to raise the funds. Now, the Internet allows millions to band together to raise capital to compete with corporate media outlets. Think of the 15 million people worldwide who demonstrated against war in Iraq on one day in 2003. Think of the Internet fundraising successes of [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) and the Howard Dean presidential campaign (senior Dean fundraisers are organizing _ **iwt’s** _ fundraising campaign. Far-right pundit Hugh Hewitt has lauded the Internet as creating an “Information Reformation” that cuts institutional gatekeepers out of the information-dissemination process. He envisions this as a way of doing an end-run around the “liberal media”; he seems to have forgetten that **everybody** can use it, not just the Freepers! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/184 "2005-04-26T23:58:20Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > The _last_ thing this country needs is another network of howler monkeys screeching at the top of their lungs. That’s a fair description of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. But that’s not a fair description of Pacifica Radio (listen and you’ll see), and I doubt it will be a fair description of IWT. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/185 "2005-04-27T00:07:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s a fair description of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. But that’s not a fair description of Pacifica Radio (listen and you’ll see), and I doubt it will be a fair description of IWT. I’m intriuged by this concept of listening _and_ seeing. Pacifica radio must be a marvel of technology. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/186 "2005-04-27T03:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > There you go again. Calling it a ridiculous assertion does not make it a ridiculous assertion. Several posts ago I cited examples of left wing bias at CNN and all I got back was some dumb ad hominem stuff, some expletives and some distraction. No, you got me asking specific questions and raising specific objections to your examples. I also said that I don’t think lobbing examples at one another proves anything, which you seem to think was hypocritical, as if I were the one who asked you for examples. (We’re not one big monolith, you know.) > [@](#): > > Or where’s the evidence that my cites, or anything in South Park Conservatives, is false? They probably are true. I just didn’t think they were very good examples. Even if they were, we have a saying in my field–“the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’”. Here we have an example of the mainstream media dutifully letting the right-wing establishment dictate the terms of the debate, which in this case are built on a total falsehood: [http://mediamatters.org/items/200504260001](http://mediamatters.org/items/200504260001) This is an example of the media giving a pass to the right-wingers, but it doesn’t prove any overall bias any more than your examples did (or would, if they made sense). > [@](#): > > BTW Neill Boortz has a standing $10,000 offer to anyone who can show that a Fox news item is deliberately slanted. Kent Hovind has a much larger amount pledged to someone who can “prove evolution”. Does the fact that it remains unclaimed give any merit to his arguments? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/187 "2005-04-27T06:27:35Z")
> [@Plan B](#): > > So, where’s the evidence that Brian Anderson is not credible? Or by not credible do you mean conservative? > > Never mind, don’t bother. Don’t mind if I do. Though I doubt it’ll make any difference at all in the minds of the ignorant bots that have currently taken America hostage to their ideology. [Conservative author Anderson cited highly flawed AEI study to support claim of liberal media bias](http://mediamatters.org/items/200504210003) > [@](#): > > Conservative author Brian C. Anderson cited a misleading study by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to support his assertions of liberal bias in the media. Anderson claimed that the study was “a good one” from “a pretty thick chapter on examples of liberal bias going back for years and years” from his new book South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias (Regnery, April 2005) during his April 18 appearance on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor. In fact, the paper, “Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?” by John R. Lott Jr. and Kevin A. Hassett, employs questionable social science methodology and draws exaggerated conclusions from its underlying data. Can’t say that I’m not enjoying this particular New Imperialist version of America go down the drain – because, make no mistake about it, no amount of kicking and screaming (or outright killing) is going to stop its current and rather precipitous economic and military downfall. OTOH, unlike **xtime** , I I have no interest in popping corn for the occassion for beyond the fact that I wish ill on any society there’s also the very pragmatic fact that the US’s undoing at current pace will have a very negative impact on us all. As a side note, reading some of the rightwingers posts on this thread only reinforces my belief that they are totally and completely out of touch with the majority of the world at large. I just wish and hope that the ensuing bloodshed needed to bring them back to reality can be kept to a bare minimun – unlike what’s happened in Iraq. Sadly, I highly doubt it. For how do you fight greed and a complete lack of empathy without facing them head on? Particularly when they keep building on the biggest/largest arsenal the world’s ever seen. For obvious selfish reasons, I’m glad I’m close to fifty with most of my life behind me. For obvious paternal reasons, it saddens me that this is the world I’m leaving behind for my soon-to-be fifteen year old. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/188 "2005-04-27T06:32:33Z")
> [@](#): > > for beyond the fact that I wish ill on any society For non-Freudian reasons, that should clearly read “I wish **NO** ill on any society.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/189 "2005-04-27T14:13:17Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > **Shodan** , do you have any cite on NPR or PBS being biased left? I listen to _All Things_ Considered all the time and have yet to hear any sort of bias. It’s, IMHO, the most unbiased news available. There are lots of them. I assume you are not disputing the commentaries and opinion shows like Fresh Air. And Garrison Keillor is known locally for the foam-flecked vehemence of his anti-Republican hatred. For NPR news, one measure used was to determine how often liberal think-tanks and their studies were cited. By this measure, NPR is about as left-of-center as CBS news or the Washington Post. [Link.](http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Liberal/%20Bias%20Quantified.htm) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/190 "2005-04-27T14:21:51Z")
I would like to see a classical liberal (or libertarian) news network, seriously challenging both threats to our civil liberties and reckless economic strategies from all political parties. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/191 "2005-04-27T14:29:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There are lots of them. I assume you are not disputing the commentaries and opinion shows like Fresh Air. And Garrison Keillor is known locally for the foam-flecked vehemence of his anti-Republican hatred. > > For NPR news, one measure used was to determine how often liberal think-tanks and their studies were cited. By this measure, NPR is about as left-of-center as CBS news or the Washington Post. [Link.](http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Liberal/%20Bias%20Quantified.htm) > > Regards, > Shodan Nope. Just going by the news programs. For what it’s worth, the “foam flecked vehemence” that Garrison Keillor has seems to be a measure of disappointment at what the republican party has become. Also, linky no worky. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/192 "2005-04-27T15:02:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In other words, they’re not trying to compete head-to-head with Fox, nor with CNN, they’re trying to do something entirely different. Maybe they’ll attract a market base that, at present, is not satisfied with any existing cable “news” outlet. We’ll just have to wait and see if it works. > > IWT is trying to do something even more differenter, but it has some serious professional/executive types who seem to think they can pull it off. It’s going to be organized as a non-profit corporation. The amount they’re trying to raise to launch it is $7 million, **all** of it from donations. They will refuse all commercial and government contributions, to maintain their independence; needless to say, they will sell no advertising. They will never make it. If they try to run the place on ontributions and actually make it onto the air at all, they will shut down within a year. I suppose somebody with an agenda and deep pockets could keep them afloat longer, but I will stand by my prediction. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/193 "2005-04-27T15:16:36Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Nope. Just going by the news programs. OK, as long as we are consistent. If bias at NPR only counts in their news programming, then none of the editorials at Fox and practically none of AM talk radio, can be taken as evidence of right-wing bias, either. > [@Harborwolf](#): > > For what it’s worth, the “foam flecked vehemence” that Garrison Keillor has seems to be a measure of disappointment at what the republican party has become. Oh, I’m sure he thinks his reasons are good. But that is something that occurs all the time in discussions of this sort. To right-wingers, Fox appears “fair and balanced”. To left-wingers, it is obviously too biased to be valid. To liberals, left-wing bias in the mainstream media isn’t bias at all - liberal ideas are objectively true, so pushing those ideas is just presenting the truth. The difficulty comes when this automatic assumption leads to error. Andy Rooney mentioned (in an address at Tulane University) that 60 Minutes would not have done the faked National Guard documents story if it weren’t a negative story about Bush. They assumed that it was almost self-evident that Bush was lying about his record, ergo any documents that seemed to show it _must_ be valid. > [@Harborwolf](#): > > Also, linky no worky. [Sorry.](http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Liberal%20Bias%20Quantified.htm) I didn’t have time to preview. > [@DoctorJ](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > BTW Neill Boortz has a standing $10,000 offer to anyone who can show that a Fox news item is deliberately slanted. > > Kent Hovind has a much larger amount pledged to someone who can “prove evolution”. Does the fact that it remains unclaimed give any merit to his arguments? I see your point, but James Randi has a larger amount still unclaimed. And I have seen some claim that this is proof of something, too. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/194 "2005-04-27T16:11:31Z")
Woohoo, linky worky. And now, for your enjoyment, a quote from linky. > [@](#): > > The well known rating system – when applied to the congress – uses a calculus that among other things determines how often congressmen and senators favorably mention 200 prominent think tanks in speeches. Those lawmakers referring favorably to conservative think tanks achieve a score skewed to the conservative or lower end of the ADA scale. Those referring favorably to liberal think tanks move up the scale – into the more liberal zone. > The researchers simply gauged the tendency of 20 prominent media outlets to cite favorably those same think tanks in news stories. The theory is that Media outlets, like the lawmakers, which refer favorably to conservative or liberal think tanks, move up and down the scale accordingly. This seems a rather odd rating system. For starters, how does one cite a think tank favorably? “Those saintly fellows at liberal think tank…” It would also seem to be based on the raters perceptions of a think tank as liberal or conservative. Doesn’t seem to have much to do with the actual content of the broadcast. [PIRATE VOICE]These figures be dubious, says I.[/PIRATE VOICE] ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/195 "2005-04-27T17:11:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I see your point, but James Randi has a larger amount still unclaimed. And I have seen some claim that this is proof of something, too. Yeah, and those people are wrong. Granted, I think there’s a world of difference between Randi’s challenge and Hovind’s, namely that Randi’s conditions are fair representations for what his subjects ought to be able to do and Hovind’s are manipulated to guarantee he’ll never pay off. (Please, for the love of God, let’s not go any further down this road.) But neither challenge is really proof of anything. I don’t know what Boortz expects to meet his conditions, but given that a cottage industry has sprung up documenting the atrocities on Fox News, my guess is that it’s pretty exacting. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/196 "2005-04-27T17:36:55Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > For starters, how does one cite a think tank favorably? Aar matey. Allow me that 'un, Cap’n Shodan. As someone who worked in the TV news industry for ten years, I can answer that one. Listen carefully the next time a study is cited as the basis for a story. If the news organization is biased in the same direction as the source of the information, the intro will go something like this: “The sky is falling. (raise personalized example of falling sky, quote statistics, etc)”. Somewhere in the middle of the piece they will say something like “The study was commissioned by the Income Redistribution society” and then continue on with no further reference to the originator of the information. If the news organization is biased against the originators of the information, the story may not appear at all. If it does, the reference will be at the very beginning and will go something like “A right wing think tank says the sky is falling. Is there any truth the claims?” If you don’t believe me, just pay close attention. You’ll see it the next time someone puts out a study that magically confirms their point of advocacy. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/197 "2005-04-27T18:08:08Z")
Arrr, arrr, shiver me timbers, 'tis the black spot. Thanks, **Evil One**. But if you need a further example, think of how often I (for example) would cite Accuracy in Media as opposed to Dailykos or the like. I expect you could draw reasonable inferences on my political positions and therefore my biases from that kind of examination. And I would also expect that reasonably fair-minded people would agree on which of my cites were “favorable”. It is not all that different from the media, or Congress. If you make studies from the Brookings Institute the basis of a lot of your speeches, it is unlikely that you are a member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. It is obviously not a perfect measure, but there are few of those. And after a while, a whole bunch of indications start to add up to probability, ISTM. Liberal media bias is not a myth, and the efforts by people like FAIR to redefine terms or change the subject are not helpful. Even when it starts to look like their strenous denials are getting some traction, a scandal like the Halperin memo or the “Favored Son” fiasco blows up and reclarifies the issue. Disputing a point is one thing; living in denial is another. Not that this is what you are doing. But some are. > [@DoctorJ](#): > > (Please, for the love of God, let’s not go any further down this road.) But neither challenge is really proof of anything. Agreed, and agreed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/198 "2005-04-27T18:08:11Z")
**Evil One** , the study you mentioned would likely be flawed anyway. What on earth would the Income redistribution society know about the falling sky? And your post leaves an odd taste in my mouth that only strong rum shall be able to alleviate. > [@](#): > > If the news organization is biased against the originators of the information, the story may not appear at all. This caught me because it reads something into nothing. I’m just fuzzy on how not reporting something indicates any sort of bias as news shows have a set time limit. Far more reasonable to assume that there simply was not enough time to cover the story than to read bias into it. > [@](#): > > If the news organization is biased in the same direction as the source of the information, the intro will go something like this: > > “The sky is falling. (raise personalized example of falling sky, quote statistics, etc)”. Somewhere in the middle of the piece they will say something like “The study was commissioned by the Income Redistribution society” and then continue on with no further reference to the originator of the information. > > If the news organization is biased against the originators of the information…the reference will be at the very beginning and will go something like “A right wing think tank says the sky is falling. Is there any truth the claims?” Apologies for the hack job, but I wanted to address the middle part first. For what it’s worth, I also eat the cream filling out of oreos first. Pattern of behavior I guess. This sort of reporting, to me, would indicate what the story was about rather than bias. The first example, with the study in the middle, tells me that the story is the news and the study is a cite. The second example, study first, tells me that the study is the news, which happens often when studies are freshly released. To use the board as an example, somebody opens a thread about the sky falling. As a cite, he presents a study or report on bits of blue sky landing on trailer parks. The subject of the thread is falling skies. The other side would be is somebody started a thread on whether or not the study that shows that bits of blue sky are falling at an increased rate. In that thread, the subject would be the study. I hope that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/199 "2005-04-27T18:11:06Z")
I should also say that I dislike the assigning of _any_ political views to studies. If a study is properly done, there should be no bias in any direction. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/200 "2005-04-27T18:47:49Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > This caught me because it reads something into nothing. I’m just fuzzy on how not reporting something indicates any sort of bias as news shows have a set time limit. Far more reasonable to assume that there simply was not enough time to cover the story than to read bias into it. Sure, but length is not always the reason for leaving something out. And if it seems to be consistently the case that data relevant to one side of the political questions get left out more often than that relevant to the other, other reasons might become more obvious. F’rinstance, there have been lots of studies in which news stories go out of their way to identify certain people as identifying with one side or the other. IIRC, the study I remember was how often conservative women were explicitly labelled as “conservative” while liberal women were simply identified as members of “women’s groups” - like NOW. It gives a certain insight into what the labeller considers so unusual as to require classification. Liberal women, thus, are simply women - conservative women are such odd ducks that the viewer needs to be warned to question what they say. Gotta do some work, darnit. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544.md?page=11)