# What can we do about Fox News? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693 "2012-10-24T03:20:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/81 "2012-10-25T13:21:17Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Nobody is suggesting that would be. I argue that Fox’s news/factual information to opinion ratio is so low that it needs an editorial disclaimer and shouldn’t be allowed to masquerade as a \*news \*outlet. MSNBC might well not meet that criteria either. No skin off my teeth. As to WHO should set and judge such merits, I would suggest a multi-national association of journalists set the standards, and a bi-partisan or non partisan entity administer it. The issue is not that Fox exists but that it touts itself as a news entity presenting factual information to the public rather than the opinion/analysis station that it actually is. What’s more, such measures would not preclude Fox from reporting on the news events, it would merely require that the public be informed about the nature of the reporting they are consuming. The “problem” is that people don’t want to watch the news all day long. So they get entertainment. Changing the name of the entertainment entity will not solve the “problem”. It might make you, and some other folks here, feel better, but it won’t change a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/82 "2012-10-25T13:39:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Perhaps if the word “lie” wasn’t thrown around so often in cases where there clearly is a reasonable dispute about what the facts are. Overuse of the accusation is poisoning our discourse. Is there a reasonable dispute about which political party Mark Sanford belongs to? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/83 "2012-10-25T13:53:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is there a reasonable dispute about which political party Mark Sanford belongs to? “Lie” implies intent. Prove that it wasn’t accidental. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/84 "2012-10-25T14:11:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Lie” implies intent. Prove that it wasn’t accidental. Give us a reasonable explanation why the mislabeling mistakes always go in one direction? edited to add: And to forstall the auto “They do it toooo!” response, show me a suposedly liberal network that has a habit of making this same mistake on the other side of the equation. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/85 "2012-10-25T14:18:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is there a reasonable dispute about which political party Mark Sanford belongs to? That was a mistake not a lie. What this is about is the arrogance of liberals. Liberals think so much of their own intelligence that they start to conflate their own opinions with facts. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them is lying about facts. This makes a difference of opinion into a public problem needed to be solved. Therefore anyone who has a different opinion than the liberal one needs to be labeled and censored. You don’t have to scratch a liberal very hard to find a totalitarian. While it is true that people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who watch most other news channels, that does not mean watching Fox News makes them uninformed. Here [http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/](http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/) is a study of public knowledge and news consuming habits. It found that consumers of Fox News had a lower level of knowledge about public issues than most other forms of news consumption. This is not suprising to people who have been conditioned to hate Fox Nes. But it also found some other information which would be suprising such as the fact the viewers of the O’Reilly Factor were better informed than listeners to NPR. Also that listeners to Rush Limbaugh were much better informed than watchers of CNN or network newscasts. Does this mean than O’Reilly and Rush do a better job of informing their fans than do NPR or CNN? No, if you look at the demographic for each type show, it is just that people who are more likely to be knowledgable are fans of O’Reillys or Rush. In other words instead of the news shows making some people smart and some dumb, smart people like to certain types of news more than others. Political junkies listen to Rush and watch O’Reilly so they are more likely to have informed audiences. Viewers of Fox News are more likely to have only a high school education than most other new outlets. Less educated people have less knowledge about current events, because they are less educated and not because of the new they watch. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/86 "2012-10-25T14:23:40Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > That was a mistake not a lie. > What this is about is the arrogance of liberals. Liberals think so much of their own intelligence that they start to conflate their own opinions with facts. Therefore anyone who disagrees with them is lying about facts. This makes a difference of opinion into a public problem needed to be solved. Therefore anyone who has a different opinion than the liberal one needs to be labeled and censored. You don’t have to scratch a liberal very hard to find a totalitarian. > While it is true that people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who watch most other news channels, that does not mean watching Fox News makes them uninformed. Here [http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/](http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/) is a study of public knowledge and news consuming habits. It found that consumers of Fox News had a lower level of knowledge about public issues than most other forms of news consumption. This is not suprising to people who have been conditioned to hate Fox Nes. But it also found some other information which would be suprising such as the fact the viewers of the O’Reilly Factor were better informed than listeners to NPR. Also that listeners to Rush Limbaugh were much better informed than watchers of CNN or network newscasts. Does this mean than O’Reilly and Rush do a better job of informing their fans than do NPR or CNN? No, if you look at the demographic for each type show, it is just that people who are more likely to be knowledgable are fans of O’Reillys or Rush. > In other words instead of the news shows making some people smart and some dumb, smart people like to certain types of news more than others. Political junkies listen to Rush and watch O’Reilly so they are more likely to have informed audiences. Viewers of Fox News are more likely to have only a high school education than most other new outlets. Less educated people have less knowledge about current events, because they are less educated and not because of the new they watch. This is absolute nonsense unless you have studies that show that show that Fox News viewers become more knowledgable the longer they tune into that network. BTW, what does this have to do with the lies told by that station? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/87 "2012-10-25T14:28:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Give us a reasonable explanation why the mislabeling mistakes always go in one direction? > edited to add: And to forstall the auto “They do it toooo!” response, show me a suposedly liberal network that has a habit of making this same mistake on the other side of the equation. That’s not proof of a lie. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/88 "2012-10-25T14:35:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not proof of a lie. No…but if you took this to bookies in Las Vegas, what kind of odds do you think they would give you for that many “accidents” happening in the same direction? What the hell would it take to convince you that lying was taking place-an announcement from Fox stating that they had just lied? How many times does it have to happen before the words “It was just _another_ accident” gets stuck in your throat? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/89 "2012-10-25T14:44:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This is absolute nonsense unless you have studies that show that show that Fox News viewers become more knowledgable the longer they tune into that network. > > BTW, what does this have to do with the lies told by that station? You do not understand the study, whether or not they become more knowledgable has nothing to do with it. Smart people listen to opera music, the opera music does not make them smart. The only list of lies I could find is from Politicfact and it is mostly just differences in interpretation they have with pundits on Fox News. Everyone news organization occasionally makes errors but if you want people to respond to lies, you should be specific. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/90 "2012-10-25T14:52:03Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > You do not understand the study, whether or not they become more knowledgable has nothing to do with it. Smart people listen to opera music, the opera music does not make them smart. > > The only list of lies I could find is from Politicfact and it is mostly just differences in interpretation they have with pundits on Fox News. Everyone news organization occasionally makes errors but if you want people to respond to lies, you should be specific. And you should read the threads you participate in. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/91 "2012-10-25T15:09:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Lie” implies intent. Prove that it wasn’t accidental. Seriously? Okay. How do [this](http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreilly-foley-d-1.jpg) and [this](http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/img/art/stevensD456465456475.jpg) work for you? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/92 "2012-10-25T15:11:02Z")
I have read the entire thread and the only lie mentioned is that Mark Sanford was a democrat. That is much more likely to be an error than a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/93 "2012-10-25T15:18:53Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I have read the entire thread and the only lie mentioned is that Mark Sanford was a democrat. That is much more likely to be an error than a lie. [How](http://foxnewslies.net/?p=694) [about](http://foxnewslies.net/?p=720) [these](http://foxnewslies.net/?p=705)? I didn’t have to go very far to find them, as you’ll doubtless note on reading the URLs. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/94 "2012-10-25T15:44:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In some cases, yes. In other cases, facts are in dispute. I like the fact check sites, but they are not gospel, just more useful information to analyze the merits of an argument. Yeah right.. [http://www.newshounds.us/2011/08/19/gretchen\_carlson\_endorses\_non\_existent\_texas\_creationist\_curriculum.php](http://www.newshounds.us/2011/08/19/gretchen_carlson_endorses_non_existent_texas_creationist_curriculum.php) > [@](#): > > Former Miss America and professional Christian Gretchen Carlson is a Stanford Grad. As such, she can’t be anywhere near as dumb as she appears to be whilst sitting on the curvy couch next to interchangeable males whose IQ’s are definitely on the left side of the Bell Curve and I ain’t talking politics. In observing Gretch’s staged stupidity, Jon Stewart once asked why she’s stashing her IQ in an offshore account. I’ve long suspected that Gretch’s theatrics are staged to appeal to the Fox & Friends demographics by making her look like one of them - simple conservative folk who don’t believe in science cuz it’s pushed by evil, librul, Jesus hating academics. In their 6,000 year old world, all you need to know is in the bible. Gretch’s IQ stashing was apparent on this morning’s Fox & Friends, during which Gretch et al. defended poor Rick Perry who was asked, by a boy in NH, about the age of the earth. While the reality based community is appalled at Perry’s seeming ignorance, the bizarro world, for whom Fox & Friends is a mouthpiece, thinks it’s just fine. Just last year Gerardo on FOX was still making a “fair and balanced” panel with scientists and moon hoaxers. :rolleyes: and then we have the more serious misrepresentations of what the science of global warming is actually saying. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/95 "2012-10-25T15:55:33Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > I have read the entire thread and the only lie mentioned is that Mark Sanford was a democrat. That is much more likely to be an error than a lie. After so many years of going even against basic science facts one has to conclude that lies are not a problem for them, the other option is that then they are the definition of incompetency. Either way, as a close relative showed me, if you are just relying on a source like FOX news I don’t care how smart you are, your world view is affected negatively in the long run. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/96 "2012-10-25T16:03:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [How](http://foxnewslies.net/?p=694) [about](http://foxnewslies.net/?p=720) [these](http://foxnewslies.net/?p=705)? I didn’t have to go very far to find them, as you’ll doubtless note on reading the URLs. Those are very weak sauce. The first is Rove saying that Obama approved a loan to Brazil’s oil company. The fact is that the Import Export bank did approve a loan to Brazil’s oil company. That site claims Rove was lying because the loan was approved a week before the guy Obama appointed took over. This does not change the fact that there was a loan and if Obama had disapproved he could have stopped it and the guy he approved had plenty of time to stop it after it was approved. The second is that Dana Periono said Diane Sawyer asked Romney about his dog as the first question when it was actually later in the interview. A small factual error which makes no difference to anything. The third is that Steve Doocy did not make clear he was paraphrasing Obama instead of quoting him. In his quote Obama was making an implicit comparison with Romney so Doocy indicated that instead of reading him the entire quote. This was sloppy but it was not deceitful. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/97 "2012-10-25T16:26:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Seriously? Okay. How do [this](http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/oreilly-foley-d-1.jpg) and [this](http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/img/art/stevensD456465456475.jpg) work for you? I believe what the ravenously impartial **Mr. Mace** is requesting is some sort of documentary proof, say a memo or leaked video of someone in Fox News’s upper management copping to the fact that it’s being done intentionally. Pending that, I think it’s fair to assume that all of these mistakes that result in Democrats looking worse are sheer accidents. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/98 "2012-10-25T16:32:13Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This does not change the fact that there was a loan and if Obama had disapproved he could have stopped it and the guy he approved had plenty of time to stop it after it was approved. That is like declaring that unless there is a correction by the next one in charge that then there is no lie. So what can we tell about FOX when they do not point out or correct the whoopers made by the Daily Mail even after faced with all the evidence after more than 10 years? Specially when those whoppers benefit the polluters that are supporting an specific political party? ---
**Author:** ![Perderabo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Perderabo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perderabo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/99 "2012-10-25T16:34:40Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I offer this tidbit: my work has Fox News on in their lunchroom and when I ate there a couple days ago for about a half an hour, _none_ of the commercials were political. WOW! OMG! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I’m going to start watching Fox News tonight! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693/100 "2012-10-25T16:36:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Those are very weak sauce. > The first is Rove saying that Obama approved a loan to Brazil’s oil company. The fact is that the Import Export bank did approve a loan to Brazil’s oil company. That site claims Rove was lying because the loan was approved a week before the guy Obama appointed took over. This does not change the fact that there was a loan and if Obama had disapproved he could have stopped it and the guy he approved had plenty of time to stop it after it was approved. > The second is that Dana Periono said Diane Sawyer asked Romney about his dog as the first question when it was actually later in the interview. A small factual error which makes no difference to anything. > The third is that Steve Doocy did not make clear he was paraphrasing Obama instead of quoting him. In his quote Obama was making an implicit comparison with Romney so Doocy indicated that instead of reading him the entire quote. This was sloppy but it was not deceitful. If you won’t accept anything as proof, there’s not much point in engaging you is there? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-we-do-about-fox-news/638693.md?page=6)