Slashdot Mirror
Pew Research Finds Opinion Dominates MSNBC More Than Fox News
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Jack Mirkinson reports that Pew Research Center's annual "State of the Media" study found that, since 2007, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC have all cut back sharply on the amount of actual reporting found on their airwaves. Cheaper, more provocative debate or interview segments have largely filled the void. Pew found that Fox News spent 55 percent of the time on opinion and 45 percent of the time on reporting. Critics of that figure would likely contend that the network's straight news reporting tilts conservative, but it is true that Fox News has more shows that feature reporting packages than MSNBC does. According to Pew MSNBC made the key decision to reprogram itself in prime time as a liberal counterweight to the Fox News Channel's conservative nighttime lineup. The new MSNBC strategy and lineup were accompanied by a substantial cut in interview time and sharply increased airtime devoted to edited packages. The Pew Research examination of programming in December 2012 found MSNBC by far the most opinionated of the three networks, with nearly 90% of MSNBC's primetime coverage coming in the form of opinion or commentary."
[my surprised face]
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
This is as misleading as the studies that "disproved" that organic food is more nutritious. Nobody was making the claim they disproved. The basic claim about Fox News' bias is that every single story is framed in such a way to reinforce a distorted, reactionary worldview.
This is as misleading as the studies that "disproved" that organic food is more nutritious. Nobody was making the claim they disproved. The basic claim about Fox News' bias is that every single story is framed in such a way to reinforce a distorted, reactionary worldview, even when it's supposedly NOT an opinion piece.
Yeah, take that Pew! If your puny "facts" don't agree with my bias, then you're total assholes and must be dismissed!!
This is it, folks
Journalism has gone comatosed
With so many people calling themselves "journalists" - I think we have the most number of "journalists" in this world right now than any other period of human history - it is ironic that REAL JOURNALISM has gone to the dogs
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If they have to tell you that they are 'fair and balanced' then its likely that they aren't, but also add in everything that tells you that it 'leans forward', or other crap.
The Soviet Unions national newspaper, during the height of the governments paranoid plummet into self destruction, was called 'Pravda' which translates to 'Truth' or 'Justice' in Russian.
When was the last time a 'breaking story' was something uncovered by an investigative reporter, rather than spoon fed to it by pundits or politicians?
"His name was James Damore."
That seems pretty useless if it doesn't also measure how often the purported news is incorrect or biased.
Opinion is always biased.
The current generation doesnt seem to know what journalism used to be, and apparently cannot seem to tell the difference between facts and opinions.
"His name was James Damore."
Opinions are cheap. Reporters cost money.
Increasingly, people only seem to care about being outraged, anyway. Just look at all the blogs out there -- they're basically nothing more than "outrage of the day" articles, cynically designed to appeal to shallow, emotional outbursts. Slashdot is often guilty of this, as well. I'm not sure whether this trend took hold in Old Media or New Media first, but it has totally dominated New Media, and now the Old Media are struggling to stay relevant, by showing they can be just as fluffy and reactionary as the New Media. In some ways, I think this is just a natural progression of trends started in the 1990s. Hell, maybe it started a lot earlier than that, but that's when I remember things getting worse. My parents would probably say it started around 60s or 70s.
Bloviating is cheap and easy, actual reporting is expensive and hard. What more do you need to know?
Bated breath, shortened from abated breath, is what you were looking for unless you meant their breath smells like they've been eating fishing bait.
Nowhere. Ever. Why does anyone ever think that something like this could exist? Because you have free press? That only means that they are allowed to spread different lies than the government.
EVERY kind of reporting is biased. Even just reporting a fact is, because the question is why this fact was reported and not another one. And considering the amount of stuff happening around the globe, even trying to report everything to give a fully unbiased view is a futile task.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Newspapers and other publications were traditionally politically biased, mostly printed by someone to put their own slant on things. Journalism is historically gonzo, it's only recently that this fair and impartial notion has arisen. I guess people like to read things that agree with their ideas.
Of course. But what the OP was talking about is the parts not marked as opinion, but the reporting parts, which should be as objective as possible. What the OP questioned is how much of that reporting is actually biased, and thus not truly reporting (he also questioned how much of it is simply incorrect, which is already a strong hint he wasn't talking about the opinion part).
And yes, it's not really possible to be 100% objective even in reporting, but good reporting goes as close to that as possible. Biased reporting, on the other hand, is worse than marked opinion, because it makes the opinion look like hard facts.
In German public TV they once had a very nice demonstration of this: They purposefully made two oppositely biased "documentations" about the same East-German city (the report was a short time after the German re-unification). Both of them reported only hard facts, yet one of them painted the picture of a declining city which was essentially doomed, while the other one told the story of a booming city with a great future. And both did do it in a quite convincing way.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Pew Research Finds Opinion Dominates MSNBC More Than Fox News
The headline suggests that Fox's news is less opinionated than MSNBC's News.
Pew found that Fox News spent 55 percent of the time on opinion and 45 percent of the time on reporting... with nearly 90% of MSNBC's primetime coverage coming in the form of opinion or commentary.
So we're talking about the type of shows being aired on the channel: "News"* or Opinion, not the slant of the news being presented. It would be more accurate to say "MSNBC Primetime Programming Reformulated to Include Nearly 90% Opinion," but that wouldn't be as provocative and get as many page views.
Fox News has a history of presenting "news" that is so slanted it's the butt of many jokes ("that story is so biased it should be on Fox News... if only it was funny it could be on the Onion"), so I'd argue that Fox's "News" programming counts in the opinion category.
That said, the story is actually about the increased polarization between MSNBC's lineup and Fox's. One would like think that a "news" channel as laughably-biased as Fox would not survive long, because it's not actually providing news. But they're successful because they've found that people want to be told things that seem to reinforce their own perceptions. That keeps them watching. MSNBC is just acknowledging this and reformulating to do the same for the left-leaning audience.
This is a bad thing, even if you're too intelligent to watch either of these channels, because they suck people in and polarize opinions. Then people walk around spreading these polarized opinions by word of mouth like conspiracy theories, and you end up with polarized politicians running the country who have no reason to compromise and get things done because they won't be re-elected if they compromise.
*As a former print journalist, I think all TV "news" is garbage by design. It's Jerry-Springer-esque entertainment disguised as news. It's formulated to tease you with provocative blurbs suggesting they're going to give you some juicy story, after you watch a bunch of other stuff and commercials. When they finally get to the promised story, it typically contains far less information than a print news story would because it takes too much time to do that much talking, and most people would lose interest part-way through.
At least Fox tries to pretend its unbiased. Whereas Fox has never-ending coverage of why all Democrat policies are bad, MSNBC has never-ending coverage of how all Republicans are evil racists that want to rape all women all the time and kill old people and put blacks back into slavery. MSNBC "personalities", openly, with no hint of irony, call a white republican a racist and a black republican a "house negro" in the same breath. On a nearly daily basis to boot. There is not even the slightest pretense of unbiased coverage with MSNBC, its a straight-up fifth column. It spreads the holy message of the democratic party as though it was gospel, no matter how ridiculous that message might be on a particular day.
I think I'll stick with my BBC News thank you, I like their proper British matter-of-factly way of telling the news and outside looking in approach to US coverage.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Indeed
"Democrats fail to undermine Republican policy with lies" vs. "Flaws in Republican scheme ignored, despite Democrat efforts".
(Feel free to switch the names around).
From what I've seen, both MSNBC and Fox are both pretty much all opinion all the time, to the point of being detrimental rather than useless as sources of news.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The current generation doesn't seem to know what journalism [is supposed] to be
FTFY - It's never actually been that way, sure there are some bright spots in it's history but they are few and far between. It's the fundamental reason why old media find it difficult to deal with the internet, they cannot control the content and their audience can shout back at them with equal volume. Everyone can publish (more or less) whatever they want. The "global village" is a reality in the west but in a way that people under 30 will have trouble understanding, it is a genuine communications "revolution". In a historical sense it started yesterday but it has already "changed everything".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I think at some point, MSNBC realized that CNN was trying to stay in the middle between Fox and MSNBC, instead of staying in the middle between Left and Right. They're currently embarked on an effort to see how insanely far left they can go to bring CNN left of center before somebody at CNN realizes whats going on.
No, I'm not being serious.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
There are a number of problems at the heart of what's wrong with journalism.
The first is celebrity culture, so there's a persistent undercurrent of self-aggrandizement. They'll latch on to big stories as a way to make a name for themselves, creating a natural inclination to sensationalize. In the mean time they're not really doing anything beyond talking to a camera. The closest thing they do to journalism is interviews. And when that happens if they like the interviewee it's a soft-ball puff piece, when they don't it's nothing but loaded messages to convey a particular message.
The second, bigger problem is that journalists don't see it as their job to inform, they think it's their duty to educate. The distinction is that in the former journalists are merely describing what happened, with the latter they're lulled into pushing agendas. This guarantees bias. This is when journalists approach a story with a hypothesis, find it disproved in research, but because it violates their worldview they get selective with facts and twist them to suit their viewpoint.
Bloggers are amongst the worst. When the topics are apolitical too many of them turn into hangers-on. It's celebrity by association, that they're somehow a crucial component to someone else's success and popularity. When the topics are political, then it's the worst kind of blogger circle-jerk. Some blogger somewhere posts some heavily slanted story which everyone else then reposts as fact adding their own pointless commentary.
The most obnoxious thing here is that simply looking at both sides doesn't translate into balance. Often times you're just getting extremist views with no substantive facts.
What I've noticed is that on opinion shows Fox will get a liberal and conservative to argue the issue and the commentator for Fox and the conservative will gang up on the liberal.
On MSNBC they get a liberal and a hardcore liberal to discuss an issue and they and the commentator engage in a circle jerk for the whole segment.
I think we have the most number of "journalists" in this world right now than any other period of human history - it is ironic that REAL JOURNALISM has gone to the dogs
Yes, it is highly ironic that I have to go to blogs to get news because the mainstream "news" outlets are controlled by corrupt corporate interests.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How about a law to require them to put "opinion" in the corner of the screen when they're just spouting crap.
No sig today...
All reporting is biased. Some intentionally, some just because that is how people are. Sometimes things that you would consider important in a story are left out because the reporter, whose world view is different from yours, does not consider them significant. Other times things that you would consider important in a story are left out because the reporter recognizes that they would undermine the narrative he/she is trying to promote with the story.
I avoid news sources I catch doing the latter completely. However, I would prefer news sources to be more honest in their bias. My biggest problem with Fox News is not their "conservative" bias, since they are rather upfront about that. Rather it is several of their other biases that they try to get people to overlook. I cannot give you examples at the moment because it has been several months since I saw the stories and I filed them in my head under "take all Fox News stories with a grain of salt". I do not find it necessary to take their stories about "conservative" issues with a grain of salt because I know where they are coming from and know exactly what information is likely to be missing. These other biases are a result of investments in Fox News and partnerships with Fox News by organizations and individuals who I know to have agendas, but whose agendas I am unfamiliar with the details.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The problem really lies with what is not reported. Bias by omission. And omitted facts can never be incorrect.
Elephant in the room time: MSNBC is the liberal propaganda arm of the democratic party. MSNBC tries to ignore stories that have any whiff of putting their glorious democrats in a bad light while simultaneously manufacturing outrage over conservatives in the hopes of distracting the public from seing the democrats as they really are.
So spare us the "Fox News is worse" garbage. While the Fox News slant is well known and acknowledged, every other news organization is left-of-center and denies it has any bias whatsoever. If MSNBC can't be relied upon to report all stories, even those that are negative to democrats, then it is a propaganda firm, not a news oranization.
Does MSNBC's 85% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Of course not! The 85% is at least 85% liberal opinion. Does Fox news 55% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Yes it does. Some of the liberals, independents, or non-conservatives that are now, or have been, on Fox are: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Mara Liasson, Santita Jackson, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Simon Rosenberg, Bill Schulz, Shepard Smith, Juan Williams. Conservatives on MSNBC? Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough (arguably fiscally conservative, socially liberal RINO). Sounds like MSNBC's reporting is severely un-fair and un-balanced.
What MSNBC does, is put nerdy hipster glasses on all it's hosts. That is supposed to make them more credible, but it is not subtle at all.
This is exactly correct. Yes, MSNBC is biased and broadcasts opinion, but they don't try to pull off rebranding it as news. Their motto is "Lean Forward." Fox claims to be "Fair and Balanced," and has segments called stuff like "No Spin Zone" that are nothing but pure spin.
I personally don't care if a network says, "Here are shows that are sharply left/right," but what I take issue with is when a network presents itself as an unbiased news source and then proceeds to opine one way or another.
Specifically, what it says is that both MSNBC and Fox are more than 50% opinion (well, non-news "analysis", anyway). So, these are primarily "chat" sources rather than news sources.
if you want actual news, according to this, go to CNN.
This,
Just because MSNBC contains a higher percentage of male cow faeces does not mean Fox News isn't almost bullshit as well.
As an Australian who's seen US "news" channels I'm utterly flabbergasted whenever I see them. Opinion is masqueraded as fact, debates rigged and just about every thought terminating cliché is thrown in and repeated until you almost believe it. Coming from somewhere that has credible news sources like the BBC, ABC (Australian) and SBS I'm amazed at how poorly informed news sources truly are.
Even CNN is terrible. Last time I watched CNN it was the same four stories on repeat.
I'd be looking for news sources outside the US, US news channels make Top Gear's Clarkson look like the paragon of journalistic integrity.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"All the news that's fit to tint."
What surprises me is that ANY of their content is considered "reporting". They don't even try to do news.
Fuck Fox and MSNBC they both suck.
The current generation doesnt seem to know what journalism used to be, and apparently cannot seem to tell the difference between facts and opinions.
I don't know about this current generation claim; all of the highly charged opinion masquerading as fact that I hear in discussions or get forwarded to my inbox, all come from people over the age of 65.
From what I've seen, both MSNBC and Fox are both pretty much all opinion all the time, to the point of being detrimental rather than useless as sources of news.
Right, but thankfully we don't have to rely on your opinion of what you've seen. This source found that 90% of MSNBC programming is opinion versus 55% of Fox News. So, in fact, MSNBC is pretty much opinion all the time and Fox News is pretty much opinion half the time.
Except that every Fox story is something like "Is Barack Obama the antichrist?" or "Do Democrats want to kill your grandmother?" or "Are liberals spineless cowards?" or "Is global warming actually good for you?"
It may be that they only answer the question with opinion and not facts 55% of the time, but 99% of their headlines are in that form, "asking a question" to make a statement.
Imagine I brought you on a show, and you didn't know what for, and then you found out the discussion of that episode was "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You can answer the question in a non-biased way, but the question was asked in a biased and leading way. MSNBC answers their questions in a biased way, absolutely, but the last time I checked(and admittedly it's been many years since I was a regular viewer), they were still asking real questions.
I turned on MSNBC just a minute ago. The question on the screen said "Can Mark Sanford win over family-values Republicans?" Then I turned on Fox. The question on the screen said "Automatic gun ban fail: Did the press pass on the news?" One of those is a real question, and one of those seems to be trying to put an answer in your head.
I love conserva-ACs who make it sound like liberalism is awash in this country. The corporate voices promote a fairly conservative corporate view. It's just liberal sounding because fairness and progressive views promote populism which is a fundamental part of democracy (Hence why they are called Democrats..)
The Democratic message is that <sarcasm>white people have raped the planet can created instituions that instill "structural violence" on non-whites, women and poor little innocent children. All these greedy people care about is making themselves rich and exploiting others. They should and do pay nearly all the tax and everyone else is *entitled* to spend it even if they didn't pay any tax on their own income. All of history is bad white people and Jews enslaving and exploiting non-whites with their mysterious and noble primitive ways</sarcasm> Even on Slashdot you see otherwise intelligent people ignore (or be ignorant of) historical facts and come out with this message. So they support a party that wants to spend an eventual factor of ten times what the US earns on *optional* 'entitlement' programmes. Meanwhile demonize the defence force and point to that as the expense when the unfunded liabilities of entitlements is nearly 100 times larger.
No, it really isn't. If someone is reading the New York Times or the Washington Times, his political standing is pretty obvious.
Ditto MSNBC vs. Fox News. Or NPR vs. just about anything else on Talk Radio.
The difference is that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge they are biased, or don't realize it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
As an American, I'd have to say I agree with your assessment. This sums the situation up quite nicely.
Happy people make bad consumers.
The truth is always in the middle. I like to read Fox, MSNBC(Now NBCNEWS) and CNN to see different sides of the story and decide for myself what the truth is.
That's good in theory, but my experience with US "news" agencies is that neither one presents facts, only opinion and interpretation which means that you dont see the "truth" as you would call it, only someone elses opinion. What you're simply doing is hearing two biased opinions and deciding which one you agree with.
With news it is very good to get the facts from multiple reports of a situation and decide on your own opinion. But you cant do this if your sources don't contain the facts.
News should be fact presented dispassionately, Fox and MSNBC are the opposite of this. CNN simply fails at it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Except that every Fox story is something like "Is Barack Obama the antichrist?" or "Do Democrats want to kill your grandmother?" or "Are liberals spineless cowards?" or "Is global warming actually good for you?"
It may be that they only answer the question with opinion and not facts 55% of the time, but 99% of their headlines are in that form, "asking a question" to make a statement.
That is a testable assertion on the web and video. It looks to me that you get both points wrong in both forms of media.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Not true. I'm fairly conservative (not Tea Party). I read WaPost on-line nearly every day (of course, I live just ten miles outside the Beltway, but still), occasionally the NYTimes (less so now that they only let you read ten articles a month w/o paying), and occasionally glance at Slate, which I suspect is far to the left of either. I think I could count the number of times I've been on Fox News' website on one hand with most of my fingers left over. And I listen to NPR some. I once listened to some right-wing commentator on the radio, but the call-ins were just awful. (All talk shows have their occasional weirdos calling in, but this was consistent.)
So no, at least in my case my political standing is not at all obvious from my choice of media.
BTW, I don't see much *news* on any of these sites, way too much fluff. I think VOA on the web has far more news than you can find on the front "page" of any of the above news sites.
Oh, and I used to go to Google News daily, before they messed it up and ignored all user input.