Previously, a Harvard study revealed that most of the mainstream media, including both TV news and NPR, were very biased in favor of liberal Presidential candidates, while Fox News (and MSNBC) came out more balanced.
Now, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University has released a study comparing the Hume Report’s news segment with the other MSM TV news programs, and CONFIRMS that Fox News is more balanced and fair than the other MSM news outlets.
Newsbusters has this analysis:
Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
Liberals, of course, don’t accept the data, but I note that the liberal Huffington Post can do no more than question the sources of funding for the CMPA, presumably because they are unable to mount any real case against the methodology of the study.
“When the data against you is good, resort to ad hominems” – seems like the MO of liberals these days.
Hi, Im from Australia.
Quite frankly anyone who thinks that Fox so called "news" is balanced would not know their butt from a hole in the ground. Seriously
Sue, you have to remember, they are Republicans. They really don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. Also, as an American, I apologize to you for our President. It's embarrassing.
You both prove my point ably – like true knee-jerk liberals who can't stand it when decent studies offend their biases, you obeyed well the dictum I provided:
"When the data against you is good, resort to ad hominems"
What's really scary is that, when balanced coverage is provided (roughly 50/50), liberals are so used to biased coverage that balanced coverage looks biased to them. Sad.
But also, this comparison was done on NEWS, not commentary, so maybe that's why you are so confused.
I think Sue hit the nail on the head.
I watch and enjoy Brit Hume's hour daily because I like to get all viewpoints. It is a fact, however, that Fox news does have a conservative viewpoint over all (and this from watching it for years). There's nothing wrong with that, I think, as CNN has a liberal bias.
One criticism I do have of Fox is that it's kind of tabloid in its choice of stories – there's no story of a missing blond woman that they won't follow obsessively.
Louis,
Interesting that you watch Hume – I don't have time for too much news, and limit myself to NPR (radio) and a daily dose of O'Reilly (and the occasional Anderson Cooper).
While their commentary is conservative, this report was saying that their NEWS reporting was more balanced. I'm sure that's where the confusion comes in.
Fox may be kind of tabloid about their stories, but one thing I like is that they focus on things that I am more interested in – I am always amazed that their content seems to cover things that the others don't even seem to mention.
LOL! You are right about the blonde women. Have you noticed that most of the women on O'Reilly are blondes? Hmmm. I smell a conspiracy.
everyone seems to be confused here … you see Fox is moderate in its reporting, and the KoolAid you have been fed over time, stating that the MSM is moderate, you have swallowed and accepted. Cronkite … Dan … Katie and all of the modern day cable doofi pretending they are impartial moderates when nothing could be farther from the truth.
"LOL! You are right about the blonde women. Have you noticed that most of the women on O'Reilly are blondes? Hmmm. I smell a conspiracy." ——-
ah, but what a scent !
Hi ben:
Here's irrefutable evidence that Fox is biased, or at least was in 2003:
A study released October 2003 showed that people who got their news primarily from Fox news were 4 times as likely as those who got their news from NPR to have one of these major misconceptions about the Iraq War:
they believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been found.
that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.
that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq.
This strongly indicates that Fox's biased presentation gave them those false views.
Seeker has posted a couple of studies that supposedly show that the MSM presents liberals in a more positive light than they do conservatives, but those studies do not explain how they measured the positiveness or negativeness of a story. For example, a news story that reported the brute fact that Bush's approval rating was very low would presumably be a negative story about a conservative, but reporting such hardly counts as bias. A news story that said–also a brute fact–that polls for Presidency 2008 had a generic Democrat leading by double digits over a generic Republican would also be liberal positive and conservative-negative but also would not be an example of bias. The problem with the kinds of studies Seeker cited is that they depend on subjectively deciding how positive or negative a story is. The study I cited describes objective facts.
your friend
keith
Keith is referring to a University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Networks poll, “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War”, which analyzed frequency of such misperceptions by political affiliation, whether they intend to vote for George W. Bush’s reelection, support for the Iraq War, sources of news, and level of attention to news. Relevant numbers for those individual questions were:
Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization?
US has:
67% Fox
16% PBS-NPR
Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
33% Fox
11% PBS-NPR
Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think: The majority of people favor the US having gone to war
35% Fox
5% PBS-NPR
Keith, that correlation does not necessarily mean that Fox News caused those misconceptions. For instance, people already holding such misconceptions may have sought media outlets, like Fox News, which reinforced their false beliefs, and/or avoided media outlets that present truths they did not want to believe. However, PIPA’s study also found that “Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions.”
Fox News: The more you watch, the less you know.
Keith – unfortunately, your claims above show correlation only, they do NOT prove that Fox is biased. You are measuring a possible effect, but not directly measuring the actual content of Fox.
The two studies I mentioned, from two well-established Universities, including Harvard, actually measured content.
Ben and I are right on this one (pun intended) – you are so used to the liberal monopoly on news, that when a balanced presentation appears, and they give fair time to opposing conservative views, you think they are being biased. It's a sickness, having your "norm" so far to the left.
Keith,
Lets also mention that Iraq and al Qaede did have links (however minor), weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq (however limited), and Bush built the third largest coalition in world history. So, technically, those aren't false beliefs. The questions would have to go deeper to discover if they had false beliefs about the extent of the relationship and numbers of weapons. I would say that if you believe the first two are false, you are being misled by the MSM.
All I know for sure is this, I stopped watching MSM news in 1994 after being blatantly lied to by CBS(not the first,not the last)I turned to radio to satisfy my information Jones. In 1999 or so, I found Fox news and I have never looked back. The MSM of the now, Cnn, ad nauseum, etc., is wayyyy slanted left. I do not find FOX slanted left but very moderate. I am slanted pretty rightward and FOX and I do not agree at times. Also, their talking head crews are from various political leanings, and, as seeker again pointed out, the flow of news has been poisoned for so long FOX seems, are you ready … one of this sites fav adjectives … extreme…(lol)……….
"I do not find FOX slanted left but very moderate." ——->
So solly, i meant right, but both are true. :)
Wondering what this disappeared comment was, I went back to the original wholereason.com post. For anyone else who was curious, Cineaste’s comment was this:
I love people who say anyone who thinks Fox is balanced is clueless. There has been ample evidence to show that, at the very lest, Fox is more balanced than the other networks. It may not be perfect, but Fox is the most balanced. The facts are there, but don't let them get in the way of your argument.
I'll put it simply so you all can understand: All news outlets have a bias, but studies have shown that Fox is less biased than the other networks.
Hi Steve:
You wrote:
I love people who say anyone who thinks Fox is balanced is clueless. There has been ample evidence to show that, at the very lest, Fox is more balanced than the other networks. It may not be perfect, but Fox is the most balanced. The facts are there, but don't let them get in the way of your argument.
I'll put it simply so you all can understand: All news outlets have a bias, but studies have shown that Fox is less biased than the other networks.
Studies with questionable methodology, using questionable subjective criteria for bias, don't really show very much. IMO the real test of bias is this: how well informed are the people who get their news primarily from Fox compared to the other media outlets. The record is pretty bad. Majorities of people who got most of their news from Fox believed–even after the Bush administration admitted they were wrong about the WMD threat in Iraq:
1. That we had discovered the MWDs in Iraq
2. That it was well established that we had found the WMDs in Iraq
3. That most of the world agreed with our invasion of Iraq.
None of those things were true but most Fox viewers believed they were. That's not a good record for a news outlet. On the other hand, people who got their news from NPR were correctly informed about all of the above. Liberal bias? Maybe it's the FACTS that are liberally biased:-)
your friend
Keith
That reminds me of a joke from Stephen Colbert’s roast of George Bush (and of the press corps) at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner:
Most people know how extremely biased Fox News is. To over threeâ€fifths of Americans, Fox News is the least trusted media outlet of them all, as well it should be, since Fox News is “the most biased name in news”.
So how did CMPA get this absurd result that Fox News is more balanced than its competition? CMPA used the same unscientific methodology as their study concluding that George Bush got as much negative coverage as Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War — they single out coverage with statements they deem explicit statements of opinion (which they themselves find to be a very small proportion of news coverage), and generalize all news coverage based on that unrepresentative sample.
In their Gulf War study, they found that “nearly three out of five sources (59 percent) criticized U.S. government policies during the [Gulf] War”. But of the 5915 sources they analyzed, they threw out 5666 they did not judge to state an explicit opinion. It’s not 59% of 5915, it’s 59% of the remaining 249. Thus their widely cited “three out of five” claim is really 148 out of 5915 — about 1 in 40.
I’d rather Huffington Post had criticized their invalid methodology too, but it’s not inappropriate to shine a light on CMPA not being as nonpartisan as they represent themselves. CMPA is founded by a fellow of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Its fundraising letters include endorsements from Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Ed Meese and Pat Robertson. It contributes to rightâ€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. Center for Media and Public Affairs is a conservativeâ€funded, conservativeâ€funding organization that specializes in dubious claims of liberal bias.
Again, objective surveys, as opposed to your quote-mining article, show Fox to the most watched, the most trusted, and the most fair in reporting. I admit, the opinion shows skew right (Hannity, etc), which muddies the water.
The sad fact is, the other MSM outlets, even in their news reporting, are often unabashedly left, as opposed to fair and balanced. I don't think that the University studies I cited had the same poor methodology as the other study you cited, I think you just don't like the data.
Fox News is most trusted by people inside the Fox News disinformation bubble, but to a majority of Americans, it is the least trusted. Come out of the bubble, Dan. They’re yellow journalists, and Rupert Murdoch is a 21st century William Randolph Hearst.
Not so. See these results (note: LIBERALS trusted the other outlets, but because liberals are a minority in our country, the MAJORITY of Americans, meaning conservatives, most moderates, and some liberals, trust FOX.) :
Fox leads for trust (Jan 1020)
This report shows NPR as most trusted, but the questions cover ALL of the programming, not just the news, which is why fox shows up as more conservative.
PBS THE MOST TRUSTED AND UNBIASED SOURCE FOR NEWS AHEAD OF FOX NEWS CHANNEL, CNN AND OTHER COMMERCIAL NETWORKS (June 2010)
As you can clearly see by the poll below (May 2010), CNN and FOX are neck and neck for the lion's share of trust, the other networks barely registering. The poll below is interesting because it shows breakdown by political affiliation, with no surprises. I think CNN is the only MSM other than FOX that has an honest and fair approach to news, though it does lean liberal on some things.
The 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll
Now will you please move on?
Indeed, look closely at those results, because despite their misleading title “Fox leads for trust”, their numbers actually show Fox News at the bottom of the heap for trust with a majority of Americans. Steve Singiser breaks it down:
As for that 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll, online polls on websites, like all self-selected polls, have no validity. What's more, it's easy to vote in one multiple times, by erasing your browser cookies. You should know better than to cite an online poll.