RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge!

RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/5/2009 5:42:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Okeee-fine, then. I never bought the premise of this thread, but if that's the way it is going to be, let's at least get something as a basis of comparison. Reporting on falling poll numbers. What follows are four links, two NYT, two Fox. They're from similar timeframes, reporting similiar sorts of polls, President Obama from Sept. and Oct. of this year, Bush II from 2005, about the same place in his second term, as Obama is in his first. They are written to different style manuals, intended for different forms of communication. Bush Poll Numbers, 9/15/05, New York Times Obama Poll Numbers, 9/24/09, New York Times Bush Poll Numbers, 10/27/05, Fox Obama Poll Numbers, 10/29/09, Fox Well, let's take a close look at those articles. I'm assuming you were trying to imply bias by the Times toward Bush but you seem to be conveniently overlooking 15 points difference in the approval ratings. Saying Obama maintains a strong approval rating at 56% is an accurate statement. Would saying the same about Bush at 41% have been accurate? But let's move on to the Fox link on Obama's numbers. The 56% approval rating is buried in the middle of the story while the article leads with poll questions designed to provide a less favorable result.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/5/2009 12:22:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Not in response to Heretic, but thought this should go here instead of starting a new thread This is about fox and what they reported regarding the Pres not watching the election( I believe politico did also) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/11/04/obama-watched-hbo-special-about-himself-instead-election-results OOOOOps then they found out that he wasnt watching himself http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/11/04/fox-news-misreported-robert-gibbs-press-gaggle-comments Christian science monitor mention it too http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/04/fox-admits-blunder-in-reporting-obama-watched-documentary/ The only part I can find about it on fox(surprise) is karl rove waxing poetic on a contemptous gesture. http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=11292940&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html Lucy You mean the only thing you can find about it other than Major Garret's discussion of it which is in your own CSM link?

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/5/2009 6:17:30 PM)
quote: I never bought the premise of this thread Two sources, same story. Head to head. If that's an unfair premise, then you're simply refusing to compare, apparently for lack of evidence. You raised a TV to newspaper point. So OK, use the WSJ or CSM or other newspaper you consider reliable and compare story to story. Lucy's example suggests that won't fair well either, but it's only a single example. If looking at the same story in two newspapers is not a fair comparison, then at least construct a cogent argument rather than dismissing a pretty obviously solid premise out of hand. Ridicule works for Rush because that's what his listeners want to hear. I'm gonna want evidence comparing apples to apples--if your orchard is better than mine, let's take apples from each, same variety, same year, same conditions.

TheHeretic -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/5/2009 8:01:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I'm assuming you were trying to imply [sm=Groaner.gif] Swing and a miss!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/5/2009 8:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Ridicule works for Rush because that's what his listeners want to hear. I'm gonna want evidence comparing apples to apples--if your orchard is better than mine, let's take apples from each, same variety, same year, same conditions. You left out the last stipulation in your challenge, the critical one....you set the rules for deciding what is a good apple and what isnt. And your rules are based on far too limited criteria.

TheHeretic -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/5/2009 9:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: I never bought the premise of this thread Two sources, same story. Head to head. The other premise, Muse. That it was up for debate that Fox was "fair and balanced" in comparison to the "liberal" media. You want to nitpick for bias? Read what I linked. I think they match up pretty well. I see generally straight stories, about in house polls (Fox News/NYT-CBS), and pretty straight reporting on the results of both. What do they think is important? What do they not mention at all? As you get towards the end, what's the spin? At least three of the links will let you view the raw poll data, where could they have gone, but didn't? "Bias" just means what we think is normal, what fits easily into the comfort zone. Find me a rabid Bush-hater, he might easily find the NYT piece from '05 to be horribly supportive of Bush, while a mouthfrothing Obama hater might be wondering when the hell Fox turned so damn liberal. Other folks will see different things. If it's going to happen though, I'm just offering ya'll something to gnaw on. Did I color outside the precise parameters? How they report the negative results of in-house polls isn't the same story? Was head to head to head to head more than was in the assignment? Line them up as you please, and pick the carcasses clean over who chose which word, and why. How about how those poll questions were worded? Have a blast. Oh yeah. The links. Fox > NYT, but not by much. Purely my opinion.

Lucylastic -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 4:18:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You mean the only thing you can find about it other than Major Garret's discussion of it which is in your own CSM link? Until you start posing any verifiable link of any kind wilbur, I would suggest that you take all three sources (which all have a right leaning bias) and stick em where the sun dont shine. You've got nothing, as usual except more BS.

BitaTruble -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 4:41:30 AM)
quote: If that's an unfair premise, then you're simply refusing to compare, apparently for lack of evidence. I think this is very telling. When I went looking for head to head news reports (as opposed to OP-eds), what I found was not so much difference in the way that actual news is reported but in what news is reported. Fox reported on an abortion center director who quit, flipped and is now pro-life. No word of that in the other outlets and a flipper on abortion would appeal to the Fox demographic. The Times did a piece on climate change, a subject which appeals to their demographic but not a word about that news item in Fox. Facts is facts and it's hard to spin an actual fact. That's where I think bias in a news reporting comes into play. Not on how something is reported but what is being reported as news. There is always a bottom line to consider and if you piss off your consumer with reports that don't feed their agenda, you're going to lose customers, which is a loss of revenue and that does not make for happy stock holders. Other than that.. I got nothing. :)

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 5:18:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Ridicule works for Rush because that's what his listeners want to hear. I'm gonna want evidence comparing apples to apples--if your orchard is better than mine, let's take apples from each, same variety, same year, same conditions. You left out the last stipulation in your challenge, the critical one....you set the rules for deciding what is a good apple and what isnt. And your rules are based on far too limited criteria. No, I didn't. I said repeatedly to pick your own source, one you consider reliable, as well. I even left "reliable" up to your definitions. My criteria are not only NOT limited--they don't limit at all! The only stipulation is head to head coverage of the same story. If poster are going to dismiss a given story as unreliable because it comes from the "liberal" NY Times or NPR, then they should be able to demonstrate where the bias lies. If not, claiming automatic liberal bias is irrational. Rich and bita-- Earlier, I also noted that if you wanted to look and compare what was covered fine. I even took a few looks at that myself, and pretty clearly the bias was in the Republican news network. I included what stories were covered. You guys are giving broad assertions. So fine--analyzing what's covered rather than simply asserting it. Abortion and climate change are very frequently covered topics--I'm sure you'd find all major news sources cover them. The point here is that mere perception doesn't equal factual, however deeply embedded that perception may have become. I drive a lot, so I hear a lot of NPR, and people call in sometimes to complain "Where's the Republican guest?"--only to learn this is the next guest in a minute, or to find that guest has a major segment on the next show or had one on the previous show. Mistaken perception at odds with factual reality. I suspect what often IS the case is not "liberal bias," but that "You didn't report this using the Republican talking points." Such people don't want "fair and balanced" news, but rather news that reports their views back to them. Rich wants to compare coverage of Bush and Obama from different times. This goes beyond a head to head test to include a host of other issues, and we'd just spin them endlessly. All the media were far tougher on President Johnson for Vietnam, for example, than they were on Bush or Obama for Iraq or Afghanistan, and all have been far tougher on all three than on President Roosevelt for WWII. These are different times, with different circumstances, with a host of different tangental issues, and not conducive to a head to head comparison. Those comparison would take careful and long analysis. If you want to tell me the stories in the Times and on NPR have a "liberal bias," show me the same story elsewhere fairly covered, so you can point out the so-called bias. It's a reasonable request. Given all the news reported day after day after day, if that bias is there, it should show. So far, even if there ultimately IS any such bias, it certainly seems far below the surface, and not so readily apparent, given the difficulty in pointing it out. So far...no evidence.

BitaTruble -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 6:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Rich and bita-- Earlier, I also noted that if you wanted to look and compare what was covered fine. I even took a few looks at that myself, and pretty clearly the bias was in the Republican news network. I included what stories were covered. You guys are giving broad assertions. So fine--analyzing what's covered rather than simply asserting it. Abortion and climate change are very frequently covered topics--I'm sure you'd find all major news sources cover them. The point here is that mere perception doesn't equal factual, however deeply embedded that perception may have become. Just reporting what I found on a given day on the subject of news. Some stories made the cut for some agencies and other stories made the cut for other agencies. What made Fox choose the abortion story on that day over the climate change story? What made the Times choose the climate change story over the abortion story on that day? I don't think it's beyond the ken to make a a leap that it comes down to a bottom line to sell product to a particular demographic who you think will actually buy that product. Girl scouts aren't going to be combing diabetic data bases looking for customers because they're not going to sell a whole lot of cookies that way. Well, the editor has to get into the head of his readers and decide whether or not they want to read about a particular story then go with the story or shelve it. On the day I searched, Fox shelved the climate change story and Times shelved the abortion flipper. The question is why? What did the two head honchos think their readers wanted to see? If the almighty dollar no longer rules in America, then I stand corrected on my assumption that it does. I have been gone for 11 months now and have been news starved, so could be wrong and freely admit to such. quote: I suspect what often IS the case is not "liberal bias," but that "You didn't report this using the Republican talking points." Such people don't want "fair and balanced" news, but rather news that reports their views back to them. That's pretty much what I said only you were much more succinct. Demographics and bottom-line - stalwarts in a capitalistic society. It's the mentality of "feed me what I want or I'm going to go somewhere else for breakfast" and Denny's doesn't want you going to IHOP for breakfast. I get that, don't begrudge it at all. I just prefer a buffet myself. More choices means I can get my balanced diet which is probably why I'm a foodie.. er.. newsie? ::grins::

Vendaval -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 6:33:57 AM)
Greetings Musicmystery, Right now the developing story about the shootings at Fort Hood are a good way to compare different news sources. As has been mentioned by a previous poster in this thread, it is significant what a news source chooses to include and what is left out of the discussion. The most significant difference I can find right now is between the US and UK press. A report here from Fox News includes a few paragraphs about the shooter's possible motivation and includes his religion. "The shooter's cousin, Nader Hasan, told Fox News that their family is in shock. "We are trying to make sense of all this," Nader Hasan said. "He wasn't even someone who enjoyed going to the firing range." He said his cousin, who was born and raised in Virginia and graduated from Virginia Tech University, turned against the wars after hearing the stories of those who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Nader Hasan said his cousin, who was raised a Muslim, wanted to go into the military against his parent's wishes — but was taunted by others after the terror attacks of Sept. 11. A former neighbor of Hasan's in Silver Spring, Md., told Fox News he lived there for two years with his brother and had the word "Allah" on the door." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html?mep NPR is also reporting on the possible religious motive for the shootings. "A source told NPR's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time. The FBI, local police and other agencies searched Hasan's apartment Thursday night after evacuating the complex in Killeen, said city spokeswoman Hilary Shine. She referred questions about what was found to the FBI. The FBI in Dallas referred questions to a spokesman who was not immediately available early Friday morning. The Associated Press reported that Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement at least six months ago because of Internet postings tied to him about suicide bombings and other threats.In an interview with The Washington Post, Hasan's aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had been harassed about being a Muslim in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and he wanted out of the Army." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120159765 As is MSNBC - "Cone also said he heard first-hand accounts from witnesses on the scene that the suspect shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is Great" in Arabic, before he opened fire at the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood. (break) Authorities have not ruled out that Hasan was acting on behalf of some unidentified radical group, the official said. He would not say whether any evidence had come to light to support that theory." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33712858/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/ The Christian Science Monitor - "Terry Lee, a retired Army colonel who knew Hasan, told Fox News about a story he heard secondhand. He said a fellow colleague had told him that Hasan had made “outlandish comments” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US involvement in them and that “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.” “[He] made comments about how we shouldn’t be over there – you need to lock it up, Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor,” Lee added." http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/05/what-is-known-about-nidal-malik-hasan-and-fort-hood-shooting/ The BBC has the most in-depth reporting on his family background. "Maj Hasan, 39, was born and raised in Virginia. His parents moved to the US from a Palestinian town near Jerusalem, according to his cousin. After high school he joined the US Army, which put him through medical school. He has been described as devout and discreet. A local imam told the Washington Post that he attended daily prayers at a mosque when he worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. "We hardly ever got to discussing politics," Faizul Khan said. "Mostly we were discussing religious matters, nothing too controversial, nothing like an extremist."" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8345944.stm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 6:42:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You mean the only thing you can find about it other than Major Garret's discussion of it which is in your own CSM link? Until you start posing any verifiable link of any kind wilbur, I would suggest that you take all three sources (which all have a right leaning bias) and stick em where the sun dont shine. You've got nothing, as usual except more BS. Ive got your link, that was quite enough.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 6:51:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, I didn't. I said repeatedly to pick your own source, one you consider reliable, as well. I even left "reliable" up to your definitions. My criteria are not only NOT limited--they don't limit at all! You apparently still dont understand, so I'll explain it one more time. If you still dont get it you are just being obtuse. Your required basis of comparing two stories is not the the only criteria for whether there is systemic bias. There are other symptoms of bias, including LACK of stories (hard to compare a story to a non-story) and LOCATION of the story in print media, or positioning of story in broadcast media (which you arent going to easily identify online).

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 7:48:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Greetings Musicmystery, Right now the developing story about the shootings at Fort Hood are a good way to compare different news sources. As has been mentioned by a previous poster in this thread, it is significant what a news source chooses to include and what is left out of the discussion. The most significant difference I can find right now is between the US and UK press. A report here from Fox News includes a few paragraphs about the shooter's possible motivation and includes his religion. "The shooter's cousin, Nader Hasan, told Fox News that their family is in shock. "We are trying to make sense of all this," Nader Hasan said. "He wasn't even someone who enjoyed going to the firing range." He said his cousin, who was born and raised in Virginia and graduated from Virginia Tech University, turned against the wars after hearing the stories of those who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Nader Hasan said his cousin, who was raised a Muslim, wanted to go into the military against his parent's wishes — but was taunted by others after the terror attacks of Sept. 11. A former neighbor of Hasan's in Silver Spring, Md., told Fox News he lived there for two years with his brother and had the word "Allah" on the door." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html?mep NPR is also reporting on the possible religious motive for the shootings. "A source told NPR's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time. The FBI, local police and other agencies searched Hasan's apartment Thursday night after evacuating the complex in Killeen, said city spokeswoman Hilary Shine. She referred questions about what was found to the FBI. The FBI in Dallas referred questions to a spokesman who was not immediately available early Friday morning. The Associated Press reported that Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement at least six months ago because of Internet postings tied to him about suicide bombings and other threats.In an interview with The Washington Post, Hasan's aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had been harassed about being a Muslim in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and he wanted out of the Army." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120159765 As is MSNBC - "Cone also said he heard first-hand accounts from witnesses on the scene that the suspect shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is Great" in Arabic, before he opened fire at the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood. (break) Authorities have not ruled out that Hasan was acting on behalf of some unidentified radical group, the official said. He would not say whether any evidence had come to light to support that theory." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33712858/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/ The Christian Science Monitor - "Terry Lee, a retired Army colonel who knew Hasan, told Fox News about a story he heard secondhand. He said a fellow colleague had told him that Hasan had made “outlandish comments” about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US involvement in them and that “Muslims had a right to rise up and attack Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.” “[He] made comments about how we shouldn’t be over there – you need to lock it up, Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor,” Lee added." http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/05/what-is-known-about-nidal-malik-hasan-and-fort-hood-shooting/ The BBC has the most in-depth reporting on his family background. "Maj Hasan, 39, was born and raised in Virginia. His parents moved to the US from a Palestinian town near Jerusalem, according to his cousin. After high school he joined the US Army, which put him through medical school. He has been described as devout and discreet. A local imam told the Washington Post that he attended daily prayers at a mosque when he worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. "We hardly ever got to discussing politics," Faizul Khan said. "Mostly we were discussing religious matters, nothing too controversial, nothing like an extremist."" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8345944.stm Thanks, Vendaval. All--here are two NY Times links to add to the above compilation: Suspect Was to Be Sent to Afghanistan (the headline story) Suspect Was ‘Mortified’ About Deployment (further down the page)

Sanity -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 8:22:45 AM)
This may not be an ideal time to compare coverage. CNN and the other Progressive networks were just stung badly by their refusal to cover the ACORN mess as well as the controversy surrounding Obama's radical Czar just before he was forced to resign, and Obama is otherwise floundering so badly that even his most devoted media fans are starting to more accurately report the news, such as the recent overall unemployment numbers being the highest since shortly after Reagan took office. Check back during the next campaign, when all the media whores are busy turning tricks for their side (right as well as left). Or perhaps we could turn the clocks back and revisit all the fawning coverage Obama received just prior to the election and right afterward when he was still their unblemished darling. Plenty of scientific evaluations have been done... but then, those won't meet your criteria, will they.

Musicmystery -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 8:35:17 AM)
Seems with all that bias, head to head stories should be easy to come by. If they aren't, they aren't there. It's called lack of evidence. If that bias IS there, then this is the ideal time to compare head to head stories. Let's see them. [Incidentally, the Palinists lay the ACORN charge on the Republican in the 23rd district too--proved false.]

Sanity -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 11:21:50 AM)
"Palinists"? Is that a word you learned from Chris Mathews?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 11:41:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity "Palinists"? Is that a word you learned from Chris Mathews? Nahh...we just all thought Palinist was a nicer term than "reactionary idiots who couldn't find their ass with both hands and a man and who only have the vote because there's no IQ test required".....we could use that one if you'd prefer it as more descriptive of fact.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 12:19:10 PM)
Speaking of FOX news, they are the only station who refuse to limit themselves to politically correct thinking. It is absolutely amazing to me that 20% of the population who are liberals have control of NBC, ABC, and CBS and yet they complain about FOX news. That's a liberal for you. If you remember back during the 1960's liberals were rioting, and blowing things up, until LBJ and Congress embarked on the Great society and massive spending programs. Today we have a $10 trillion national debt thanks to liberals and rino's (republicans in name only). What we need today are more people like Patton who aren't afraid to speak their mind. I found this awesome page with an article entitled "The Best Damn Email Of All Time." http://babelishere.webs.com/

rulemylife -> RE: Take the Fox Balance/Bias Challenge! (11/6/2009 12:27:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I'm assuming you were trying to imply [sm=Groaner.gif] Swing and a miss! Well, educate me Heretic. In all seriousness, how do you compare two stories on poll numbers as a head-to-head example of bias when the poll numbers in question vary by 15%? Would you not assume Bush having only a 41% approval rating would generate an article more negative of Bush?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875