Slashdot Mirror

That's simple. The fundamental rule has always been that facts are universal, opinion is personal. Virtually every respectable media outlet has a version of that doctrine.

Like the "Fake But Accurate" President Bush reports, and all the recanted Kavanaugh accusations from more of the "respectable media" outlets? After all, modern media is much more critical of the current Administration, and much of the "respectable mainstream media" is more biased than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

I don't buy this argument, but I find it interesting, because it addresses a limitation in a lot of libertarian thinking (which I am generally sympathetic to), which is that it does not consider the power of privately held power to restrict liberty, other than to dismiss it out of hand.

I believe if you think hard and critically about this situation you end up turning up compelling arguments on both sides of the question. On one hand I don't think that something like a social media monopoly is all that stable. Other companies have the technology to reproduce Facebook, and if enough people got disgusted they'd jump over to some competitor. So in a sense Facebook does depends on a kind of consent by the users to live under rules they don't entirely like.

But on the other hand, Facebook's move to de-legitimize white supremacists actually is a response to the sensibilities of most users, at least the ones that care one way or other. White supremacy is a socially deviant position when considered across the entire contemporary population, even though it would have been the norm a hundred years ago.

So as is always the case with any entity responsive to majority opinion, Facebook treats unpopular viewpoints prejudicially. And that makes a difference when you talk about a medium which for better or worse (actually for worse) is the single largest source of news in the country. Even if you think that some instance of prejudicial treatment is beneficial, you'd still want there to be limits on Facebook's treatment of unpopular opinions. Had Facebook existed a hundred years ago, it'd be coming down hard on views promoting racial equality.

In a way this mirrors the split between deontological (rights and duties) and utilitarian ethics. From a deontological perspective it's Facebook's network, they built it and own it, so "my house, my rules" applies. I tend toward this position myself. But from a utilitarian perspective it's not optimal for either a single entity (Facebook management) or the majority to have complete control over access to unpopular opinions.

Here's a link to a Canadian report [PDF] begging and pleading for taxpayer support for newspapers. https://shatteredmirror.ca/wp-... Page 18 has a graph to numbers of newspapers sold per 100 households in Canada. Some datapoints...

* 1950 102 newspapers per 100 households
* 1975 79
* 1995 49
* 2015 18

Extrapolate to 2027, and the number hits zero sold. There'll still be the freebie rags in newstands at bus stops and subway stations.

US numbers are also bad. Go to http://www.journalism.org/fact... and under "Audience" click on the "Data" tab. US weekday circulation peaked at 63.34 million in 1984, and has since dropped to under 34.7 million in 2016. The past 2 years have been the worst, losing almost 3 million per year.

I repeat, newspapers as we know them are dying, deal with it.

but most people on both sides probably get their news from a variety of sources

Not so much. Conservatives are tightly clustered around Fox. Liberals are much more omnivorous.

This result is likely due to Fox prioritizing pandering over accuracy because pandering makes money.

A disturbing number of people, especially millennials, use Facebook as a news source for political news. Conversely, Baby Boomers are the least likely group to use Facebook for political news, although they still do to an extent.

Let's put all news AND discussion in the hands of heavily censored and centrally controlled social networking sites! What could possibly go wrong?

Really getting tired of those supporting right wing causes lying out their asses.

Trust in the press in "most of the west" is not at the levels you suggest. Gallup and other independent agencies run polls regularly and have found the opposite:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195...

http://www.journalism.org/2016...

https://www.americanpressinsti...

Only members of a single party severely distrust the media and only because they are commanded to distrust the media by their party. That doesn't mean the press is un-trustworthy or a liberal bias, just that the conservatives regularly attack the media for reporting on just about anything that disagrees with what they are saying and their followers agree with the distrust without any effort of critical thought or even benefit of the doubt. When a story that has absolutely no political slant and only presents facts can be labeled as "liberal", as has been the case more than a dozen times in the last two years, it's pretty obvious that the right are not fighting any form of political slant but reality itself.

It's a matter of a significant portion of the population putting their party before fact or country and are willing to lie to support their causes and nothing to do with their opponents conspiring against them.

I should also mention that a particular country in the news a lot as of late has regularly used it's news agencies and intelligence agencies to also spread distrust of the US media.

https://www.rt.com/usa/340124-...

This quick link breaks down news consumption by social media outlet. Unfortunately, a great many people fit your definition of "complete idiot." Fortunately, they check their news sources against what's trending, so what could go wrong?

> Most people don't. Most people find single opinion and then only look at things that back that opinion up.

And the more conservative the person, the less variety of news sources they use.

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

        Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
        Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
        Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
        Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:

        Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
        Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
        Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
        Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.

Thats bad news in a way. It means roughly equal amount of dollars divided up into smaller amounts for non-conservative news sources. So they individually have less resources which makes it harder to tackle big complicated stories.

> liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.

No, in fact liberal people tend to be a lot more omnivorous.
Conservatives do have dedicated news sources they rarely stray from.

Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

1. Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
2. Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
3. Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
4. Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:

1. Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
2. Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
3. Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
4. Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds.

-- Pew Research: Political Polarization & Media Habits

The reason you even consider Hillary comparably evil to Trump is the unprecedented media campaign against him and for her.

Merely 7% of journalists are Republicans... There has not been a day in the last 6 months, when my iPhone did not have at least one link to a bad article about him, while she is mentioned either neutrally or positively. Washington Post alone has 20 journalists digging up dirt on Trump full time. In 2008, at least, the media still feigned neutrality, hiding the skew against McCain — although, it was an obvious pretense. The public was staggeringly misinformed about both sides — far more people knew all about the cost of Palin's new clothes, for example, than about Biden's past plagiarism, an objective evidence of media's failure to inform.

This time, they don't even pretend any more...

If, despite all these partisan efforts, the worst things they can come up with is his calling some cunt a cunt in 1988 (!), you really ought to ask yourself, how much of that negative perception you have of him is artificially planted...

Shh. Don't tell the partisan hacks that. They'll get upset when you show that only 7% of the US media identifies as republican. And nearly 30% identify as democrats, which is less then 1992 when nearly 45% of the media self-identified as democrats. Or that democrats get more positive press. Or that90% of reporters in the DC area AKA beltway reporters either are declared democrats or vote democrat.

I don't know about that, have you even looked at the voter representation of Europe lately? In France, 28% of the vote went to an actual Fascist party, whose members (quite a few of them) have a seat in the EU parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Denmark has similar numbers, with 10 other EU countries sitting at about 18%. And that's JUST the hard right parties, it doesn't include the other right leaning parties.

This isn't recent either, it's been going on for at least about 20 years now. Most Europeans don't notice it because they spend a lot of time gawking at US news stories. Though pretty much everybody has their own personal filter bubble, described here:

http://www.journalism.org/2014...

In this case it's about US liberals and conservatives, but really everybody is this way, I don't care what country you're from.

If you read news about France for example, you might notice how people like to set one another's cars on fire on a somewhat routine basis. For example, one way to help your neighbor might be to set his car on fire so that his house stays warm on a cold winter night. Sometimes you just do it to celebrate, like at New Years this year, 930 cars were set on fire throughout the country, with similar numbers in prior years (2013 it was 1,193 cars.)

Pretty rare here though.

Now, in France they have the impression that everywhere you go, and at any given moment, there are bullets likely flying over your head because everybody has guns.

I don't think GM really believes it's 'the future' or anything as blue-sky as that, they're just hedging their bets against the possibility of this combination being viable.

They may be hoping it's the future. Perhaps GM, which makes cars no on wants to own, is hoping for a future in which individuals don't make buying decisions, and instead just ride in whatever shows up.

While GM trucks are still popular (GM vs Ford is the redneck version of VI vs EMACS), the cars are mostly popular with rental fleets and government fleets: places where the driver doesn't choose the car (much like Newsweek is only found in waiting rooms). This business model fits perfectly with that idea.

Where they *really* differ is in audience size and rate of change. CNN is in a long term down hill slide which has been going on for more than a decade. Fox is generally been able to attract a larger and larger audience in that same time frame. Fox is being successful, CNN is dying.

Meanwhile, in the Real World, where we can look at charts of actual numbers we see that this is nonsense. Fox News viewership peaked in 2009 and has been dropping ever since. CNN has followed a similar downward trend (it peaked a year earlier in 2008) but has maintained a steady market share for several years, its drop merely paralleling Fox's decline.

It is interesting that the common liberal refrain is that Fox News is lying about stuff while CNN isn't. Or the alternate perspective that Fox News is unbiased and CNN is. Reality is BOTH are biased in their own ways, and if anything Fox is more creditable given that it's audience is growing while CNN's is in decline ...

If only we didn't have studies like this one that shows that Fox "News" viewers score below those with no information while CNN viewers score above this information-free cohort.

Dems do not make it a central tenant of their entire existence to bitch about the media.

Did you not hear Marco Rubio say the "mainstream media" is the biggest SuperPAC in the world for the Dems? Did you not watch the debate, where Ted Cruz got the loudest cheers of the night for bitching about CNBC's questions?

Since you apparently don't pay attention, and you can't google for yourself, here are some articles:
http://www.journalism.org/2014...
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/...

Pay attention. It's not just that the entire Republican constituency thinks the media is out to get them, it's that their biggest politicians get points for crying like little babies over things like this, with Trump, and Cruz.

Thank you. I don't care whether he backpedals or not, blaming the media is asinine to the extreme. Believing you alone have all the facts, and the full grasp of their ramifications is probably big on slashdot. Thinking very little of lowly journalists is probably big. Their job is not an exact science, after all.

But to say they are manufacturing this story is completely false. That narrative, or counter-narrative needs to die as quickly as possible in this country. By all means, remain skeptical, but do no dismiss out of hand what is being reported. Follow up, gather facts, think critically with as much information as you are able to obtain, and make your own assessment.

Republicans would prefer that you entirely dismiss the "mainstream media" and get your facts from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. It's a cancer in our society. Here is a little data that may help: http://www.journalism.org/2014...

Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?

I assume you're talking about this study, with further commentary here? This story was then reported by some outlets as saying that MSNBC was most "opinionated" by far (e.g., here).

If so, your use of the word "opinionated" is very misleading, and the study did not even address issues of who is "more biased."

Read the study. It's basically about the difference between type of programming. The cable news networks used to present much more of the traditional anchor looking into the camera and saying, "And now, for our next story..." -- that's "factual reporting," according to Pew.

What this study found was that cable news networks have increasingly moved to "opinion" or commentary-driven shows, with pundits talking or debating, rather than just "reading the news." MSNBC has a LOT of these shows, and much more than CNN or Fox. But that doesn't mean they are more "opinionated" or "biased" -- it just means that they have more commentary-focused shows (probably because it's cheaper to get some idiots to talk ABOUT the news than it is to put actual reporters out into the field and do research).

In any case, this says nothing about bias. It's possible for an "opinion" show to be relatively balanced, for example if guests are invited from across the ideological spectrum and treated with respect. It is also very possible for "factual reporting" to be incredibly biased -- for example, imagine a network that reported every single negative story it could find about a Democratic politician and every positive story about a Republican, but never reported the positive Dem stories or the negative Rep stories. (Or the reverse...) All of the reporting could be "factual" here, but the selection of stories could lead to a much greater overarching bias.

(I haven't really watched either one of these networks in years, so I don't have a personal stake in these arguments. But aside from a different Pew study that found a somewhat greater bias in presentation of candidates in 2012 on MSNBC than Fox, I'm not familiar with any Pew studies that have actually found greater OVERALL "bias" on liberal vs. conservative issues on MSNBC.)

Based on a survey of 139 people, all bureau chiefs in Washington under a Democrat president. Oh, and the actual survey was performed and published by a reporter for the Chicago Tribune who later wrote a biography of John McCain. I'm sure there was no selection bias involved. As opposed to:

http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/

The survey conducted by the Pew Research Center isn't based on a select subset, specifically the 139 people who were comfortable admitting their political affiliation while working in Washington under a Democrat president. Don't get me wrong, the results still show the press leans left, like I said, but it's not some ridiculous nine to one ratio of democrats to republicans in the press, as you seem to think. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a survey of a different hundred people in the press all claiming to be Republicans, or you can make one yourself just go to their national convention and ask everyone wearing a noticeable amount of red. If you look at the numbers and the source, then apply some common sense, it doesn't seem so realistic anymore does it?

There is always obvious bias in the media to anyone who isn't happy about something. It's not surprising, everyone has an opinion, nobody wants to get up and report that they were or are probably wrong, so they lean to their own side. If you recall, under the Bush administration the press was repeatedly telling us it's unpatriotic to not have faith in our president, that he was democratically elected and we need to respect that. It wasn't from everyone, but at the time, it was one of the dominant messages of the time, along with the idea that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. Now, under Obama, it looks like they're all democrats, largely defending his actions until they just can't figure out how to anymore. It's a more complicated mess, spying on our own people, but I wouldn't say lying to all of us about why we were sending our soldiers to war is any better, in both cases I wish they'd be straight with us.

Yes, the media is biased, everyone is to some extent. Is it really evident in the reporting as much as it appears in these surveys though? I've read numerous articles stating CNN needs to go all the way and become the Fox News for Democrats, that they already show obvious bias and it'd help the party. While it's disturbing to think that CNN is so bad, it suggests they're further left than any other network and still can't keep up with the obvious and undeniable bias of Fox. My advice? Take in as much as you can and try to figure it out for yourself. Pick your battles, there's too much going on to try to follow everything while having to sift through the bullshit, sad but true, most of us don't have the time. Don't get duped by some twisted little survey like this.

Fox - "In terms of programming, the top-rated Fox News Channel has been remarkably stable in prime time. The only personnel changes that occurred in the evening between 2007 and 2012 were Bret Baier replacing Brit Hume at 6 p.m. and the departure of liberal co-host Alan Colmes at 9 p.m., leaving his conservative sparring partner, Sean Hannity, as the sole host of the show."

MSNBC -"Given the current liberal approach at nighttime at MSNBC, it’s hard to remember that back in 2007, the prime-time airwaves were split between liberals (Keith Olbermann and, to a lesser extent, Chris Matthews) and conservatives (Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson). Now, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are linchpins in an ideologically reconstructed liberal lineup."

And then we have the following gem that I stumbled across in another PEJ/PEW report: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign. After noting various metrics of coverage time and coverage tone, the report asks:

In other words, not o

Fox - "In terms of programming, the top-rated Fox News Channel has been remarkably stable in prime time. The only personnel changes that occurred in the evening between 2007 and 2012 were Bret Baier replacing Brit Hume at 6 p.m. and the departure of liberal co-host Alan Colmes at 9 p.m., leaving his conservative sparring partner, Sean Hannity, as the sole host of the show."

MSNBC -"Given the current liberal approach at nighttime at MSNBC, it’s hard to remember that back in 2007, the prime-time airwaves were split between liberals (Keith Olbermann and, to a lesser extent, Chris Matthews) and conservatives (Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson). Now, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are linchpins in an ideologically reconstructed liberal lineup."

And then we have the following gem that I stumbled across in another PEJ/PEW report: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign. After noting various metrics of coverage time and coverage tone, the report asks:

In other words, not o

I know that's the Republican meme, that you were so horribly persecuted by unfair criticism of Bush that now they're entirely justified in doing the same thing...

But it's not true.

Study of US media bias, October 29, 2007 http://www.journalism.org/node/8197, looks at coverage of the early stages of the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Newspapers have a pro-Democrat bias:
59 percent of stories about Democrats were positive. 11 percent were negative.
26 percent of stories about Republicans were positive. 40 percent were negative.
TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) have a pro-Democrat bias:
40 percent of stories about Democrats were positive. 17 percent were negative.
19 percent of stories about Republicans were positive

Actually, he co-founded the Mises Institute, which is chock-full of details. He's published books like Liberty Defined where he breaks his arguments into easily understandable explanations. The real problem is that mainstream media doesn't cover him.

The Daily Show is a COMEDY Show. Jon Stewart doesn't pretend otherwise. His job is to skewer the news.

Beck (and Fox) pretend otherwise.

It's not just that it's a comedy of the news. It's self-described as "fake news" and some their best material is when they divert from fact and make up nonsense. Jon tends to make fart jokes and laugh at the nonsense he tells. Contrast that to Beck who fakes tears and fear to inspire those in his flock. Stewart has said he doesn't want (or believe) people get actual news from his show. Studies have backed this up:

The survey also suggests Daily Show viewers are highly informed, an indication that The Daily Show is not their lone source of news. Regular viewers of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report were most likely to score in the highest percentile on knowledge of current affairs.

If you want to compare The Daily Show to a right-wing equivalent, you want the "1/2 hour news hour" , but that one was canceled after being dragged on for months despite pitiful ratings out of the gate. And as we all know from watching Beck and O'Reilly, ratings are the true barometer for what's good and true.

Read the actual report instead of the "News, Analysis, and Perspective" from CRN: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/when_technology_makes_headlines

Brief Waxman reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-21-2009/greener-postures

Not sure about funny, but there's a Waxman quote here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2004/war-on-error

The rest aren't jokes about Waxman (he's so goofy looking already... maybe they feel bad?) short segment here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-30-2007/the-house-of-wax

and he was a guest here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/henry-waxman

Pelosi:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-12-2009/waffle-house

This is a great example, he smacks Pelosi.

And an Obama mocking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

It's true he covers more Republicans unfavorably, but the numbers are closer than people think:
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953

The little bit of journalistic integrity left will be destroyed if the government starts picking up the tab. Newspapers will have a vested interest in getting funding so support of one candidate or another will be rewarded with money, instead of just interviews, questions at press conferences, and leaked memos.

As much as I hate to say it, it's that way now. NBC and it's sister stations are all owned by GE (at least until they sell to Comcast soon). This includes MSNBC. MSNBC is a very left-of-center network. While it has been shown that all media was biased toward Obama in the last election (yes, even Fox News... numbers don't lie), MSNBC went above and beyond the call of duty and by far the biggest Obama supporter of all the major media networks.

Now what does this have to do with GE? Who do you think would give more for green programs, Obama or McCain? Obviously Obama. Who stands to make a fortune off green programs? GE! GE makes the wind generators for wind farms, CFL and LED light bulbs and are well invested in other "green" areas. While it's great that GE is taking such a stance to greenify our world, it's not so great that they use their media subsidiaries to shape public opinion toward favoring one political party over the other to help their bottom line.

GE "we bring good things to life!" makers of the General Electric minigun as well as a multitude of other military products. Now I have to wonder who would dump more tax payer dollars into the big dollar things that GE sells, Obama or McCain (of if he dies Palin who hates the Ruskies).
Green products are fine but are they worth more than military contracts? This is GE we are talking about, not Hempco or Dirty Hippies Affiliated.

The little bit of journalistic integrity left will be destroyed if the government starts picking up the tab. Newspapers will have a vested interest in getting funding so support of one candidate or another will be rewarded with money, instead of just interviews, questions at press conferences, and leaked memos.

As much as I hate to say it, it's that way now. NBC and it's sister stations are all owned by GE (at least until they sell to Comcast soon). This includes MSNBC. MSNBC is a very left-of-center network. While it has been shown that all media was biased toward Obama in the last election (yes, even Fox News... numbers don't lie), MSNBC went above and beyond the call of duty and by far the biggest Obama supporter of all the major media networks.

Now what does this have to do with GE? Who do you think would give more for green programs, Obama or McCain? Obviously Obama. Who stands to make a fortune off green programs? GE! GE makes the wind generators for wind farms, CFL and LED light bulbs and are well invested in other "green" areas. While it's great that GE is taking such a stance to greenify our world, it's not so great that they use their media subsidiaries to shape public opinion toward favoring one political party over the other to help their bottom line.

However, you are correct that it would get much worse if the government were paying the bills. You could expect that whichever presidential candidate or political party that promised to increased funding to the press outlets would get the more favorable treatment.

With that said, there should be some kind of oversight to prevent the corporations that own the press from using it to drive agendas with the purpose of increasing profits. For that matter, the press shouldn't be driving agendas at all!

What Fox "News" broadcasts is not a "challenge" to the White House. It's made-up accusations, like this Anita Dunn nonsense, like the fuss about ACORN, like the association between the President and Bill Ayers, that make it an arm of the Republican party. These stories are simply specious, having no purpose beyond allowing the talking heads to call President Obama a socialist over and over on national TV.

Oh, Good God! Fox News did not make the videos up! Anita Dunn really did say that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite philosophers. Could you imagine the uproar if a member of GWB's cabinet had stated that Hitler or Pol Pot were one of his favorite philosophers?!!? It would be broadcast nonstop on every news network until this cabinet member resigned in shame with full investigations to follow. Sorry, but Anita said it, she meant it, and it was on video. Fox didn't need to make anything up. If you believe that, you are deluding yourself. Look up the video for yourself.

As for the relationship between Ayers and Obama, it was real. Sure, they may not have been best friends and swapped wives or anything, but there was a relationship. These guys not only worked together and served on various boards together, but Obama's political career was started at a meet-and-greet hosted at Bill Ayers' house by Bill Ayers himself. Again, if GWB or any other Republican and most Democrats had started their political careers at the home of an admitted terrorist, it would make the news 24/7. And again, this relationship is well documented by non-Fox sources and is public record/fact. If you deny that there was a relationship, you are deluding yourself again. You seem to be doing a lot of that lately.

You bring up ACORN. ACORN is an organization that receives tax payer money whose members were offering to assist what they thought were a pimp and prostitute get tax breaks for their child sex slave operation. The evidence is on video and indisputable. Are you seriously OK with that? Sure, the organization has done some good, but there are other organizations that could do a better job without all the unadulterated corruption. Oh, and Obama once worked for ACORN and wears his Community Organizing experience like a badge of honor. You do know what the C and the O in ACORN stands for don't you? Funny how that relationship didn't get any media attention either.

Finally, it has been proven that Fox News truly is the most "Fair and Balanced" network out there. I understand that you don't like views you disagree with being shared, but just because they are not YOUR views doesn't mean that those who with differing views should be silenced. You'll need to look up the First Amendment for the reasons why.

the negative assertions in a story must outweigh positive assertions by a margin of at least 1.5 to 1 for that story to be deemed negative.

(link) Ok, we've got that down (we'll ignore the speculative side of it off the respectability of the link you provided).

Ok, so this coverage must mean that the media loves Obama, right?

One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

(same link) Wow, so you mean the news just followed the polls and that your non-lying numbers are actually meaningless in response to:

beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery.

(Which quite an unsupportable statement itself).

It appears that you do since you can no longer claim ignorance.

Oh, and be sure to check the name of the person you are replying to. I was the one to claim ignorance, which I was. Now, I am no longer making that claim. You have provided me with my requested link. However, you can no longer go around claiming that these numbers suggest a bias without being a liar yourself. The study says this data is not conclusive evidence for media bias.

But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.

Examples, please. Don't say that it's true and provide no evidence or you are being guilty of the exact same thing you are accusing Fox News of. In your first paragraph, you start a rumor. In your second you draw a conclusion based on the very same rumor.

There should be no misconception that the entire Fox News organization is a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch and the Republican party. They are "fair and balanced" only up to the point that it conflicts with these two entities. To paint a broad stroke, anyone who cannot see that is deluded.

You mean the same Rupert Murdoch who gave money to the Hillary Clinton campaign? And, again, NUMBERS DON'T LIE! Fair and Balanced means telling all sides of the story. Fox News does just that. So, you may not like the FACT that Fox is more "Fair and Balanced" than any other news network, but don't insult them and their viewers because they tell a side of the story that you don't want heard. It's kind of like book burning. When you see information you don't agree with, you feel you must destroy it.

Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.

Here are the numbers:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1

They show that Fox was very balanced in the previous election.

Here is deeper analysis:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

AS for the commentators, when was the last time you saw a true conservative on Keith Olbermann's show? I've seen plenty of Liberals on O'Reilly's.

Also, I don't have any idea what numbers you are referring to. Saying "the numbers prove you wrong" with no reference to what numbers is as absurdist as saying "the letters display pink daisies after the end!" It has no meaning.

Here are the numbers:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1

They show that Fox was very balanced in the previous election.

Here is deeper analysis:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

AS for the commentators, when was the last time you saw a true conservative on Keith Olbermann's show? I've seen plenty of Liberals on O'Reilly's.

I wasn't in the country for the last election, so I honestly don't know. Would you mind providing links to back your assertion that Fox's coverage was the most fair and balanced?

  Considering as it is now, you haven't made any links. By not having any links, it makes me wonder why you would make up a story about fox being fair and balanced. What is it that you're hiding by not producing links to numbers that prove things are fair and balanced? I'm not saying that I don't believe your assertions, I just find it suspect that you don't try to back them up.

Sorry, I screwed up the HTML and the link turned into a quote. HERE is the link.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1

(in case I screw it up again)

I wasn't in the country for the last election, so I honestly don't know. Would you mind providing links to back your assertion that Fox's coverage was the most fair and balanced?

  Considering as it is now, you haven't made any links. By not having any links, it makes me wonder why you would make up a story about fox being fair and balanced. What is it that you're hiding by not producing links to numbers that prove things are fair and balanced? I'm not saying that I don't believe your assertions, I just find it suspect that you don't try to back them up.

Sorry, I screwed up the HTML and the link turned into a quote. HERE is the link.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1

(in case I screw it up again)

Just pointing something out.

Sure, it's not necessarily representative of their entire coverage, but when it comes to events that truly matter Fox News is overwhelmingly more fair than most any other news outlet. All the others showed heavy favoritism to the Obama campaign.

In contrast, the Fox News Channel treated both candidates to roughly the same level of good and bad press, with Obama earning just slightly better press than McCain. One-fourth of Obama stories on Fox (25%) were positive, compared to 22% of McCain's coverage. Both candidates received exactly the same proportion of negative stories on FNC, 40%.

I'd like to see a similar study comparing right/left topics in general, perhaps weighted with the importance of the stories (difficult, the importance would have to be relatively subjective). Fox wouldn't fair as well, unless you consider the fact that most of their right-wing shows seem to be trash news for the most part. You could probably toss the talk shows from all the networks and get a decent look at how they stand on actual reporting.

Perhaps Fox only seems so far right because everything else is so far left?

My 2 cents anyway.

Here's some -isms for you...

I fear progressive authoritarianism operating under the guise of a liberal democracy. I fear those who would tear down our current society to enforce a raw democracy, guided by the "enlightened" elite, using propaganda via the media to steer the masses, creating a perception of "have-nots" so they can hate those that don't like where the system is taking us. Those that don't follow are run over; it's not a new concept, after all, these tactics have been around since "Philip Dru: Administrator", 1917.

We're being steered away from the republic, because a republic represents the freedom to get away from bad decisions made by others. "Why do we need an electoral congress when we can just let the people decide?" No... we have a democracy where you only need a majority to decide that someone else should pay for what you want, a fear that the Founding Fathers voiced often. There's a reason why they call it a progressive tax code, such that today 90% of the public pays 30% of the federal tax. Our "closing the loophoole" will end up chasing away the 10% that actually generates the cash for our society.

We have the media in league with the POTUS, in 100 days reporting favorable stories in a 2:1 ratio over the last president, yes 42% vs 20% favorably biased stories. And it's just not NBC or CNN... They steer the national conversations, and under the guise of entertainment (ComedyCentral, of Viacom, which lest we forget owned CBS up until 2006), they ridicule those that don't fall in line with their political ideology. John Stewart rips apart Cramer thanks to his NYSE executive brother, then falls back on "I'm just an entertainer" when his beliefs are cornered...

It's not socialism, no, because at least there they told you up front that the system was being run by the elite to forcefully equate the masses, except for those at the top of course. It's not fascism this time around either, because under fascism the corporations run the government, when today the government is itching to run the corporations (another $4.5 billion 1 hour ago). It's authoritarianism, chipping away our freedoms, our options, our future. Spending money they don't have today, telling us what we can't believe, then using the 1920's progressive tactics of criticising and ridiculing the non-believers.

They did cover gaffes -- socially awkward or tactless acts. But not the "gaffes" -- stupidities and outright lunacies smoothed-over as mere gaffes.

Not only did they cover both about Biden, it was about the only thing they covered.

Perhaps news reporters and those that work in the media are more educated than your average American voter and vote more intelligently.

Oh please....now you're trolling.

As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Newspapers are routinely written on about a 7th grade reading level. So Not a lot of William F. Buckleys or perspicacious intellects in the profession. Although quite a few DO seem think they're much smarter...a lot like the Hollywood elite. And those who think rural=dumb when many of the poorest and least educated live in urban areas. I suspect this comes from too much time spent hanging around with like-minded elitists until the all convince themselves they know best.

But what we're talking about is news bias. Journalist tend to vote to the left and they apparently have no ethics problem letting that bias into their stories. Journalists today often see themselves as activists. There were actually reporters breaking down and telling THEIR stories when Obama won. That's unprofessional: It's one thing to turn and ask a member of the crowd how they feel, it's another to just break down and start talking about YOUR father, etc.

It might interest you to know that FOX is not right-tilted but WAS actually 'fair and balanced' when it came to the election. Most critics like to lump in their commentary shows O'Reilly factor, Hannity & Colmes, etc. But those are commentary, just like a newspaper has an editorial section. In election coverage Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain and a 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama. Contrast that with MSNBC had 73% negative stories on McCain vs. 14% on Obama.

See here. The analysis says Fox was more for McCain than the other networks. That's obvious from the numbers. MSNBC had 7 negative stories for every positive one for McCain, but four positives for every negative for Obama. There is no way to explain that away as not being left-leaning. Meanwhile, Fox's numbers weren't quite so lopsided.

But Fox, when comparing its own coverage of the candidates, was itself slightly biased towards Obama with the same negative coverage, but more positive and neutral coverage for Obama. In other words, Fox wasn't right-leaning, Fox was only less left-leaning than the other networks.

So I was wrong: Fox doesn't provide a balance. The whole thing is tilted to the left.

Cheers, -m

Wow, you cite a study from a group sponsored by a left wing group that says CNN has no bias.

Well, I guess that settles it then, there is no bias on CNN.

Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush *
Gore Bush
Positive 13% 24%
Neutral 31% 27%
Negative 56% 49%
Total 100% 100%

Not to mention--but I couldn't find the source--that I think over 50% of newspapers endorsed Bush in 2000.

Yes, because the New York Times would never have an errant reporter.
Jayson Blair anyone?
Obviously a big name doesn't equate to legitimacy. Or not so much "doesn't", but "shouldn't necessarily"

The answer is that as long as I have nothing at stake if I'm wrong, then there's no incentive for me to attempt to be accuracy or even honest. Here's where betting comes in. For example, if I bet $50 that Bush will be reelected, then you have an idea of how much to weigh my claim. Further, with stock markets and other betting markets, we already have ways to collectively release information in a format that has high credibility. So a ban on Internet gambling reduces my abiltiy to make credible statements and reduces the forums on which I can make those statements.

Let's continue with the example. Suppose you live in a liberal state like California and dreadfully fear the possible reelection of G. W. Bush to the point that you're considering fleeing the country, if he is reelected. In the good old days before internet gambling, you were in trouble. No way to insure yourself against disaster. Now, there are overseas markets that trade in whether or not Bush wins. In fact, you can even do it by state. Maybe bet a few hundred that Bush carries California at 1:5 odds (a sure sign of coming doom) and you should have enough for that airline ticket and some food and lodging.

Ie, internet gambling can allow me to insure/hedge against various nontraditional events. Again another worthwhile activity sabotaged for the morality of the state.

Does the name Jayson Blair ring any bells?

This code was "developed" under the watchful eye of responsible capitalists, yet copyright infringement happened anyway.