It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FOX NEWS Fair and Balanced? You Betcha!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The morning show is pretty slanted right.

At least on Fox the opinion is clearly marked as opinion. O'Reilly and Hannity are clearly commentators and anyone who considers them journalists are silly.

Cavuto is anti Obama but that's on the economics more than the political, I don't really think he's a big McCain fan.

The rest of the day, you are hard pressed to find rock solid bias like you can on CNN where pretty much everyone is in the tank for Obama now that Glenn Beck is in transition to Fox.

I think sometimes Fox goes too far in how they frame the debates they have and the questions they ask but it's a lot closer to fair and balanced than CNN.

MSNBC is a joke and the whole world knows it.

People who bash Fox for the most part are sheeple who have never watched it and make fun of it because that's what all their trendy little friends do.

Obama hates Fox so everyone else should too, right?




posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whiskeyswiller
 
Excellent post. Very well put.
Spoken like someone that has actually watched Fox News.
Starred.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
My favorite part is in the .ing...

Obama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

"Not a typo", love it. Although the reference is a little dated.


These results are from CMPA’s 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of all 481 election news stories (15 hours 40 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”) from October 1 through December 15, 2007.


[edit on 11/1/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Fair and balanced would mean to me that a show would try and get a relatively equal number of persons of relatively equal ability on both/all sides of an issue, give them all time to thoroughly lay out their cases and allow a reasonable cross examination from different perspectives perhaps from unscripted audience participation. And this would imply not setting up straw men but REALLY getting the BEST out there to participate on BOTH /All sides.

Let's take 9-11 for instance. There are believers in the official government conspiracy theory on the one hand and then there are those that believe the White House version is so full of holes as to be a non-believable fairy tale to put it mildly. As this issue is of extreme importance to the American people, surely O'reilly has picked it up many times on his show.

So how does a Fox show like this treat this in a 'fair and balanced' manner. Does anyone have a transcript of an O'reilly show regarding 9-11 to submit as evidence that we can all view to see if and how this subject was handled in a fair and balanced manner?

I find it funny anyone in todays climate would simply turn to an outside agency to tell them if a show is "fair and balanced" which is obvioulsy a subjective OPINION, rather than taking the time to weigh the EVIDENCE themselves. Obvioulsy how does anyone know how "fair and balanced" the agency was that decided their subject was fair and balanced? Again, weigh things out for YOURSELVES, don't waste time allowing talking .s to tell you what to think. So, to the main point again, can ANYONE post a "fair and balanced" look at 9-11 on a show like O'reilly's that met the criteria I mentioned above or even one close that would seem to show an OPEN ,HONEST, attempt to gather ALL pertinent information and weigh and disect it in an objective forum?

If so I would very much like us all to look at it and maybe as a group we can all point out what seems fair and balanced and what doesn't. Sound like a "fair and balanced" proposition?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 

Rooster.
Try this one
www.cmpa.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by This American
 
The substance of this post is that Fox News is fair and blanced in their reporting of the campaign between McCain and Obama.
All that other stuff you are talking about is just distracting from the issue.



[edit on 1-11-2008 by deathhasnosound]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
reply to post by This American
 
The substance of this post is that Fox News is fair and blanced in their reporting of the campaign between McCain and Obama.
All that other stuff you are talking about is just distracting from the issue.



[edit on 1-11-2008 by deathhasnosound]


Yes, I see now. Guess I was responding to the title of the post in general and and what I perceived to be some of the more generalized comments.

So really if one is just saying Fox is somewhat fair and balanced in relation to their campaign coverage between OB/MC and not saying they are fair and balnced in general, then yes I MIGHT have a harder time taking exception to that.

IMO though, this is not really hard to believe because in all liklihood The Powers That Be, that pay the bills, may have already decided Obama is their man to carry out the next phase of the NWO/Imperialist Agenda and FOX like all good compliant Corporate/State-run media will simply go where the money takes them and allow "fair and balanced" reporting when it serves the bigger agenda. So yes...carry on....



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Lets go straight to your source CMPA:

Robert Lichter is the president of the CMPA.

www.fair.org...]Fair.org



The Lichters’ funding and history belie this stance of objectivity. From 1986 to 1988, Robert Lichter was a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Fund-raising letters for the launch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs contained endorsements from leading right-wing figures like Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson.





Funding for the Center has come from the most prominent foundations of the right, including Smith Richardson (at least $298,000), Olin Foundation ($250,000), JM Foundation ($100,000) and the Coors Foundation ($55,000). (Smith Richardson gave the Center $40,000 in 1987 for its study on PBS.) These foundations also contribute heavily to more overtly right-wing media pressure groups like Reed Irvine’s Accuracy In Media, L. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center, and David Horowitz’s Committee on Media Integrity.


Even Bill O'Reilly Slammed CMPA stating Lichter's latest research was "misleading" and an "enormous mistake".

LA Times



In the past, O'Reilly embraced Lichter's research showing a liberal bias by network news programs. He welcomed Lichter as a truth-teller, for instance, when the communications professor at Virginia's George Mason University -- using the same methodology -- said Democrats were getting more favorable network TV coverage than Republicans in the walk-up to the 2006 midterm election.

But Monday, after The Times reported Lichter’s latest findings and the apparent tilt against Obama, O’Reilly told his radio listeners the research was “misleading” and an “enormous mistake.”

O’Reilly’s complaint was that Lichter coded statements as negative that were, he asserted, neutral -- such as merely repeating poll results.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by The Savage Khan
 

Ok, so basing it on the information you've provided hey are compromised just like factcheck.org. is and terefore their studies cannot be trusted.
Wonderful.
is there any outlet left out there that is NOT biased and compromised?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


There is still you an I my friend.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
No MSM is fair and balanced. Thats almost laughable. Especially not Fox! Everyone knows Fox News is mostly conservative (prime time shows at least) just like MSNBC is liberal.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Shocka
 
Based on new information provided by Savage Khan, I can no longer defend the information in the link I provided in the OP so I will concede to any arguments made against Fox New's non biased stance.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

I dont care if some report says they are fair or balanced. I make up my own opinions. They are hateful, fear-mongering and ignorant of the world. Watching 5 minutes of Fox or CNN makes me feel anxious and nervous.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Copernicus]


To put CNN and fox together in incorrect. CNN is WAYYY Left.

The fact is Leftys dont know how to compromise. Its ther way or you are wrong/racist.

I dont watch either but when I do, Cnn makes me want to vomit.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[from:↑ "Center for Media and Public Affairs, Inc.", Media Transparency, accessed February 2008.] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations.

The funding information, covering 1986-2005, lists the following donors (note: all figures are unadjusted for inflation):

    * Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $512,000 from 8 donations
    * the Earhart Foundation contributed $120,000 in six grants between 1999 and 2003;
    * John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations between 1986 and 2001;
    * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - $250,000 nine grants over the period between 1989 and 1995;
    * Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations spanning the period between 1991 and 2003; and
    * Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations between 1998 and 2001;

Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

    * John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
    * Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
    * Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

"Center for Media and Public Affairs, Inc.", Media Transparency, accessed February 2008.


According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit." [from: 3.0 3.1 Joe Conason, "Letter: A question of bias", Salon, January 15, 2003.]

As at February 2008, the CMPA website contains no information about the Center's sources of funding.


Project for the New American Century. . . American Enterprise Institute. .

Nothing to see here, move along.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 
You may have missed my post above:

"Based on new information provided by Savage Khan, I can no longer defend the information in the link I provided in the OP so I will concede to any arguments made against Fox New's non biased stance."


Sometimes it helps to read ALL the posts or you end up embarrassing yourself by posting what someone has just posted.



[edit on 2-11-2008 by deathhasnosound]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


Why not check your sources before posting a thread such as this?

The information is easily available on the internets.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 
I will check on my sources further if you will read prior posts before posting yourself...deal?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Anyone else finding a lack of anything on cmpa?
The only links on the first two pages worth of google results seem to reference themselves with a huge "Nonpartisan, nonprofit organization" tag. No article citations on major news outlets.

I did find a blogger referencing Fox giving huge flack to Hillary Clinton... Thats it.

www.democraticunderground.com



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



Late last year, without notifying board members or NPR, Mr. Tomlinson contacted S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a research group, about conducting a study on whether NPR’s Middle East coverage was more favorable to Arabs than to Israelis, Mr. Lichter said.


While the study appears to have been shelved — or at least postponed — Tomlinson’s selection of Lichter and the CMPA is worth noting. While any poll or study of media bias always takes fire from those who don’t agree with its conclusions, some of Lichter’s ties, and the criticisms leveled against his methodology, raise questions about his group’s findings.

Here’s what the Times didn’t tell you about CMPA: In March and April 2003, CMPA conducted a study of nightly newscasts to determine which programs had the most “positive” and “negative” reports about the war in Iraq. A total of 1,131 stories broadcast on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox’s “Special Report With Brit Hume” were measured. There was wrinkle in the study, however: Although it was set up to gauge television news, CMPA didn’t include CNN and MSNBC in its tally for what it said were “budgetary reasons.”

www.cjr.org...

This organization uses some pretty interesting methodology. Until today, I have not heard a thing about them.

I thank the original poster for bringing attention to this organization so that we could learn more about the media / information war being waged behind the scenes in this country.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


Never stop questioning. It is popular opinion that Fox News is a bias source but that does not make it true. I would never have dug up that info i did had you not taken the bold stance you did. We are live in a "land of confusion" and we are all on the same side. So I say, keep challenging the status quo. And you have my added respect for conceding.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join