Fox News

[brvheart 1,752]

I get the feeling that often in our society, if people hear something enough, they just start to believe it, even without investigation. (Comma count: 4)http://www.cmpa.com/releases.htmlI don't watch the fox news or cnn, but I think it's fairly interesting that people think that fox news is basically run by Jerry Falwell.

CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS2100 L Street, N.W. * Suite 300 * Washington, D.C. 20037 * 202-223-2942December 21, 2007 Contact: Donald RieckElection Study Finds Media Hit Hillary HardestObama, Huckabee Fare Best; FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and MikeHuckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Mediaand Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that FoxNewsChannel’s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on thebroadcast networks.These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientificcontent analysis of all 481 election news stories (15 hours 40 minutes of airtime) that aired on theflagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Reportwith Brit Hume”) from October 1 through December 15, 2007.MAJOR FINDINGS:Hillary Pilloried? On-air evaluations of Hillary Clinton were nearly 3 to 2 negative (42% positive vs.58% negative comments), while evaluations of her closest competitor Barack Obama was better than 3to 2 positive (61% positive vs. 39% negative). John Edwards attracted much less coverage, but hisevaluations were 2 to 1 positive (67% positive vs. 33% negative). Sen. Clinton was evaluated moreoften than all her Democratic opponents combined.Examples: “Critics say her best known Senate vote, on Iraq, was driven by politics, not byprinciple.” – Andrea Mitchell, NBC“She was widely blamed for a health care policy so secretive and complex it died atbirth.” – Major Garrett, FOX“I’ve been inspired [by Obama]to believe that a new vision is possible for America.” –Oprah Winfrey, FOXIt’s All About Hillary: Four of the ten most heavily covered candidate-related issues concerned Ms.Clinton:#1. Clinton campaign’s strategy and tactics, 47 stories;#7. Her electability, 18 stories;#8. Her alleged policy flip flops, 14 stories;#9. Her honesty/integrity, 12 stories.Other hotly debated candidate issues included:#2. Barack Obama’s strategy/tactics, 46 stories;#3. John Edwards’ strategy/tactics, 24 stories;#4. Mitt Romney’s religion, 20 stories;#5. Romney’s strategy/tactics.Huckabee Leads GOP: Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee fared best with evenly balancedcoverage – 50% positive and 50% negative evaluations by reporters and sources. Fred Thompson camenext with 44% positive comments, followed by Mitt Romney with 40% positive, Rudy Giuliani with39% positive, and John McCain with 33% positive.Examples: “He [Huckabee] seems very real, very authentic. It’s hard not to like him, and you can’tsay that about some of the other Republican candidates.” – Bob Schieffer, CBS“What he [Romney] talked about was a complete repudiation of any notion ofseparation of church and state…” – Sally Quinn, ABC“Rudy [Giuliani] would be a great candidate if he was pro-life, but… that is an issue wecan’t overcome. It’s a huge handicap for him.” – voter, FOXWho’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both partiesthan the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined weresplit 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. Forboth parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs.59% negative.Policy Debate: The campaign coverage has been relatively issue oriented -- 188 stories dealt withpolicy issues, 191 with campaign strategy and tactics, 162 on the candidates’ standings in the horserace, and 122 on heir personal backgrounds. (A story could cover more than one of these topics.) Themost frequently debated policy issues were #1. Illegal immigration, 32 stories; #2 Iraq, 22 stories; #3Electoral reforms, 18 stories; #4 Abortion, 13 stories; #5 Iran, 12 stories.MethodologyThe Center for Media and Public Affairs is a media research organization that uses scientific contentanalysis to study news and entertainment media content. CMPA is affiliated with the George MasonUniversity, where CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter is Professor of Communications.CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in whichtrained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We reportthe evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns abouteach other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on publicopinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters. However, we maintain data fileson partisan evaluations as well.

[Balloon guy 158]

I know, I amstarting to look elsewhere for my news, I liked it slanted hard right.

[chrozzo 19]

arent there a few of these threads in a trashbin somewhere around here?

[loogie 115]

I think it's fairly interesting that people think that fox news is basically run by Jerry Falwell.

If that's so, he is a very impressive man corpse.

[checkymcfold 0]

I don't watch the fox news or cnn, but I think it's fairly interesting that people think that fox news is basically run by Jerry Falwell.

it's not. it's run by rupert murdoch, and he might be worse. i'll always blame some combination of him and entertainment "news" for starting the opinion and baseless claims masquerading as news phenomenon that has rendered most tv news unwatchable these days.and when i'm more bored, i'll say something about how easily that studies' data could be skewed. also, LOL@sample sizes.

[brvheart 1,752]

it's not. it's run by rupert murdoch, and he might be worse. i'll always blame some combination of him and entertainment "news" for starting the opinion and baseless claims masquerading as news phenomenon that has rendered most tv news unwatchable these days.and when i'm more bored, i'll say something about how easily that studies' data could be skewed. also, LOL@sample sizes.

You'll have to be mad at George Mason University for that one.

[Kuge 0]

I know, I amstarting to look elsewhere for my news, I liked it slanted hard right.

That's what she said

[brvheart 1,752]

[/b]That's what she said

You obviously like the Office... so you should probably know that it's spelled Halpert.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

arent there a few of these threads in a trashbin somewhere around here?

Oh, irony..

it's not. it's run by rupert murdoch, and he might be worse. i'll always blame some combination of him and entertainment "news" for starting the opinion and baseless claims masquerading as news phenomenon that has rendered most tv news unwatchable these days.and when i'm more bored, i'll say something about how easily that studies' data could be skewed. also, LOL@sample sizes.

Ever consider that maybe your mind subconsciously correlates opinion shows like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes with their actual news broadcasts? If you're truly in the mood for opinion masquerading as news, watch Wolf Blitzer give a story about health care..that weasel makes Sheppard Smith (FOX News) look like Tom F'n Brokaw.

[vonteego3 0]

So... Fox News was 50/50 with Republican candidates, while every other channel was 40% negative/60% positive. And obviously, that means that everybody else is being unfair, not that they're all possibly on to something and there's just not that much positive to say. Nah.

[Kuge 0]

You obviously like the Office... so you should probably know that it's spelled Halpert.

Done and done

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

So... Fox News was 50/50 with Republican candidates, while every other channel was 40% negative/60% positive. And obviously, that means that everybody else is being unfair, not that they're all possibly on to something and there's just not that much positive to say. Nah.

So what does that say about Hillary..? Is she that bad that the TV stations are slighting her WORSE than all the Republicans?

[greatwhite 0]

I'm not watching the FOX News Channel for at least the next 10 years if they don't let Ron Paul debate. He is the best debater of all the hopefuls and FOX won't let him on, because they are afraid that he might interfere with their evil agenda of getting another crazy religious guy into the White House.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I'm not watching the FOX News Channel for at least the next 10 years if they don't let Ron Paul debate. He is the best debater of all the hopefuls and FOX won't let him on, because they are afraid that he might interfere with their evil agenda of getting another crazy religious guy into the White House.

ok

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

I'm not watching the FOX News Channel for at least the next 10 years if they don't let Ron Paul debate. He is the best debater of all the hopefuls and FOX won't let him on, because they are afraid that he might interfere with their evil agenda of getting another crazy religious guy into the White House.

So really..like, all kidding aside..do people really believe stuff like this?

[checkymcfold 0]

Ever consider that maybe your mind subconsciously correlates opinion shows like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes with their actual news broadcasts?

ever consider that if the effect of such shows upon the general public is to create an equation of 60-75%-retarded opinion with fact, regardless of how you're misconstruing my "subconscious correlat[ions]," and that that was precisely my point?

If you're truly in the mood for opinion masquerading as news, watch Wolf Blitzer give a story about health care..that weasel makes Sheppard Smith (FOX News) look like Tom F'n Brokaw.

i said fox news had a lot to do with the onset of the phenomenon, not that it was the only news station currently going with it.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

ever consider that if the effect of such shows upon the general public is to create an equation of 60-75%-retarded opinion with fact, regardless of how you're misconstruing my "subconscious correlat[ions]," and that that was precisely my point? i said fox news had a lot to do with the onset of the phenomenon, not that it was the only news station currently going with it.

So you're mocking their news coverage based on their opinion shows..got it.

[checkymcfold 0]

So you're mocking their news coverage based on their opinion shows..got it.

don't be dense. i'm not mocking anything--allow me to spell things out in a numbered list, as that is apparently necessary for you to understand what i'm saying. 1. i'm making a relatively benign claim: that news in general is less about facts and more about opinion than it used to be. this is true of virtually all television news, and can be extended to a lot of print news as well. one could also point to the contemporary popularity of news blogging as evidence of this claim. 2. i'm saying that this phenomenon began in both television and online news, and that its rise in the former finds a great deal of its roots in both fox news and entertainment "news."3. the general effect of (1) above is to dilute the general public's understanding of many contemporary issues by barraging them with countless conflicting opinions. this in turn leads the more obtuse among them to believe fairly well-proven facts to be not even merely debate-able, but rather merely debates as such.4. i do think that (3) is a bad thing, but this is NOT inherent to either of my claims above. you may disagree, as it seems that you do. i'm not mocking anything, but i may start mocking you if you don't start reading better.

[greatwhite 0]

So really..like, all kidding aside..do people really believe stuff like this?

I'd like to hear your opinion on why they won't let Ron Paul debate.

[strategy 4]

[ron paul] might interfere with their evil agenda of getting another crazy religious guy into the White House.

you have this ridiculously backward... did you do it on purpose as a joke, or what?ron paul is genuinely religious. george w. bush used religion mostly as a campaign tactic.

[greatwhite 0]

you have this ridiculously backward... did you do it on purpose as a joke, or what?ron paul is genuinely religious. george w. bush used religion mostly as a campaign tactic.

Ron Paul is very religious, but he is using the Constitution to run the country, not his religion. This is shown by the power he is willing to give to the states. In my opinion Bush is a crazy militarist who feels that God made it his duty to clean up the world. You might have a different opinion and that's fine. However, there is no legit reason why Ron Paul should be left off of this debate. It shows that for some reason or another FOX has an agenda to stop Ron Paul from being President.

[ShakeZuma 585]

Ron Paul is very religious, but he is using the Constitution to run the country, not his religion. This is shown by the power he is willing to give to the states. In my opinion Bush is a crazy militarist who feels that God made it his duty to clean up the world. You might have a different opinion and that's fine. However, there is no legit reason why Ron Paul should be left off of this debate. It shows that for some reason or another FOX has an agenda to stop Ron Paul from being President.

I wish I had a lolcat saved on my computer that I could reply to this post with, one that implies you are a complete moron. an lolcat would be much better than me simply calling you a complete moron. oh well.

[greatwhite 0]

I wish I had a lolcat saved on my computer that I could reply to this post with, one that implies you are a complete moron. an lolcat would be much better than me simply calling you a complete moron. oh well.

It's easy to call me a moron, but it's not so easy to prove me wrong.

[ShakeZuma 585]

It's easy to call me a moron, but it's not so easy to prove me wrong.

you're right. it is pretty difficult to prove that fox news doesn't have an "evil agenda of getting another crazy religious guy in the white house" because its an idiotic statement. I also can't prove that there aren't three pink cats in canada that can fly, but that doesn't mean that there are.

[greatwhite 0]

you're right. it is pretty difficult to prove that fox news doesn't have an "evil agenda of getting another crazy religious guy in the white house" because its an idiotic statement. I also can't prove that there aren't three pink cats in canada that can fly, but that doesn't mean that there are.

They have an agenda of getting someone not named Ron Paul into the White House. If you don't believe that then you're blind.