|
Nemesys -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/1/2009 1:55:18 PM)
|
Hello and Tal, Music Mystery,
I haven't made the claims that started this thread, but I enjoy a challenge, so here goes.
On today's Fox News main page is a story about the NJ governor's race:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/01/new-jersey-voters-split-corzine-christie/
The story's focus is on how the election race is almost dead even, according to the results of a poll. Every other news source that I've heard has said essentially the same thing. The Fox article seems very matter of fact and even-handed. If there's bias there, intended or not, I cannot see it.
The New York Times today also has a story on the same race:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/01/nyregion/AP-US-Obama-Politics.html?_r=1&hp
This story leads off not with the facts, but with President Obama's opinions on the facts. Reading deeper, the Times article is comprehensive and fairly objective regarding election politics. However, this story is not un-typical of the Times' strategy in the past 5 years or so of leading off with opinions and/or headlines favorable to its position where the facts should be. As the Times (and I'm sure yourself) are aware, most readers to not read to the bottom of a story, particularly in printed editions where the reader must physically flip to an inside page.
Anecdotally, I first noticed this about 6 years ago when I bought a copy of the Sunday Times to read during my youngest son's Little League game. This had been a custom that I had enjoyed when my older son was also playing ball. However, this time it was annoying clear that every section began with at least one article that denigrated our president by citing the opinions of others where the facts should have been. Every section - National news, local news, even the Travel, Book Review, Arts, and Sports section took the opportunity to slam the administration about something. The newspaper that delivers All the News Fit To Print also saw fit to see to the strategic placement of the news it saw fit to highlight, which (in my opinion) is less honest than simply stating one's position and being straightforward about it. It was unreadable to me, and based upon their circulation, has also become unreadable to hundreds of thousands of other people as well.
The claims of "liberal bias" against the Times and others is not that they may have a left-handed bias, which is certainly within their rights to have... it is that they often claim not to, which is naive at best and underhanded at worst. CNN used to practice this as well, but to their credit have transformed to be the most evenhanded news source available, while CNBC has moved in the opposite direction. As to Fox, their business model is often misunderstood. They are not in the business of delivering Conservatism... rather, they are in the business of delivering drama and conflict. Their ratings thrive on debate, not adherence to ideology (which is also the key to the success of conservative talk radio, but that's another topic). Of course, their position is anchored on the right, but if that were the only component of their programming, they wouldn't be worth a second look... but the current administration's concern with the network is that this conflict strategy has become very attractive to open-minded independents, upon whom elections are decided, and so has seen fit to tag Fox as not being "real news"... which, in the big picture, is a very ironic position to take.
We can point back and forth to individual articles, but it is the trend over time that is most interesting in this subject. Overall, the trend is that "Liberal" journalism produces materials not open to debate, but takes the position that it reports unalterable, unbiased fact, and becomes insufferably indignant when questioned on their "unbiased" reporting. "Conservative" journalism is a free-for-all of all positions, that drifts right but exults most when its biases are questioned (as evidenced by recent ratings, if nothing else). The editorial position of Fox is not "Fair and Balanced", but they can make a more reasonable case than the New York Times that their operational model is... if for no other reason that they don't mind that "balance" being questioned. It's what they have exceeded at.
I wish you well, N
|
|
|
|
