Fox News: Fair and Balanced?

[photomuse]

I saw a post today in which someone asserted that Fox News was in fact fair and balanced. This made me chuckle a bit because I thought that the phrase "fair and balanced" was the local joke. Of course everyone knows that Fox news slants their coverage to pander to evangelical Christians and conservatives. It seems that even Fox is in on the joke ("Fair and Balanced" said in a WWF announcer's voice, hint, hint, wink, wink).

Now admittedly, its been a few years since I've watched Fox News or CNN, so maybe things have changed, but back in the day I found that while both Fox and CNN had a definite slant, the slant on Fox seemed more obvious. Have things changed? Has CNN increased their slat to the left to counter FOX? Has FOX become more centrist? What about other sources?

Additionally, since Fox News became popular, it seems like the partisan politics in Washington have gotten worse. Is this a coincidence? Have partisan politics actually gotten worse? Fox does seem to focus more on a confrontational style (like O'Reily).

 

[Cyclonepride]

I saw a post today in which someone asserted that Fox News was in fact fair and balanced. This made me chuckle a bit because I thought that the phrase "fair and balanced" was the local joke. Of course everyone knows that Fox news slants their coverage to pander to evangelical Christians and conservatives. It seems that even Fox is in on the joke ("Fair and Balanced" said in a WWF announcer's voice, hint, hint, wink, wink).

Now admittedly, its been a few years since I've watched Fox News or CNN, so maybe things have changed, but back in the day I found that while both Fox and CNN had a definite slant, the slant on Fox seemed more obvious. Have things changed? Has CNN increased their slat to the left to counter FOX? Has FOX become more centrist? What about other sources?

Additionally, since Fox News became popular, it seems like the partisan politics in Washington have gotten worse. Is this a coincidence? Have partisan politics actually gotten worse? Fox does seem to focus more on a confrontational style (like O'Reily).

Fox News has talk shows that do tend to pander to the conservative crowd. However, their actual news broadcasts are very balanced, and that is a big difference. You can tell what side of the story CNN, CBS, etc, is on during their actual news broadcasts. Especially if you watch on a consistent basis. It's easy to slant the news by reporting one side more consistently than the other, asking questions that lead to the answers that you are looking for and editing sound bites for your preferred content.

 

[cycloneworld]

I kind of agree with cyclonepride here. I agree that the actual "news" coverage on Fox News is pretty balanced. But I would also throw CNN in there are well. I think they do a good job of reporting the news even though most "republicans" (please don't use conservative and republican interchangeably) tend to think otherwise. It's just their "other" content shows that lean one way.

And before this becomes a Fox News bash-fest...remember, they are #1 in the cable news ratings so people prefer to watch it over anything else.

The fact of the matter is this:

If you are a democrat and/or liberal - You think Fox News is a conservative and/or republican station.

If you are a republican and/or conservative - You think CNN is a democrat and/or liberal station.

 

[Cyclonesrule91]

I saw a post today in which someone asserted that Fox News was in fact fair and balanced. This made me chuckle a bit because I thought that the phrase "fair and balanced" was the local joke. Of course everyone knows that Fox news slants their coverage to pander to evangelical Christians and conservatives. It seems that even Fox is in on the joke ("Fair and Balanced" said in a WWF announcer's voice, hint, hint, wink, wink).

Now admittedly, its been a few years since I've watched Fox News or CNN, so maybe things have changed, but back in the day I found that while both Fox and CNN had a definite slant, the slant on Fox seemed more obvious. Have things changed? Has CNN increased their slat to the left to counter FOX? Has FOX become more centrist? What about other sources?

Additionally, since Fox News became popular, it seems like the partisan politics in Washington have gotten worse. Is this a coincidence? Have partisan politics actually gotten worse? Fox does seem to focus more on a confrontational style (like O'Reily).

Obviously you are a left winger since you start this thread bashing a conservative news station and then start another thread taking the NY Times article as absolute fact and using it to bash the right wing President. Quite interesting...:baffled5wh:

 

[dmclone]

I consider myself a conservative and I sometimes watch Fox news but I also watch CNBC, CNN, etc.

Certain programs on Fox are very far right and some just plain stupid.


Hannity and Combs-I like Hannity and Combs but I'll admit that Hannity is a lot more vocal therefore it's a lot more far right.

O'Reilly factor-He brings up a lot of good issues but I find it hard to watch him. I've seen a ton of his stories that I had done a little research on and he completely leaves out facts. In terms of truth I think it's one of the worst on TV which would explain why it's #1

Brit Humm-This is probably my favorite Fox News show but it leans right.

Lou Dobbs(CNN)-This is my favorite news program on TV.



CNBC during the day is my favorite but sucks at night.

MSNBC is a mess and the Keith Oberman show is one of the worst on TV. The whole theme of the show is to slam Fox news.

I wish we got BBC in America (The real one).

 

[isufbcurt]

I live on CNN. I will maybe turn a Fox news show sometimes if I feel the need to hear the host ask a question and then proceed to tell the interviewee he's stupid and wrong.

 

[VII_Fe]

CNN is a joke. What little balance they had was a show set up like Hannity and Colmes (Crossfire), they ditched that for the "situation room". OReilly may be an a$$ at times, but Jack Cafferty is a an a$$ and a moron.

But for what it is worth, MSNBC makes CNN look moderate. The only show worth a damn there is Scarbourgh Country, and he seems to be more interested in Hollywood lately. Olberman sucks, they might as well call it propaganda for Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Leahy, etc..

The only reason Fox is "accused" of being Right Wing, is they are the ONLY TV outlet with any balance. And if you have been watch recent debate on the immigration issue, Hannity, OReilly, and others have all took the Republicans to the woodshed over their handling of the Amnesty Bill that didn't pass (Thank God)

 

[photomuse]

I tend to vote democratic. Sometimes I think democrats are naive or pander to the "wimpy" liberal. I have and will vote for Republicans. I really like some conservative ideas, such as a flat national sales tax (with tax relief for the very poor still) for example. However, I am becoming less and less interested in voting for republicans as even moderate republicans are being controlled by their more conservative constituents. The number of party line votes is really pissing me off.

I almost voted for Bush the first time around. I did not and do not like Al Gore. I think Clinton overall was good president. I think Bush the first was a good president. I think that this Bush administration has been very bad for this country. I think that the Bush administration, like Bush, has decided that most issues are black and white. A complex issue is reduced to one sentence and that sentence is repeated over and over as if somehow by repeating it enough, the phrase will become the way things really are.

 

[VII_Fe]

back in the day I found that while both Fox and CNN had a definite slant, the slant on Fox seemed more obvious.

Pure liberal statement, just like mine saying "CNN slants Left and MSNBC doesn't pull any punches they are as left as it can get" is a purely Conservative statement.

 

[VII_Fe]

I think that the Bush administration has been very bad for this country.

Don't you mean the Bush Iraq policy has been very bad? (which I agree with)

Unemployment is down, productivity is up, new housing starts continue to rise, the economy is continues to improve. Your right these things are very bad.

 

[isucyfan]

Here's a LONG article taking the position that Fox is certainly not fair and balanced. I kinda lost interest halfway through, but found a couple of things interesting/funny about Hannity and Colmes.

Alan Colmes is a former stand-up comedian...WTF??

The author likens the show to a Harlem Globetrotters game, where it is implied who is supposed to win. That struck me as funny for some reason.

 

[rlegg928]

I wish we got BBC in America (The real one).

Amen! I was just telling my fiance yesterday that it was refreshing to see the BBC report on Iraq by showing the numbers that they have obtained in Iraq, as well as their sources, and continuing to track them over time: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq violence: Monitoring the surge

Now I'll agree that they aren't using statistically sound research methodology by polling only 3 families and 2 hospitals, but I did find it refreshing that they are sharing all of that information instead of just using the data set, drawing conclusions, filling the air with commentary after the fact and then ending the story.

I for one will be watching this report over the next few weeks, and I hope some US media pick up on the approach to reporting.

 

[Knownothing]

O'Reilly factor-He brings up a lot of good issues but I find it hard to watch him. I've seen a ton of his stories that I had done a little research on and he completely leaves out facts. In terms of truth I think it's one of the worst on TV which would explain why it's #1

I like Oreilly because he goes after the child rapists, lawyers, and all the other idiots in the world. He leans to the right but he also has a lot of left views.

 

[HILLCYD]

I found that while both Fox and CNN had a definite slant, the slant on Fox seemed more obvious.

Are you out of your FREAKIN mind? They don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing.

 

[photomuse]

I don't think that the president as a lot to do with the current state of the economy. Clinton might claim economic success due to balancing the budget. Bush might claim success due to tax cuts. I think the economy isn't so heavily affected by the president, but I could easily be wrong.

In my mind, what the president does have a huge affect on is foreign policy. It is in this regard that I think the Bush administration has been bad (Iraq and in general reducing the worlds opinion of the U.S.). Also, in my opinion this administration has tried to use fear as a weapon to limit debate, which in my opinion is bad.

Don't you mean the Bush Iraq policy has been very bad? (which I agree with)

Unemployment is down, productivity is up, new housing starts continue to rise, the economy is continues to improve. Your right these things are very bad.

 

[HILLCYD]

but I could easily be wrong.

Yep...:yes4lo:

 

[photomuse]

Amen! I was just telling my fiance yesterday that it was refreshing to see the BBC report on Iraq by showing the numbers that they have obtained in Iraq, as well as their sources, and continuing to track them over time: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq violence: Monitoring the surge

Now I'll agree that they aren't using statistically sound research methodology by polling only 3 families and 2 hospitals, but I did find it refreshing that they are sharing all of that information instead of just using the data set, drawing conclusions, filling the air with commentary after the fact and then ending the story.

I for one will be watching this report over the next few weeks, and I hope some US media pick up on the approach to reporting.

That is a great article. You're right, I wish we had something akin to the BBC here. Just report the numbers, and don't nix them because they don't agree with your ideology. Give us the actual survey results, not some soundbite that includes your opinion of the results from one question on the survey.

 

[Whitey]

I think that Tim Russert is one of the best analysts. He asks the tough questions of both the right and the left. He does great interviews.

 

[cycloneworld]

I don't think that the president as a lot to do with the current state of the economy. Clinton might claim economic success due to balancing the budget. Bush might claim success due to tax cuts. I think the economy isn't so heavily affected by the president, but I could easily be wrong.

If you don't think the President has an effect on the economy then I want some of what you are smoking. :yes4lo:

Clinton had huge economic sucess because he balanced the budget and didn't spend money like it was going out of style like we are doing now (one of the few things I liked about Clinton).

Bush is having economic success (although most don't want to admit it) because of his tax cuts. IMO, Bush could be seeing records successes if he practiced any sort of fiscal responsibility.

 

[cycloneworld]

I think that Tim Russert is one of the best analysts. He asks the tough questions of both the right and the left. He does great interviews.

Agreed. Russert is great to watch and listen to and is very respected in the political world.