Fox News & Accusations Of Bias [Archive] - Search Engine Watch Forums

seobook

06-21-2004, 03:27 PM

Actually, this only confirms the quality of the reporter. This type thing is not uniuqe only to Fox, try CNN or MSNBC, NYT, etc. The amount of bad reporting that goes on is widespread. It all stems from lazy journalists and they are everywhere. At least the reporter just didn't make up facts like recently happened at [fill in any major news organization here], they just used facts and made faulty interpretations of what those facts mean.

News accuracy is only important if it is profitable. It is not laziness or accuracy that is the issue, its profitability that is important. Churning out more stories by doing inadequate research makes more profit. Making news more like Maxim or FHM draws more eyeballs to sell more ads & makes more profit.

yellowwing

07-19-2004, 07:00 PM

There is a marketing lesson in this for all of us. Fox is in the business of News Marketing and News Optimization. With the United States in election mode and involved in a major war, anything political is a hot item.

Spin doctors on all side are really raking the dough. The combined campaign dollars of both parties is rapidly approaching 500 million US dollars. Anyone want a piece of that marketing budget?

A quick history lesson:
U.S. Broadcasting Policy (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm)
"...The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were 'public trustees,' and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance...Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue." -By Val E. Limburg

So this is where we get the likes of Matt Drudge coming up with a rumour, it cycles through Rush Limbaugh types, then it is presented as fact by Fox News.

I like a lot of the Fox programming, I just don't think their news is professional grade. I think they are the spammers of News Marketing and Optimization.

St0n3y

07-20-2004, 02:40 PM

If only...

CNN dominated the news for years and years with a clear bias. Add to them CBS news, ABC news NBC news, the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, et. al, and you have the greatest propoganda machine we have ever seen.

People think Fox leans right because all the other news outlets lean so far left that "middle of the road" looks slanted. Fox News MAY be biased toward the right, but only a miniscule fraction of how biased to the left the other news organizations are.

Fox is in the business of News Marketing and News Optimization.

This can be said of any news organization. News is a profit industry, but making a profit in news does not mean bias.

As for professionalism, fox is noticably top notch. Of course you have to separate news shows from commentary shows, as those are two completely different beasts. I don't watch most of them, in fact the shows I do watch regularly are Brit Hume, Beltway Boys and Fox News Sunday. You can't tell me that those shows are less than professional.

yellowwing

07-23-2004, 02:23 PM

There is a new documentary examining this, called Outfoxed. Here a bit of the Associated Press Report (http://keyetv.com/entertainment/entertainment_story_194203924.html):
..Greenwald's 75-minute film includes complaints from several Fox News staffers about the workplace climate at the outlet of the global Murdoch media empire. They say their bosses promote a conservative slant...When former White House terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke testified before the 9-11 commission, he apologized to the American people for the government's failure to protect them.

The film displays a flurry of Fox pundits blasting Clarke, often in similar terms. "It was almost like Fox News was working off of the playbook coming out of the White House, that he had to be torn down," FAIR co-founder Jeff Cohen says in the film...The documentary also includes a rapid-fire succession of clips of more than a dozen Fox hosts using the phrase "some people say" — which the filmmakers say is a way to insinuate opinion disguised as reporting into on-air discussions.

St0n3y

07-23-2004, 03:16 PM

FAIR co-founder Jeff Cohen says in the film

Not exactly a quote from an unbiased source. Jeff Cohen is very very very far left. You know someone is so far left when they complain about CNN and MSNBC having a conservative bias.

I'll say this. for every one example of right-leaning bias found on Fox News, I could provide 10 examples of left-wing bias on CNN.

That documentary you mention is already coming under fire for utilizing Micheal Moore style tactics of taking partial truths and twisting them into a pre-determined outcome. Don't put too much stock into what you see.

Peter (IMC)

09-13-2004, 12:52 AM

Isn't Fox News known for being a big republican fan? :D

St0n3y

09-13-2004, 03:04 PM

Only by those that lean so far to the left they think the New York Times editoral page is "middle of the road".

How 'bout them 60 minutes documents?

seobook

09-13-2004, 03:24 PM

Isn't Fox News known for being a big republican fan? :D

Only by those that lean so far to the left they think the New York Times editoral page is "middle of the road".
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf (great report showing the more likely one is to watch Fox the more likely one is to be misinformed) - or -
http://www.aaronwall.com/archives/000354.html (my bland SnagIt pic from Fox News website)

seobook

09-13-2004, 05:05 PM

my SnagIt pic is real.

I know PageRank is very misunderstood by many people.

I would say that most people do not even know what PageRank is...

St0n3y

09-13-2004, 05:27 PM

Not to get too political but...

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/I...2_03_Report.pdf (great report showing the more likely one is to watch Fox the more likely one is to be misinformed)

Since I don't know anything about those who did the research its impossible to tell if then went into this objectively. That, of course, can make a difference in the outcome. That aside, this is merely showing a single issue. It would be itneresting to see the same results from a host of other issues such % of CNN viewers know that Bush is funding stell cell reseach, or % of New York Times readers know anything about John Kerry's senate voting record. My point being, take any single issue that will suite your objective and you'll get the result you set out for. Admitedly, the report is disturbing, but only in that it tells one side of the story on a single issue, and therefore
to conclude that "the more likely one is to watch Fox the more likely one is to be misinformed" is unproven by the reports lack of totality.

http://www.aaronwall.com/archives/000354.html (my bland SnagIt pic from Fox News website)

This is pretty silly. You post this to condemn FOX but act as if no other news network or paper have ever posted similar headlines. You ignore those headlines because they don't support your worldview. You can't point them out because then you would have to admit that there is a clear liberal bias at CNN,ABC,NBC,CBS (60 minutes, anyone?), New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.

What is most distrubing is that when liberals are scared of "both" sides of an issue getting play they destroy the messenger. Liberal dominance in the media has been the status quo (with the exception of talk radio) for so long that anything that is largely unbiased or perhaps tilts slightly to the right looks far right, only because those that are so far left don't know what "middle of the road" really is.

Again, and this goes to the whole point of this thread, if you have a pre-determined world view you can find almost any "fact" that will support your opinion, but you often have to ignore the totality of facts in order to do so.

seobook

09-13-2004, 05:45 PM

Since I don't know anything about those who did the research its impossible to tell if then went into this objectively. That, of course, can make a difference in the outcome. That aside, this is merely showing a single issue. It would be itneresting to see the same results from a host of other issues such % of CNN viewers know that Bush is funding stell cell reseach, or % of New York Times readers know anything about John Kerry's senate voting record. My point being, take any single issue that will suite your objective and you'll get the result you set out for. Admitedly, the report is disturbing,
agreed.

you are right, there are many other instances where Fox has more than crossed the line of objectivity. one wonders why people picked them specifically to make Outfoxed for? why not any other news network? where there is smoke there is usually fire.

but only in that it tells one side of the story on a single issue, and therefore to conclude that "the more likely one is to watch Fox the more likely one is to be misinformed" is unproven by the reports lack of totality.
perhaps comparing fox on many issues reguarding the war against most other news sites is one sided.

This is pretty silly. You post this to condemn FOX but act as if no other news network or paper have ever posted similar headlines. You ignore those headlines because they don't support your worldview. You can't point them out because then you would have to admit that there is a clear liberal bias at CNN,ABC,NBC,CBS (60 minutes, anyone?), New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.
that is a personal attack.

I would state that all media is biased to promote its own interest in some ways. some are just a bit more covert / subtle about it than others.

What is most distrubing is that when liberals are scared of "both" sides of an issue getting play they destroy the messenger.
interesting there...especially since earlier in your same post
Not to get too political but...

Liberal dominance in the media has been the status quo (with the exception of talk radio) for so long that anything that is largely unbiased or perhaps tilts slightly to the right looks far right, only because those that are so far left don't know what "middle of the road" really is.
thanks for stating your worldview

Again, and this goes to the whole point of this thread, if you have a pre-determined world view you can find almost any "fact" that will support your opinion, but you often have to ignore the totality of facts in order to do so.
that is totally true...even with search engines. at one of the past SESs I asked Danny about the problem of search personalization leading people to self fulfilling prophecies, but I slept in through part of that search rep Q & A :(

one thing that is not adequately taught in school (from my own experiences at least) is the concept of perception vs reality.

yellowwing

09-13-2004, 06:24 PM

Bah! Liberal media like Rush, Coulter, Drudge (oops not a real journalist), et. al.? If the neocons say the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, they will run stories that prove we are un-American if we expect an eastern sunrise.

(I'm sorry, what was the topic starter?)

St0n3y

09-13-2004, 07:00 PM

that is a personal attack.

Sorry, certainly didn't mean it as such.

prove we are un-American

This pretty much proves my point. Yellowing, I love you but I challenge you to find a conservative in any news organization or otherwise (outside of loons like Pat Buchanan (IMO)) that have used the phrase "un-American" against a Democrat.

I CAN tell you that John Edwards used it against conservatives over the weekend. Bet you didn't learn that from the "unbiased" CNN, New York Times, etc.

[I know these posts are getting WAY off point so if we need to be reigned in, someone just say so, but this is quite fun.] :rolleyes:

seobook

09-13-2004, 07:13 PM

on Fox News they once stated something along the lines of "as usual Kerry is out scaring old people again"

thats kinda along the unamerican theme?

St0n3y

09-14-2004, 06:59 PM

Well, just for fun, how about we turn the tables a bit. How are the viewers being properly informed by...

CNN for hiring two liberal scorched earth "commentators" who simulataneously are advising the John Kerry campaign
NBC for giving three straight days of interviews to Kittly Kelly who publishes a slash piece against Bush, even after knowning Kelly's past work has had truth issues and the main "source" for her current book has call the book a pack of lies... all the while not giving a single interview to any swift boat vets.
ABC for hiring Clinton White House operateive George Stephanopoulos as a "journalist"
Any network that has not told you that John Kerry has had to change his story regarding cambodia and whether he deserved one of his purple hearts because the some of the swift boat accusations have proven to be correct
New York Times for admitting that they would not have given the swift boat controversy any coverage if it were not for the Internet, despite having donated considerable coverage to George Bush's National Guard record
and finally, how are CBS news veiwers being sufficiently informed as CBS continues to stick to their claims that the Bush National Guard documents are authentic, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, despite not having access to the "original" documents and despite failing to come up with a plausible explanation as to HOW these documents could even be legimate

To conclude that FOX news is biased to the right but no other network/newspaper is biased is to disregard undisputable evidence to the contrary. Is FOX biased? Perhaps, but primarily in that they do not stifle conservative opinion as do the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, et. al. FOX may lean somewhat to the right, but ongoign campaign to paint FOX as part of the right-wing agenda is nothing more than deletion of facts and evidence and a bias so far to the left that anything else must appear far-right.

So, before one attempts to trash FOX for being an arm of the Bush Campaign (or somethign similar), please explain--no, defend-- the actions of those above, and say, with a straight face, that these are not deliberate acts of biase by those news organizations.

seobook

09-14-2004, 07:36 PM

To conclude that FOX news is biased to the right but no other network/newspaper is biased is to disregard undisputable evidence to the contrary.
earlier I stated that all people are somewhat biased to push their agendas...some are just more discrete about it than others. Fox makes absolutely no attempt to be discrete.

Is FOX biased? Perhaps
agreed, they are.

FOX may lean somewhat to the right, but ongoign campaign to paint FOX as part of tthe right-wing agenda is nothing more than deletion of facts and evidence and a bias so far to the left that anything else must appear far-righ.
lots of people use reductionism to boil things down to a black and white issue to manipulate others.

So, before one attempts to trash FOX for being an arm of the Bush Campaign (or somethign similar), please explain--no, defend-- the actions of those above, and say, with a straight face, that these are not deliberate acts of biase by those news organizations.
the beautiful thing about society is we are able to state our opinions about things that interest us without entirely framing the social driving forces behind all media corporations in the world. there is a bunch more shady stuff in the world than you or I will ever know of.

Fox is garbage. the other news publications likely twist a ton of stories too, but Fox is garbage.

St0n3y

09-15-2004, 12:25 AM

Obviously my specific points could not be debated so the conversation steers back to a bashing FOX for not distributing the propoganda you particularly agree with.

Fox makes absolutely no attempt to be discrete.
this is an opinion bases on pure political bias. I can give 100 or more examples of any other left-leaning news organization and theire blatant attempts to put a positive spin on their liberal agenda and a negative spin on conservative agenda.

agreed, they are.
I certainly don't agree with that. But if allowing an oposing viewpoint to the liberal agenda is considered biased, then so be it.

lots of people use reductionism to boil things down to a black and white issue to manipulate others.

So in other words you can't debate on the facts so you blame manipulation?

Fox is garbage. the other news publications likely twist a ton of stories too, but Fox is garbage.

Again, on opinion based on an extreme liberal bias. The same could easily be stated about me as well, but as I said before, you have to ignore mountains of evidence of the left-leaning bias of 90% of the "old" media to conclude that FOX is the only network to be "concerned" about.

seobook

09-15-2004, 01:19 AM

Obviously my specific points could not be debated so the conversation steers back to a bashing FOX for not distributing the propoganda you particularly agree with.
the point was that I do not need to debate your specific points to say fox sucks.

fox sucks...

I stated I thought much media was biased...never did I say it was not. you are doing the "they does it too" concept when I have said the whole time that they all do it.

this is an opinion bases on pure political bias. I can give 100 or more examples of any other left-leaning news organization and theire blatant attempts to put a positive spin on their liberal agenda and a negative spin on conservative agenda.
feel free to make your own movie about those other media companies. I will watch it if that makes you happy?

I certainly don't agree with that. But if allowing an oposing viewpoint to the liberal agenda is considered biased, then so be it.
having a daily memo with the theme of the news for the day is fairly blunt.

some of our war heros are being called snipers...which has such a negative connotation to it. we shall make sure we call them sharpshooters...bla bla bla...

So in other words you can't debate on the facts so you blame manipulation?
you are the one who diverted the topic to other media companies and stated that since they were the other way that made fox ok. thats reductionism...make it good or evil, compare it to others who are on the other side of the fence, and then push your view as the right way.

Again, on opinion based on an extreme liberal bias. The same could easily be stated about me as well, but as I said before, you have to ignore mountains of evidence of the left-leaning bias of 90% of the "old" media to conclude that FOX is the only network to be "concerned" about.
hint: I do not read newspapers frequently and I do not even have cable television. the only media I watch is stuff I am interested in. I certainly would not call myself conservative, but I would say that people in the middle of the road with perhaps even sub average intelligence could see the obvious right wing bias of Fox News.

I am not proud that Fox or any other media company openly enjoys misinforming people...any media that leans heavily in any direction is hosed. some media is owned by liberal individuals. fox news is part of fox (last I checked) is part of news corp (last I checked) which is (last I checked) heavily influenced by Rupert Murdock. Rupert Murdock is obviously heavily conservative. its interesting how people who worked on the Reagan and Bush senior campaigns now hold high level positions at Fox News.

like all of their other conservative spin I am sure that is just a coincidence too?

St0n3y

09-15-2004, 03:03 AM

seobook

09-15-2004, 03:46 AM

I never used a "they do it too" argument to justify FOX news. My point was those that complain about a FOX right-wing bias are clearly misinformed on the totality of the evidence. I merely used the comparisons to show that when one is tilted so far to the left, anything that is not tilted just as far to the left is considered "right-wing".
this is circle talk. I think each of us stands a less than 1% chance of changing the mind of the other. at the end of the day its all about who can influence more votes. likely only one of us will put the effort in to advertise in swing states though (and was doing so September 11th). ;)

Now who is making personal attacks? Don't worry, I'm not offended. I am considerably well-informed with more than a sub-average level of intelligence, and pretty confident in my knowledge of the actual facts.
I wasn't aiming that at you -or- I was hoping to kinda sneak that in there :D got caught with the hand in the cookie jar on that one. sorry :)

you are obviously biased toward the right as I am the left and thus technically I think I originally left myself an out in that concept such that the statement would not be directly attacking you.

that was a way of saying you are biased toward the right and so is fox news :) our own posts state our biases rather well.

ihelpyou

09-15-2004, 11:09 AM

I agree with St0n3y completely in this thread.

Being "middle of the road" I can clearly see which news outlet "slant" one way or the other. Of course Fox goes a little right. Of course the other big news outlets are "Far" left. That's always been the case. BUT; as far as in comparison to ALL other news, Fox is much more 'middle' than the rest. Look at the ratings? During "both" Dem. and Rep. Conventions Fox had more viewers than the Big 3 combined. CBS, NBC, and ABC. They are King right now. There is a reason for that.

Also being a Political and News junkie, and knowing "all" issues from both sides, Fox is the very best at presenting both sides of the issues. Look at all their talk shows? Bill O'Reilly is the #1 consistently day in/day out. Hannity and Combs are right up there as well? Why? Because they show Both sides very well.

As far the Fox article, why does this surprise anyone? "Most" people in the world don't understand the search engines at all. Only those in this industry know about them. The world is much bigger than our industry. There have been many polls researching this. Polls about the organic results, and about the PPC results. The majority have no clue as to these results. If regular people don't know, why would a reporter understand? You may say it's their job to understand, but I can't recall many reporters throughout history who fully understand much of anything. I do agree that "profit" is the main motivator. Just look at the CBS fiasco with the National Guard Documents? Funny thing is about those documents; even if those documents were "not" forged and are completely true.... so what? People will vote on "safety" this time around. It's clear to me that Bush is the winner in that regard. Kerry is a wimp. I agree with Rep. on terrorism and safety. I agree with Dem's on the economical issues. I voted for Gore, Clinton, Reagan, Bush1, and this time "Bush". The economy ain't going to matter if we are dead.

seobook

09-15-2004, 05:09 PM

The economy ain't going to matter if we are dead.
and if you think the war on terrorism has anything to do with what happened september 11th then you are missing the bigger picture.

rustybrick

09-15-2004, 05:42 PM

We should probably stay away from political debates here. It will do no good. But yet, this is the padded room. :D

dstew

09-15-2004, 05:51 PM

Well, you've both made very good points, and have successfully changed my mind. I'm now voting for myself. :D

seomike

09-15-2004, 06:30 PM

and if you think the war on terrorism has anything to do with what happened september 11th then you are missing the bigger picture.

Nope, no wmd here ---> radio active missle (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/9/154650.shtml)

or here ----> news story (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/attack.html)

I've heard the question raised how much WMD do we need to find before you're convinced the war in Iraq was legit?? Let's see just one of these shells (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html) that was found could kill thousands of people. So how many shells do you knuckle heads need for you to call the war in Iraq legit??? If 1 shell could kill thousands then if we found 2 would that be enough???

I think it's funny that after 14 UN resolutions and over 10 years of UN dereliction, George Bush finally said enough is enough. Iraq has broken every resolution so we'll make one more if he breaks that we go in and take him out. Since the UN doesn't do much except take kick backs we needed a George Bush to finally slap some people around and put some credit back into what is said and laid down by a community of nations. Funny how it was Iraq's biggest INVESTORS that opposed the war. Those coutries also had unpaid debts that would stay unpaid if saddam was ousted. As if food for oil wasn't lining their pockets enough :D

Other reports since fox news is tainted how about NPR wmd report (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1899454)

how about this one found in a car bomb (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html)

Since Dan blabber would rather discuss the fake bush memo you'll never see CNN, MSNBC or any other major network report on any WMD unless it's the smoking gun stock pile.

oh my bad here's 16 more war heads found (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243)

So let's say on a good day 1 war head of sarin gas can kill 2,000 inocent people. So 16 x 2,000 = 32,000 dead people. Is that what the world needs for people to wake up and smell the coffee since the 2,000 dead people in the world trade center isn't enough :confused:

I, Brian

09-15-2004, 06:41 PM

Heh, I was going to reply to this thread, then realised how utterly pointless it would be.

Politics and religion might be better kept from the SEW forums - there are already enough ideological divides among us all as it is - perhaps not a good idea to add more?

seomike

09-15-2004, 06:44 PM

Hey it's the padded room man. use it.

Lex

09-15-2004, 07:02 PM

This is the Padded Room so I'm going to let this discussion ride as long as everyone remains civil and refrains from getting personal. I do, however, agree with I,Brian. If you're hoping to change someone's mind on politics, it seems unlikely to happen here. If you're trying to make your position clear, I think everyone has accomplished that.

St0n3y

09-16-2004, 01:36 AM

Politics? I thought we were discussing facts? ;)

seobook

09-21-2004, 07:01 PM

So how many shells do you knuckle heads need for you to call the war in Iraq legit??? If 1 shell could kill thousands then if we found 2 would that be enough???
can and do are two separate things. how many people do you think russia could kill with their nuclear weapons? we have already killed way more innocent victims than we have lost. either way none of them are gonna come back.

Nope, no wmd here ---> radio active missle (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/9/154650.shtml)
The discovery is not, however, considered the long-sought "smoking gun" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. ...The missiles appear to be part of a cache of weapons supplied to Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. ... The uranium is not pure enough nor in large enough quantity to be a nuclear warhead but it is dangerous enough, as you can see from the label:
tons of stuff is radioactive...even bananas are...its all about enrichment and critical mass. just like most nuclear power plants those bombs were not highly enriched

Those coutries also had unpaid debts that would stay unpaid if saddam was ousted. As if food for oil wasn't lining their pockets enough :D
and now the debts are ours...

So let's say on a good day
what makes massive death a good day?

1 war head of sarin gas can kill 2,000 inocent people. So 16 x 2,000 = 32,000 dead people. Is that what the world needs for people to wake up and smell the coffee since the 2,000 dead people in the world trade center isn't enough :confused:
we are well on our way to beating those numbers. so far at least 12,800 innocent civilians killed in Iraq
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
(ignoring the thousand + dead US servicemen of course)

http://www.google.com/search?q=fair+and+balanced