June 30, 2006

Selective Reporting


The lefty "media watchdog" Media Matters seems to spend an awful lot of time watching and deconstructing Fox News. I understand why they spend many hours absorbing the most watched news network out there, but their discussion of what transpires at Fox is routinely disingenuous. Media Matters gleefully points out any mistake or misrepresentation that Fox News may present, but at the same time they misrepresent, by omission, the analysis that takes place on Fox and elsewhere.

In a classic lefty fallacious turning the tables move, where lefties adopt the same rhetoric that is directed against them and direct it back at conservatives, Media Matters accuses conservatives of directing "vitriol" at the New York Times.(because they published of a story which went into detail about a top secret and totally legal program known as the Terrorist Finace Tracking Program.)


Bush-bashing lefty vitriol is a staple of the modern American left, yet here Media Matters claims that conservatives are directing "vitriol" at the New York Times. The video presentation on this particular page of Media Matters shows a series of conservative pudits taking the New York Times to task because of thier arguably treasonous and at the very least unpatriotic, behavior of late, up to and including this latest fiasco. After seeing the clip It is clear that the usage of the term "vitriol" is simply incorrect , not to mention borrowed. A factual analysis of the New York Times' jaw dropping lack of judgment vis a vis revealing the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program does not constitute "vitriol". As usual, when the left tries to simply level the same complaint leveled against them back at their opposition it fails to pass logical muster.

In Media Matters’ discussion of this latest affront perpetrated by the NYT they claim,

"Conservatives have directed their vitriol almost entirely at The New York Times, despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal also posted articles on the subject on their web pages on the same day -- June 22 -- as the New York Times, and both published articles on it in their June 23 print editions."

Here we have a classic example of disingenuous reporting by omission. Media matters fails to anywhere mention the fact the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times chose to run the story on TFTP after they had learned that the NYT was going ahead with publication of said story despite being asked not to do so by many public officials including even Jack Murtha. (Even Murtha knows that the publication of details on this program will harm America.)

When will lefty outfits like Media Matters learn? Anyone in the know is aware that the New York Times lead the charge on reporting this story, which by the way the 'Times' is now claiming is not really news because “terrorists already knew that we were tracking their funds”.

Again I ask, if everyone already knew the intimate details on this program then; how is that news? Unfortunately, applying a logical standard to almost any lefty stance is a fool’s errand, so why bother. (Oops, was that vitriol... or a statement of fact?)

But it is this sanctimonious attitude that Media Matters adopts which really takes the cake for me at the moment. If Media Matters truly wants to be seen as objective like Fox New strives to be, will they ever learn to present the full story and not omit certain key facts that anyone who has looked into anything is aware of?

As long as Media Matters is here to attack Fox News and conservative pundits, bloggers like me will be here to logically refute Media Matters and the legion of other lefty spin merchants.

44 comments:

young_activist said...

An nonpartisan unbiased study found that 12% of all of CNN's contenet containe liberal bias, about 24% of MSNBC's content contained bias while 68% of Fox's content contained conservative bias. Fox is just an opinion show that pretends to be news. The facts don't lies, Fox "News" does.

Anonymous said...

We are all liberal in heignsight, it is those of us who are liberal in forsight who will be remembered as great.

Lincoln
Jesus
Ghandi
Martin Luther King Jr.
Thomas Paine
John Wilkes
FDR
Nelson Mandela



Now for those people's conservative counterparts
Jefferson Davis and other slave holders
Evil in man
The British governor of India
The KKK and other racists
King George III
King George III
HItler
South African racists


Which list would you rather be on?

Jaz said...

Yo- Activist,
Do you care to present either the name of the organization who sponsored the "non partisan study" or perhaps list any examples of the "lies " that Fox News tells?

Let me guess, you also believe the liberal mantra, "Bush lied about WMD".

Jaz said...

Lincoln was a Republican.

Anonymous said...

Republicans where liberal up until TR left office!

young_activist said...

I'd be happy to, but for purposes of brevity I will only mention a handful of Fox's misrepersantations




On March 23, 2003 the FOX News channel headline banners were rolling: "Huge chemical weapons factory found in Iraq... Reports: 30 Iraqis surrender at chem weapons plant... coal. troops holding Iraqi in charge of chem. weapons." On the next day the Dow Jones Newswires reported, that, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago.

Special Report with Brit Hume regularly features a panel of political commentators touted as an "allstar panel" and "diverse" by Fox News. The panel generally consists of three people: Fred Barnes, a self-described neoconservative hawk, Mort Kondracke, a self-described conservative Democrat (Kondracke has said that he is "disgusted with the Democratic Party" and that the only reason he isn't a Republican is because "Republicans have failed to be true to themselves as conservatives", referring to deficit spending in the Ronald Reagan administration), and Mara Liasson, a 'touted' liberal by the program. In addition, Brit Hume himself maintains a conservative point of view, even taking up that position on the Sunday night equivalent of his own panel, arguing from the conservative Republican position against other, noticeably more liberal Fox News panelists such as Juan Williams, who is rarely featured on the Special Report. Critics contend this overwhelmingly tilts the so-called "diverse" political discussions into one-sided conservative commentary.

A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes on every major media group found that
Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news

A December 2005 UCLA study[20] found Fox News to have a right-wing bias and in the top 20 for America


http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5









Content Analysis

Look closely at the content of cable news and it becomes clear that its appeal is its ubiquity and convenience; the medium does not come close to delivery on the potential of its depth or breadth.

*

The reporting is measurably thinner than the other forms of national television news studied. Its stories are more one-sided and have fewer sources, and audiences are told less about those sources than in network evening or morning news or PBS.
*

The thinness of the reporting on cable can be attributed partly, but only partly, to its abandoning written, edited stories in favor of live anchor interviews and reporter standups.
*

These tendencies are even more acute in certain kinds of programming, particularly during prime-time talk shows and dayside news programming.
*

Content analysis reveals clear differences overall between the three channels. Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals, but it is also more opinionated and more one-sided, though one of the programs studied defies that generalization.
*

CNN is the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view and more disciplined about keeping journalistic opinion out of its reporting.1

Those are some of the key findings of the Project's new two-pronged approach to examining cable news. As we did last year, we first studied five sample days of each of the three cable news networks for sixteen hours each day, or 240 hours of programming. That provided us with a sense of the types of stories and the level of repetitiveness that appeared over the course of a cable news day.

In addition, this year we selected three different types of programs from each of the three channels to study for twenty days to see how their choice and treatment of topics compared with other media studied the same days. The programs studied included one prime-time talk show, one daytime news show and the closest each news channel comes to producing a traditional evening newscast. That added up to 180 more hours of programming involving another 4,551 stories.

Repetition vs. Updating

Although cable news purports to provide continuously updated coverage of breaking news, the idea that it is "following" stories and adding new information through the course of the day is in the main an illusion.

In the course of sixteen hours of viewing starting at 7 a.m. for five separate days, most of the stories on cable news (67%) are the same matter turned to repeatedly, and only 10% add meaningful updates with substantive new information.

In other words, 60% of all stories aired on cable through the day are simple repetition of the same information. Just one in three stories in the course of a cable day is new, or something not aired earlier.

Those figures are nearly identical to what we found last year, when 68% of the stories were repetitious, just 5% contained any substantive updates, and 27% were completely new.

What does that mean? With hours of air time and numerous correspondents, resources are devoted much less to gathering new information, or going deeper with background reporting, than to being live and appearing to be on top of three or four big stories of the day.

Repetition on Cable News
Percent of all stories from 7A.M.-11P.M.
Exact Repeat
12%
Repeat: No New Substance
35
Repeat: New Angle
11
Repeat: New Substance
10
New Story
33
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Breadth of Topic

The consequence is a notably limited breadth of reporting. In all, the three cable programs we followed over twenty days tended to cover a narrower range of topics even than network evening newscasts -- and far less than online or print. Cable news spends a smaller percentage of its time than does network evening news covering government and, perhaps even more notably, roughly half as much time covering the broad range of domestic issues, from the environment, to transportation, health care, social security, welfare, education, economics, technology, science and more.

In contrast, lifestyle, entertainment and celebrity -- topics virtually nonexistent on nightly newscasts or the front pages of newspapers -- are the largest topic group on cable news. And that holds true even though the amounts vary across the range of program types. For instance, collectively, science, technology, and business made up just 2% of the time studied over twenty days, and the range of domestic issues, from education to the environment to health care, made up 11%. Celebrity, lifestyle and entertainment made up nearly a quarter of the time (23%).

Topics on Cable and Network News
Percent of all time

Cable

Network Evening

Network Morning
Government
17%

29%

25%
Defense/Military
7

1

0
Foreign Affairs
9

14

8
Elections
14

11

8
Domestic Affairs
11

20

15
Business
1

4

1
Crime
3

1

5
Science/Technology
1

4

3
Celebrity
14

2

4
Lifestyle
9

4

7
Accidents/Disasters
2

4

3
Other
12

6

21

Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.


Live Reporting Lives On

The second major feature of cable news is that it is dominated by the culture of live, extemporaneous journalism.

Over the three programs studied for twenty days, 52% of time was spent in live interviews (usually by anchors) or reporters in live standups.

The medium, as noted last year, "has all but abandoned what was once the primary element of television news, the written and edited story."

Less than half as much time, 24%, on the cable programs studied is made up of correspondent packages. Compare that to network nightly newscasts, in which 86% of time is such packages, or even morning news or PBS, where a third of time is correspondents telling stories.

Another 17% of time is devoted to anchors reading the teleprompter, so-called tell stories, either with video or without. And, in a feature that is not usually found on other TV programming, 6% of the time covered live events such as press conferences. (1% was spent on banter between stories.)

Story Origination on Cable News
Percent of all time

Packages
Staff Package
24%
Staff Live
52
Anchor Voice Over/Tell Story
17
Live Events
6
Banter
1
External Outlets
1
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

The figures for those three programs studied in depth, moreover, closely mirror what viewers would see on the cable networks generally. In the course of a sixteen-hour day, 46% of the time on cable is spent in what its producers can describe as live -- either live interviews, usually by anchors, or reporters talking live to the camera. Another 5% is live events such as press conferences aired as they happen (usually without a reporter on camera in any form).

Only 26% of the entire cable day comprises correspondent packages. Anchors reading the teleprompter, so-called tell stories or headline news, with or without video, account for another 20%.

Promotions and small talk between staff members take up the remaining 5% of the day, or 48 minutes of air time.

The approach has all the virtues of capturing events as they are happening. It is also cheaper, and helps create the impression that things are up to date.

But the amount of updating, as we noted, is minimal, and the emphasis on live cable news has resulted in walking away from the capacity to review, verify, edit, choose words carefully and match those words to pictures.

Audiences are even less likely to find verified, edited journalism at certain times of the day. Those watching talk shows such as Larry King or Bill O'Reilly will see barely any taped packages. Those watching the closest thing that cable has to a signature evening newscast (Brit Hume on Fox, Aaron Brown on CNN or Keith Olberman on MSNBC) are more likely to see taped packages (42% of all time). Still, that is only half as likely as on the broadcast evening news on ABC, CBS or NBC, where 86% of all time is edited packages.

Thinner Reporting on Cable

In part because of the dependence on being live -- and the illusion that creates of being new -- cable news is also more thinly reported than most other kinds of national TV news.

Over all, cable news stories have fewer sources than those on broadcast, reveal less about those sources, and, if the story involves a dispute, contain fewer conflicting points of view than in broadcast TV.

To pin this down, the study went deeper this year than last in examining the depth or thoroughness of reporting. This analysis was done in the three key parts of the day studied for 20 days -- daytime, prime-time talk and the key evening newscast -- to get a range of different styles of programming, and to match the same days studied in other media. Specifically, we studied:

*

How many sources stories contained and how much the stories shared with the audience about those sources.
*

The degree to which stories that involved controversy reflected more than one side of the story.
*

Whether stories contained the journalists' own opinions, unattributed to any sourcing or reporting.

Depth of Sourcing

In general, cable news was less likely than other media to contain multiple sources with enough description attached -- their identity, their level of knowledge about the events being described and any potential biases -- to enable audiences to judge what they were saying.

Only a quarter of cable stories studied (26%) contained even two or more such sources. That compares with 50% of network evening news stories, 81% of stories on newspaper front pages and 78% of online news stories. Even network morning shows, with their penchant for long one-person interviews, tended to have significantly more stories, 39%, with at least two fully transparent sources.2

Most cable stories (74%) had no source that audiences could fully identify, or only one.

The dependence on live programming is one reason cable reporting is thinner and at the same time less transparent. The live reporting on cable is even more thinly sourced than cable news as a whole. Most of the live reports, 60%, were based on only a single source that audiences could fully identify. The taped edited packages on cable were four times as likely to contain four or more fully identified sources as the live reports, and nearly twice as likely to contain two or three (see chart). But even the taped, edited packages on cable contained fewer fully transparent sources than packages on commercial broadcast newscasts or on PBS, despite cable's advantage of having more time for the news.

Source Transparency on Cable, by Story Type
Percent of all stories

Packages

Live Reports/
Interviews

Anchor Voice Over

Anchor Reads

Live Events
None
12%

11%

78%

74%

20%
1
23

60

18

16

63
2-3
45

25

3

9

11
4
20

5

1

1

6
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Breadth of Viewpoints

The reporting on cable news is also more one-sided than that in other media studied.

Over all, only a quarter of cable stories that involved controversy contained anything more than a passing reference to a second point of view. That was much less balanced than all the over-the-air broadcast news programs studied. Indeed, stories on morning news, PBS evening news and those on newspaper front pages were more than three times as likely to contain a mix of views, and commercial evening newscasts just under that.

Range of Viewpoints on Cable and Network News
Percent of all stories

Cable

Network Evening

Network Morning
Mix
27%

72%

86%
Mostly One View
21

8

2
Only One View
52

20

11
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Certain kinds of storytelling on cable tended to be more balanced than others, and again live reporting was at the bottom of that scale. More than three-quarters of interviews and reporter standups (78%) told only one side, or mostly one side, of controversial stories. That meant only 22% of live reported stories offered a balance of at least two viewpoints.

Taped packages on cable fared better, but not dramatically. Just over a third of the taped packages studied (38%) offered at least two points of view, which still meant that 62% were mostly one-sided. Indeed, the taped edited packages on cable do not stack up against those on network news in this regard. On the Big Three commercial nightly newscasts, 75% of the taped packages contained multiple viewpoints. So the style of storytelling does not entirely explain the one-sidedness of cable.

Range of Viewpoints on Cable News, by Story Type
Percent of all stories


Packages

Staff Live

Anchor Voice Over

Anchor Reads

Live Events
Mix
38%

22%

30%

32%

9%
Mostly One View
29

21

10

7

4
Only One View
34

58

60

61

88
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Live reports also differ from taped packages in ways some people might argue are advantages. For instance, while reporter standups and live interviews tended not to cite multiple sources, they also tended to avoid citing anonymous sources, perhaps because they often had just one source in all -- the interviewee. Just 5% of live reports on cable contained anonymous sourcing, compared with 20% of packaged pieces.3

Interestingly, correspondents and anchors on live and unscripted stories also seem less likely to inject their own opinions in their reports. Just over a third of live cable reports, 34%, contained journalist opinion, versus 43% of packaged pieces.

One possible explanation is that reporters and anchors who are live may adopt a stenographic frame of mind, trying to simply recall and recite what they have been told. That would help explain both their tendency toward one-sidedness and their avoidance of giving opinions.

Journalist Opinion on Cable News, Select Story Types
Percent of all stories

Packages

Staff Live

Total
No Opinion
57%

66%

71%
Opinion
43

34

28
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

One area where there is little difference between live and packaged is how correspondents frame their reporting. Packages tend to be a little more conflict-oriented while live reports do a little more reality check pieces (i.e. is this really true? What does this really mean?) and telling of a good tale. Generally, though, correspondents gravitate to the same kinds of frames.

Story Frames on Cable, Select Story Types
Percent of all stories

Packages

Staff Live

Total
Conflict
42%

31%

23%
Consensus
4

5

3
Winners/Losers
12

7

5
Problems to Solve
8

5

4
Good Yarn
10

13

10
Reality Check
2

5

2
Underlying Principles
2

4

2
Other
5

5

4
No Frame
15

25

45
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Are interview-based programs necessarily less able to offer a broad range of views and deep sourcing? Perhaps not. One interview-based program that seems to do a good job of this in the PBS NewsHour, which often combines packages and live discussion. (See Network/Content Analysis)


Differences Among Cable Channels

Our content analysis also shows measurable differences in what each of the cable networks puts on the air. This study made no attempt to identify bias, or whether one network tilted to the Democrats or Republicans. Some more basic distinctions, however, were evident.

Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air. The news channel was also decidedly more positive in its coverage of the war in Iraq, while the others were largely neutral. At the same time, the story segments on the Fox programs studied did have more sources and shared more about them with audiences.

CNN tended to air more points of view in its stories than others, and its reporters rarely offered their own opinions, but the news channel's stories were noticeably thinner in the number of sources and the information shared about them.

MSNBC consistently fell between its two rivals on most indices.

In the degree to which journalists are allowed to offer their own opinions, Fox stands out. Across the programs studied, nearly seven out of ten stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters -- the highest of any outlet studied by far.

Just 4% of CNN segments included journalistic opinion, and 27% on MSNBC.

Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq. There 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%.

The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC.

Those findings seem to challenge Fox's promotional marketing, particularly its slogan, "We Report. You Decide."

Some observers might argue that opinions clearly offered as such are more honest than a slant subtly embedded in the sound bites selected or questions asked. But that was not the case here. Given the live formats on cable, the opinions of reporters and anchors are often embedded in questions or thrown in as asides. Only occasionally were they labeled as commentary.

Journalist Opinion in Iraq War Coverage, Cable News
Percent of Iraq War stories

CNN

Fox

MSNBC

Total
No Opinion
98%

27%

71%

70%
Opinion
2

73

29

30
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Tone of Coverage

The study this year also tried to assess the tone of coverage.4 When it came to the war, Fox again looked different from the others by being distinctly more positive than negative. Fully 38% of Fox segments were overwhelmingly positive in tone, more than double the 14% of segments that were negative. Still, stories were as likely to be neutral as positive (39%) and another 9% were multi-subject stories for which tone did not apply.

On CNN, in contrast, 41% of stories were neutral in tone on the 20 days studied, and positive and negative stories were almost equally likely -- 20% positive, 23% negative. Some 15% were multi-faceted and not coded for tone.

MSNBC's stories about the war were most likely to include several issues or subjects, so that no one area could be coded for tone. Fully four in ten stories were of this nature. Otherwise, the network's coverage, like CNN's, was more neutral (28%) with positive and negative stories almost equally prevalent, (16% positive and 17% negative).

Tone of Iraq War Coverage on Cable News
Percent of Iraq War stories

CNN

Fox

MSNBC

Total
Positive
20%

38%

16%

24%
Neutral
41

39

28

36
Negative
23

14

17

19
Multi-Subject
15

9

40

21
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

When it came to election coverage, the majority of stories on every network had no overwhelming tone. Here MSNBC stood out as being twice as likely to air candidate and issue stories with a positive tone as with a negative tone. CNN's coverage, on the other hand, was more likely to be negative. Fox was divided equally among positive and negative stories.

Tone of Election Coverage on Cable News
Percent of election stories

CNN

Fox

MSNBC

Total
Positive
10%

16%

17%

15%
Neutral
62

56

32

47
Negative
17

17

8

13
Multi-Subject
11

12

42

25
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Only weeks after being installed as CNN's president, Jonathan Klein proclaimed an end to the shout fests that have come to characterize cable news, canceling the network's archetypical Crossfire program and declining to renew the contract of the conservative talker Tucker Carlson. "We always want to be provocative," Klein said. "But there is a numbness that has set in among those head-butting festivals. I'm convinced that the political brainiacs we have at CNN can come up with a better way to engage the audience."

In place of shouting, Klein said, he wanted to return to "roll-up-your-sleeves storytelling."

"CNN is a different animal," Klein told the New York Times. "We report the news. Fox talks about the news. They're very good at what they do and we're very good at what we do."5

Is there evidence that CNN is more fact-oriented, more neutral and more tied to storytelling than rivals Fox or MSNBC in 2004? Where does each station fall heading as the new year unfolds?

CNN, according to the data, does indeed seem to offer more neutral reporting. Its adherence to storytelling, though, seems to be more of a mixed bag. Its NewsNight with Aaron Brown is heavy on such pieces, but its noontime programming spends less time on packaged pieces than Fox or MSNBC.

MSNBC fits somewhere in the middle on most of these measures, perhaps waiting to see which approach bears most fruit.

Three Distinct Types of Programs

Last year, the study found that the cable day broke down into four distinct parts of the day: the traditional morning show, daytime, early evening and prime time. Each had its own personality, with the three networks remarkably similar within each time frame. This year, to look more closely at those dayparts, we examined an hour of daytime, a prime-time talk show and the closest thing that each of the network offers to a prime-time signature newscast, all in a 20-day period.6

Prime-Time Talk Shows

The highest-rated program on every network is a prime-time talk show, and we examined each of them: Larry King on CNN, Bill O'Reilly on Fox and Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

The three shows are built around interviews, which take up 81% of their time, but they are not identical. King leans almost entirely on interviews -- 95% of all his time. The O'Reilly Factor relies on them heavily as well (79%), but 20% of the program's time is made up of the host reading news items and commentaries of his own.

MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews has evolved into something different. A quarter of its airtime (26%) is packaged pieces. Interviews with guests and MSNBC reporters make up 67% of the time. The remaining 8% is briefs and voice-overs. The channel appears to be trying to morph Hardball into something that is partially a news program.

The talk shows build their appeal partly around their hosts, of course, and partly around the celebrity of their guests rather than issues or events. As a group, these shows dedicated most of their time to three main topic areas in 2004: the elections (17%), government (16%), and celebrity/entertainment (16%). Lifestyle stories accounted for another 11% of the airtime and domestic affairs 14%.

Yet in choice of topics, the three programs also had different characters. Larry King devoted close to half (45%) of his time to entertainment and lifestyle topics, more than twice the figure for O'Reilly (21%) and three times as much as for Matthews (13%). Matthews, a former congressional press aide, spent more than half of his time on government and election topics, (the next most popular topics on CNN and Fox). O'Reilly's program was more of a mix.

Beyond topic, the most striking difference among the three shows is in the presence of the host's opinion. Nearly every story on Fox's O'Reilly Factor (97%) contained O'Reilly's opinions, even his quick news briefs. CNN's Larry King was nearly the reverse, with only 2% of segments including his opinions. And despite to his reputation for dominating the guests, Chris Matthews on Hardball offered his opinion just 24% of the time.

Topics on Cable News Programs
Percent of all time

Total

Daytime

Newscast

Interview
Government
17%

18%

18%

16%
Defense/Military
7

6

6

9
Foreign Affairs
9

10

13

4
Elections
14

8

18

17
Domestic Affairs
11

12

10

11
Business
1

2

1

1
Crime
3

5

2

2
Science/Technology
1

1

1

7
Celebrity
14

15

10

16
Lifestyle
9

11

6

11
Accidents/Disasters
2

3

2

*
Other
12

9

13

6
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Cable's Version of the Evening News

None of the cable channels airs a traditional evening newscast, but each has programs that come closer than others: Special Report with Brit Hume on Fox, NewsNight with Aaron Brown on CNN, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

The shows do more traditional storytelling than other cable programs, but produced tape packages are still only half as prevalent as on commercial network news -- 42% of all time versus 86%. In format, these news programs are closer to network morning news, or PBS, where packages make up a third of time.

In the topics they cover, the cable shows also differ from their broadcast counterparts. They cover government less (18% vs. 29% of time on network), and the broad range of domestic issues half as much (10% versus 20%). Meanwhile celebrity and lifestyle, virtually non-existent on broadcast nightly newscasts, account for 16% of the time on their cable counterparts. The only topic that gets similar amounts of time on both cable and broadcast network evening newscasts is foreign affairs.

In depth of sourcing, the news round-up programs do better than their cable siblings, but again fall short of levels found on network evening news or in print. That pattern also holds true for the mix of viewpoints offered.

Source Transparency on Cable versus Network News
Percent of all stories


Cable Daytime

Cable Newscast

Cable Talk Shows

Network Evening
None
56%

38%

11%

37%
1
28

26

60

14
2-3
14

23

26

32
4
3

13

3

18
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Range of Viewpoints, Cable versus Network News
Percent of applicable stories

Cable Daytime

Cable Newscast

Cable Talk Shows

Network Evening
Mix of Opinions
18%

39%

26%

72%
Mostly One Opinion
24

28

13

8
All One Opinion
59

33

61

20
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Are there differences between the networks here? Aaron Brown's program on CNN leans the most on taped edited packages -- double Keith Olberman on MSNBC and more than Brit Hume on Fox. Olbermann favors summaries of the news (more than triple that of CNN or FOX). Hume is a mix of taped packages followed by interviews. The Hume program is also Washington-centric -- 60% of it concerns government, the military and politics).

Daytime

The bulk of the cable news networks' time, between 5 and 7 hours a day, is made up of programs that might be called dayside. These shows, between 9 a.m. and roughly 3 p.m. depending on the channel, track the news of the day as it is happening.

The dayside programs offer a broader mix of storytelling formats than anything else we studied on cable. Edited packages take up 20% of the time, live interviews and standups 36%, and anchors' reads, sometimes with pictures, another 22%. Shown during the workday, these programs are more likely than others to carry events live (18% of time).

Yet like their evening counterparts, these programs are conspicuously limited in their range of topics. Entertainment and lifestyle stories were given the most attention -- a quarter of all airtime, (26%) nearly exactly the same as on prime-time cable talk shows. Interestingly, the daytime programs studied devoted less time to the elections (8%) than the other cable programs.

Sourcing on these daytime news programs was measurably thin. More than half, 56%, of all stories had not even a single fully identified source. Another 28% had just one. A mere 3% of all stories contained four or more fully transparent sources.

Journalist Opinion on Cable News Programs
Percent of applicable stories

Daytime

Newscast

Talk Show
No Opinion
68%

74%

73%
Opinion
31

26

27
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Despite what Klein of CNN suggested, the daytime programs we studied were even less focused on the storytelling he was referring to than the rival networks.

At noon, CNN Live Today was the least devoted to packaged pieces (roughly half as much time as Fox News Live and a third as much as MSNBC Live). It spent more time instead on quick anchor reads. And lifestyle stories made up more than 20% of all airtime.

Fox News, on the other hand, tended to spend more time covering live events, and as a result offered more coverage about the government than either of the other stations.

Summary

For the second straight year, content analysis raises substantial questions about the nature of reporting on cable news. The time required to continuously be on the air seems to take a heavy toll on the nature of the journalism presented. While there are differences between channels identified this year in coding of the thoroughness of the reporting, the sector generally falls behind those of other media studied.

It appears that the appeal of cable is its convenience. It is there when you need it, and in a nation of multi-taskers, it can be on as a kind of background, something we can turn to in moments of curiosity.

The problems exposed in the content analysis may begin to seem more troubling to viewers when the Internet in the next year or two begins to meaningfully add searchable video. At that point, the Web will begin to present television on demand, when you want it, and in a searchable form.

Then the second disadvantage of cable as an on-demand medium will become more important: the fact that one has to sit through "the wheel" of whatever is on before a subject of choice might appear.

The Internet will offer the advantages of carefully produced packages, with the convenience of having it there when you want it.

The question will be how much hold the ease of television has on viewers -- it comes at you without your having to so much as click a mouse -- combined with the impression of its being up to the minute because it is "live."

young_activist said...

I'd be happy to back up my position with more evidence if you'd like. Learning that the people who you trusted for news mislead you is not an easy thing to go through

Jaz said...

Activist,

I’ll just take your word for it that this first thing happened. However, if it did, I imagine it could be more accurately characterized as a mistake rather than a “lie”. Remember, your position is that Fox routinely “lies”. The usage of the word “lie” is right out of the lefty talking point playbook, as in “Bush lied about WMD”. Now either liberals have a bizarre definition of the word “lie” or they (and you in this case) are using the word incorrectly. Why would Fox News willingly and purposely present falsehoods that could easily be pointed out the next day by any other news source familiar with the facts? I still defy you to cite an example where Fox News knowingly presented an untrue statement or report for the purposes of deceiving their audience. They are not such a success because they routinely abuse their own audience.

Also, remember that the various commentators such that appear on the “all star panel” speak for themselves and not for the organization itself. I’m glad you are familiar with Special Report and Fox News Sunday. Two excellent shows, which are far superior to the low-rated other network alternatives like “Hardball” or “Meet the Press”. You give a pretty good run down of regular panel contributors, however I’m not sure what your point is.

That there are perhaps more conservative contributors to the various panels that go on does not amount to Fox News “lying”. Not that I have previously mentioned this in this post, but I believe that Fox does a good job presenting and discussing both sides of a given issue. That is what makes Fox compelling. The fact that the discussion is fully hashed out from both sides of the aisle on a given issue is what makes the programming interesting. It would be far less compelling, and the ratings would no doubt be negatively affected, if Fox only presented a conservative side to every given discussion. It’s rather simple, good debate makes good TV. The other lame cable news stations would be better served to take notice of this fact.

You say that Juan Williams makes a rare appearance here or there. The guy is a paid fox news regular contributor seen all over the network occasionally co hosting the “Beltway Boys” and other programs. I’m glad you seem to respect Juan Williams’s opinion at least. I’m not sure he spends his time bashing Fox as you do however. Mara Liaison, hardly a neo-con, is a regular member of the “all star” panel. On Fox, Beyond NPR’s regular contributors, I get to hear the best and brightest left leaning pundits that exist. I probably listen carefully to more lefty pundits than many lefties themselves do. I am familiar with their talking points before they are even trotted out in a given discussion. Here's just a few of the names of left leaning pundits that I listen to on a regular basis: the thoughtful Bob Beckel, former Clintonite Lanny Davis, the wild eyed Susan Estrich, the shrill Mary Anne Marsh, The Boston Globe's Nina Easton, The Washington Post's Cece Connolly, Louisiana's James Carville and Senator Carl Levin are just a few names which spring to mind of lefties I can respect that appear regularly on Fox News.

I mean, whom do you imagine Fox should retain in order to be even more fair and balanced. Should Howard Dean be hosting a program? I guess Fox should have a show hosted by George Soros and Michael Moore to make you happy. If left leaning politicos have a coherent point to be made, it will be heard on Fox.


As for the rest of this stuff that you have cut and pasted, I’m not sure it even goes to your point that Fox News is either routinely “lying” or that they are overwhelmingly and one sidedly conservative. The study you grafted into your comment seems to be drawing a conclusion about the nature of cable news itself as opposed to other forms of News presentation like the internet.

The bottom line is that Fox News annoys libs like you because it is the one alternative to the mainstream media that for years held a stranglehold over all news and is/was demonstrably left leaning. Those days are over. The Walter Cronkite “…and that’s the way it is” Paradigm no longer exists and it ticks lefties off. Don’t be afraid or embittered at new sources of information my friend, just embrace them. If hearing both sides of an issue vigorously discussed bothers you, perhaps you should just go watch a Michael Moore movie.

fhold said...

mmmm....lists. So, Jaz, "if you had to choose" which list WOULD you want to be on?

Also, young_activist, aside from being maybe the longest comment I've ever read (it really is too bad the tables don't read correctly), I can say with certainty that you found and provided numbers to back up what we all know already: FOX News' claim of "We report. You decide" is false and misleading (unless they have a different definition of the word 'report'), as is the laughable claim that Bill O'Reilly's show is "Fair and Balanced".

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what I think is an underlying and disturbing consequence here is that many people who watch this channel think it IS unbiased reporting and don't see it as opinion at all, adopting (perhaps unwittingly) the same approach to news themselves. Before you know it the actual facts of an issue are smothered underneath a lefty-this and righty-that, us-vs-them, we-are-right-and-you-are-wrong maelstrom of false truth.

Oh, and then there's the little bonus of being able to subtly push some policy too.....

young_activist said...

There slogan "We report. You decide" is a lie, they present their opinions as news other news networks that you may call biased toward the left present their opinions as opinions, not facts. If there slogan is not a lie than it is definitly misleading. Fox has intentionally misled their audience to advance the political ideology of their owner and their reporter. By the way, how do you define a lie.

Duke Cunningham saying he didn't take bribes when he did?

GWB saying there where WMD when the experts, the weopons inspectors advised him honestly that there where not?

Blaming the Iraq war on massive intelligence failures but saying knowing what he knows now he'd do the same thing again.

It is interesting that Pres. Bush's press secretary has virtaully the same job know as he did at Fox, misleading the public to advance the political ideology of his boss.

young_activist said...

I have another addition to the list

Liberal Shittes, Sunnis, and Kurds trying to work together for peace
vs.
Conservative terrorists trying to destroy their country in the name of God

Jaz said...

“GWB saying there where WMD when the experts, the weapons inspectors advised him honestly that there where not?”

So I finally got an answer. You do believe the liberal mantra of “Bush Lied about WMD”. I wonder just how far wacky left you want to be, Activist. Do you also believe that, “Bush planned 9-11”, or "Bush knew about 9-11”? How far into the grassy knoll black helicopter conspiracy theory side of things to you go? As a rule, the more conspiracy theories a person buys into, the less credibility they have.


And as for this childish list:

Here’s the formula for this list: Just take a name of all bad things and people throughout history and consider them conservatives. Then on the other side of list just take all good people and call them liberals. And there you have it, instant condemnation and repudiation of the conservative philosophy.

In which case, you forgot to put Superman and Batman on the liberal list and you might as well throw Charles Manson, Lex Luther, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the conservative list.

The concept behind this list can be summarized in two words: Conservatives=Bad. Sometimes keeping it simple is stupid.

And no more cutting and pasting from liberal blogs, you rookies.

Jaz said...

To fhold:

Your commentary is even handed as usual; the other two zealots should try to adopt your temperament.

Normally I do like lists, but this one is a little too foolish to bother addressing.

You make a good point about Fox when you say, “…many people who watch this channel think it IS unbiased reporting and don't see it as opinion at all, adopting (perhaps unwittingly) the same approach to news themselves.” From this statement I glean the idea that; Take everything with a grain of salt, don’t necessarily take things at face value and if you want to find the answers and/or question the veracity of any particular piece of reporting, nowadays there are many sources of news to cross reference.

That said, it would not be in Fox News’s interest to intentionally mislead or lie to their own audience. Subtle spin and harping on certain stories perhaps, but blatant falsehoods that are not genuine mistakes, I think not.

Anonymous said...

You do have a good addition to the list Osoma bin Laden, unfortunatly he doesn;t have a liberal counterpart. Joseph Stalin, and Saddam Hussein wouldn;t make either list because to be a conservative you must have certain princibles, there only princible is self interest so they wouldn't qualify for either list.

If you do not think that the people I called liberal where liberal or the conservatives conservative than I would invite you to back up your opinion with evidence. Also, perhaps you could come up with some conservatives who worked against liberals that are today deemed to be evil.

The fact that you are using name calling shows that you have little evidence to back up your opinion.

Jaz said...

Anonymous,

Will you please at least create a profile and a name for yourself? It only takes seconds.

When I attack your ideas, I’m not necessarily personally attacking you (if that’s what you mean by “name calling”). I don’t know a thing about you personally and so launching a strictly ad hominem attack against you serves no purpose.

Also, the word is “their” when expressing ownership, not “there”.

The dichotomy you have set up is somewhat simplistic I’m afraid. I’m not sure that you can go back through history and assign all historical figures on either one or the other side; liberal or conservative, and I categorically reject the notion that conservatism represents “the evil in men” as you put it. You seem to imagine that liberals hold a monopoly on moral righteousness and conservatives are all depraved monsters. It is difficult, although not impossible, to have a discussion with such a Kool-Aid drinker like yourself.

young_activist said...

Fox "New's" owner has a political ideology that he wants to advance, Fox can get away with misleading their audience becuase there is little accountability and because their bias is subtle and it is difficult to spot when Fox pretends to be unbiased.

I.e: Fox will invite a Democrat and a Republican on to debate an issue, the host will ask the Democrat a question that contains either misleading info. or the host's opinion, the host will then start talking over the guest interjecting their own opinion as fact. Next the host will ask the Republican a question that also contains the host's opinion that is often a very easy question and an oppurtunity to gloat will ignoring the real issues. If the Democratic guest tries to interject their opiniuon or answer a diffrent question from the host for them the host will start talking over them about how they are wrong. If I can find some Fox video I will post it here and point out the examples for you to see.

young_activist said...

Wait! The fact that the weopon's inspectors did not believe Iraq had WMD was common knowledge before the invasion, that's no conspiracy theory.

If you want some good conspiracy therories though you can look to Bush and Fox.
Here's just a few about Iraq:

Iraq was harbouring terrorists and was responsible for 9/11.

Wrong! There are more terrorists in Iraq know then there where before the war and Saddam Hussein actaully refuses to provide aid to the terrorists, Osama bin Laden offered to fight Iraq in the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and Osoma bin Laden hate each other, they would have no reason to work together.

Iraq had WMD.
That one is self explanotory

Besides, if Bush was legitimitly concerned about disarming a terrorist state in pocession of WMD why didn't we invade N. Korea?

We would be greated as liberators.

A majority of Iraqis say that they where happier under the Baath party, a majority of Iraqis think that it is admissable to kill Americans. Six times as many (a whopping 6%) of Iraqis trust the insurgents for security than do the Americans.

Any other information that I can provide for you?

The Drunken Samurai said...

There has been way too much posted here to read it all, but I will sum it up. The people we currently call liberal are NOT liberal. They are socialists. Calling dead republicans liberal is a moot point. They were liberal according to the definition of the word in their time. Current liberals (democrats, mostly) are an inch away from being total communists. If they have their way, it's what we will be.

P.S. The "liberal" Thomas Jefferson spoke of this exact thing happening. Sure enough, he was right.

young_activist said...

I would remind you of a conservative individaul who made the same unrational assumptions aboaut the Democratic party.

Sen. Joseph Mcarthy

You field accusations but, you have no evidence to support it. You are asserting that the Democratic party has no respect for hard work, you are asserting that Democrats are inherintly evil by virtue of their beliefs. To that I would ask why would people devote their entire lives to destroying others. Was that the devotion of the liberals I have mentioned? I am not in a position to jusge your motives but, I can say with perfect honesty that I am a liberal because I respect the people of this country not because I seek to destroy them

The Drunken Samurai said...

I made no accusations. I made a point. What is yours? This time, don't write a book.

Jaz said...

Activist,

That you are unaware that the word is irrational rather than “unrational” tells me, at the very least, that you still have a lot to learn.

As Winston Churchill said, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

For me at age 30, I consider myself ahead of the curve that I have already arrived at the conclusion that conservatism is the more intelligent choice.

If you notice, most conservative arguments appeal to logic and reason, whereas liberal arguments largely rely on an emotional appeal.

For example, take the current illegal immigration debate taking place in America. The Liberal rationale, if you can call it that, seems to amount to, “Look at the poor downtrodden illegals, don’t they deserve to be American.”

It’s a nice thought, but unfortunately logic dictates that we should have some sort of immigration policy. Therefore we have the right, as Americans, to decide how many immigrants we allow into our country and from which countries.

You probably believe that we do not have that right and should simply do the compassionate thing and allow unchecked mass immigration.

Also, you seem to be adopting the very same rhetoric that I have directed against your ally here, anonymous, when you imagine out of thin air that someone here claimed that, “…you are asserting that Democrats are inherently evil by virtue of their beliefs.”

Not only is that a straw man argument because no one came anywhere close to asserting any such thing, but you are using the classic liberal tactic I highlighted in the initial post. In this phenomenon, Libs hear a piece of rhetoric used effectively against them and they simply turn around and level it right back against their opposition. As usual however it doesn’t make nearly as much sense as when it was originally used.

The only thing in the comment section close to your claim that Drunken Samurai believes, “…that democrats are inherently evil.” Was when I said to anonymous, “I categorically reject the notion that conservatism represents “the evil in men” as you put it. You seem to imagine that liberals hold a monopoly on moral righteousness and conservatives are all depraved monsters.”

I believe you read this, saw that it was effective and then imagined that any one here claimed, “Democrats are inherently evil.”

Foolish and misguided perhaps, but no one would bother charging dems with being evil. That’s one piece of rhetoric leveled against conservatives all the time that doesn’t even deserve a response, let alone be adopted and leveled back at dems. Not that conservatives generally engage in this rhetorical turning the tables move that libs love to try to employ. Generally conservatives try to generate their own original arguments.

Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, do this all the time. For example, they see that it is effective for Republicans to charge dems with “not having a plan in Iraq” and they then simply turn around a week later and level the exact same charge back at Republicans. Unfortunately for them, as usual the argument does not pass logical muster. Clearly dems are all over the map as to what should be done in Iraq, yet the Bush administration has published a lengthy document entitled: “Strategy for victory in Iraq”. It is available for download on the White House web cite. If any lib wants to bother downloading and reading the PDF file they will found out which side of this debate is well thought out and which side just makes idle and fanciful charges.

(http://philosofix.blogspot.com/2005/11/stop-nonsense.html)


However I digress. My main point to you, Young Activist, is that you seem to be part of what I call the Totalitarian Left. You don’t seem to even believe that there is room for debate on some of these issues. It’s your way or the highway. The Totalitarian Left would rather force Americans to adopt their philosophy and policies rather than convince or persuade.

Mandating that people pay higher taxes for yet more infective social programs is the only way it would work anyway. You cannot convince or persuade the average American that they should cede more of their paycheck to the government, so you and your ilk try to simply impose your will on the rest of us rather than respecting our individual right to possess more of our own money! Perhaps by age 35 your idealistic liberalism will be tempered with wisdom and you will become a conservative.

Anonymous said...

Republicans were not liberal until TR left office. I think you'll find that the original parties were the Republicans and Federalists. And How Come Liberals are always fast to say "a non-partisan unbiased" but never name a name, reference, or link?

young_activist said...

"so you and your ilk try to simply impose your will on the rest of us rather than respecting our individual right to possess more of our own money!" Not true, we are trying to get you to respect our right to our money. You also point to Winston Churchill's remark about being liberal at age 25 and conservative at a ge 35. First, you saying by being conservative you are ahead of the curb but, according to Churchill's quote you have no heart. Alos you have proved that we all have much to learn because British conservative see eye to eye with American liberals, British liberals are closer to socialists than anything. You also say that the liberal arguement on the immigration debate plays upon emotion while the conservative arguement plays on reason. I would argue that it is the other way around. Conservatives want to keep immigrants out because they fear and hate change. Certainly emotion is part of the liberal arguement, emotion is part of any good arguement but, there are thousand of reasons why we need a young hard working work force among which is to support baby boomers and Social Security. That arguement has nothing to do with emotion.

You further charge that I believe that many issues are not open for debate to that I would ask you why would I be debating these issues if I believed that.
"Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, do this all the time. For example, they see that it is effective for Republicans to charge dems with “not having a plan in Iraq” and they then simply turn around a week later and level the exact same charge back at Republicans. Unfortunately for them, as usual the argument does not pass logical muster. Clearly dems are all over the map as to what should be done in Iraq, yet the Bush administration has published a lengthy document entitled: “Strategy for victory in Iraq”. It is available for download on the White House web cite. If any lib wants to bother downloading and reading the PDF file they will found out which side of this debate is well thought out and which side just makes idle and fanciful charges."


First, the Republicans are in controdll of Congress, it is not the responsibility of the Democrats to take the blame for the Iraq war which many of them opposed. Second, Bush may have a plan but, it is obviously not working, that is evident even on Fox "News".

"urrent liberals (democrats, mostly) are an inch away from being total communists. If they have their way, it's what we will be."
If that is not calling Democrats evil than it comes very close.

Every great movement in history was started by liberals. You say that liberals are misguided and foolish but, I would ask if you believed all liberals where foolish and misguided than why would many conservatives follow the religous leadership of figures like Jesus and Pope John Paul II?

young_activist said...

"And How Come Liberals are always fast to say "a non-partisan unbiased" but never name a name, reference, or link?" That is a baseless charge

I gave you the entire name link and report

"I think you'll find that the original parties were the Republicans and Federalists."
If you know anything about history you will find that the first parties where the Federalists and the anti-Federalists and that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
"Republicans were not liberal until TR left office."
The quote was actually
"Republicans where liberal up until TR left office!" quit trying to distor the facts

young_activist said...

You really should read my blog more fully before you comment about it. If you look on the first page I propose cutting the deficit by cutting wasteful spending. You will also find that there are many Repubkicans and conservatives who agree with my on this issue. Sen John Mcain, Rep. Roy Cooper, Rep. John Tanner Sen. Tom Coburn among others. Despite the fact that many Republicans, including the President have abandoned this issue it is still one of the few conservative causes I agree with. If you wnat to comment on something you would be better suited if you had a clue as to what you where commenting about.

Jaz said...

First of all, in your last comment it is unclear as to whom you are addressing. Is this another straw man argument? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) Where do you find this quote?

In Your more coherent previous comment you say,

“We are trying to get you to respect our right to our money.”

What sort of doublespeak is this? The translation of this amounts to, “We are trying to get you to respect our right to your money”

As far I know, my money is mine up until the moment the government appropriates approximately one third to a half of it to then go and squander.

The founding fathers fought a revolution to have more control over their own money and they would be rolling in their graves to find out that such a high percentage of one’s own earned income was confiscated by the government.

This is where the charge of communism comes into play. Under communism, the government essentially confiscates 100 percent of an individual’s income and then redistributes it “according to need”. In America, we are not at communism yet, but the higher the percentage of personal income that the government appropriates, the closer we get.

And so, the term "communist" and evil are not one in the same, as you suggest.

The modern American left does espouse very similar ideas to those associated with communism, e.g. higher taxes and income redistribution. This is not a value judgment as calling something good or evil would be, rather a statement of fact.

On the political spectrum, Liberalism is close to socialism, which is close to communism. It is simply a matter of how far left we are talking about. The modern American democrat is closer to the center than a communist would be, but if they get their way, America will progress further and faster towards communism.

young_activist said...

"What sort of doublespeak is this? The translation of this amounts to, “We are trying to get you to respect our right to your money”"

We are trying to get you to respect our right to your money? That is what you are telling me not, what I am telling you. I am simply fighting against the $8.4 trillion debt that your generation is trying to pass on to my generation.



"On the political spectrum, Liberalism is close to socialism, which is close to communism. It is simply a matter of how far left we are talking about. The modern American democrat is closer to the center than a communist would be, but if they get their way, America will progress further and faster towards communism."

Conservatism is close to religous conservitism which is close to finaticism which is close to terrorism, is there any point to your connect the dots game?

"The founding fathers fought a revolution to have more control over their own money and they would be rolling in their graves to find out that such a high percentage of one’s own earned income was confiscated by the government."

The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves to learn that you are trying to tax my generation without their consent.

"The translation of this amounts to, “We are trying to get you to respect our right to your money”"
Who are you to speak for me?

young_activist said...

I was speaking to the person who made the quotes I posted above my comments. That is self explanitory.

Jaz said...

This other anonymous is most likely a different person than the previous ‘anonymous’ commentator, maybe not. Who knows? I may have to do away with anonymous comments for clarity's sake.

Jaz said...

If you are not a fan of taxes, then you, as a liberal, are on the wrong team. Take the political compass quiz (politicalcompass.org) and post the results in a comment.

young_activist said...

I may be a liberal but, I am willing to break with the liberal school of thought to side with what I believe to be right for America as I have said before, this is one of the few conservative issues I agree with.

young_activist said...

Not sure what this means or how unbiased the poll was but here it goes

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

young_activist said...

"The translation of this amounts to, “We are trying to get you to respect our right to your money”"


For example, take the current illegal immigration debate taking place in America. The Liberal rationale, if you can call it that, seems to amount to, “Look at the poor downtrodden illegals, don’t they deserve to be American.”
I am making straw man arguements? You are trying to put words into my mouth, unfortunatly for you this arguement makes no sense


I could make a longer list but I don't want to copy and paste everything you have said into one comment and double the size of the forum

Libby said...

Jaz, may I recommend you look in the mirror. All you do is repeat the same old tired rightie line. Liberal biased media, bush bashing, higher taxes blah blah blah.

Do you bother to ever watch anything NOT Fox news? The most watched news station. [cough] bwhahahaha

It's not just the liberals who detest bush, his lies and corruption why don't you try the world.

You continue to bleat that the liberals keep using the same play book about bushes lying about Saddams WMD's. Well, tell me bucko, when he/cheney/rice/rumsfeld kept beating the war drums and claiming that Iraq was months away from making a nuclear weapon and that they must be stopped before the mushroom cloud appeared, I ask you where is they're proof for that? You, like most republicans always want proof of what liberals are saying without you ever providing your own. So let's see it...what ya got? Prove to me that bush was telling the truth when he said Saddam had WMDs.

You can't stand the fact that Media Matters has proven time and time again the rightwingnutbiasedMSM is in fact a fact. Just because you and all of the other sheep keep bleating that they're wrong over and over again doesn't make it so. MM...has...proven...it! But I think it's really sweet how you excuse Fox for their lies and propaganda.

Btw, bush is the one whining vitriol at the NYT for reporting about the banking tracking program but he gives the WSJ a pass for reporting the exact same story. Now, why do you suppose that is? I'll just bet you can't figure that one out...huh?

Really sad that you are one of the, what, 29% who still think bush is doing a good job. lol

Oh and on that higher taxes BS you repukes keep bitching about. Interesting you don't mind bush wasting trillions of your tax dollars on...what? A war with a country who had nothing to do with 9/11? Hey and how about that deficit? Oh, but the economy is gettin better, right? sure it is uh huh.

Oh the lies you people love to tell. Love bush but don't try to make us believe he isn't corrupt, we know he is along with all of those who support him and his media.

Static Brain said...

Jax,

While most of us who pay attention know who was and who wasn't behind 9/11, others get their news on the fly -- basically headlines and banners. But even Americans who say they're paying attention, at least to TV, are highly misinformed. A massive University of Maryland study found that most who get their news from commercial TV held at least one of three fundamental "misperceptions": that Iraq had been directly linked to 9/11, that WMDs had been found in Iraq or that world opinion supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Not unexpectedly, Fox News viewers were the most misled. But strong majorities of CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN viewers were also confused on at least one of these points. Among those informed on all three questions, only 23 percent supported Bush's war.

Ultimately, the Iraq war was a "Rush Limbaugh/Fox News War" -- based on the premise that in our current media environment if you tell a lie forcefully and frequently enough, the lie will triumph. Limbaugh rose to be the top commentator in our country while conducting a reign of error virtually unnoticed by mainstream media. Fox News, with its "fair and balanced" mantra, became the top cable news channel while mainstream TV writers solemnly debated whether the channel was biased or not.

The ideologues in the Bush White House apparently learned from watching the rise of Limbaugh and Fox News: When you invert or concoct reality, do so passionately and repetitively, and accuse anyone who challenges your reality of liberal bias...or treason.

The media problem, of course, goes way beyond Fox to a broader timidity and fear of offending conservatives. In February, with the Iraq war approaching, MSNBC terminated Phil Donahue's primetime show after an internal NBC report complained that Donahue offered a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.... He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report, which was never supposed to go public, described a nightmare scenario in which the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Static Brain said...

Oh and another thing jax,

Fox is owned by News Corporation, which in turn is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The same right-wing Rupert Murdoch who sits on the Board of Directors at Philip Morris (USA) that donated 2.9 million to George Bush in 2000.

Static Brain said...

Jax,
check this out please
proof fox is biased

The Drunken Samurai said...

What morons! While that may be true, guess who Rupert is currently giving money to? HILLARY CLINTON. Please, find another argument.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

Kent said...

Liberals can't stand it when Conservative ideas are presented because it makes them look and sound like idiots.

Again with the Fox News diatribes. It's easy. Two sides presented and at the end of the segment the audience makes up their own mind.

Liberals don't trust people to agree with them after both sides have been presented.

BTW, now that Fox is so popular, I notice that CNN and MSNBC are now doing the exact same 'fair and balanced' thing.

We DID FIND WMD in Iraq. Since '04 we've located over 500 munitions of illegal sarin and vx nerve gas. Anyone who says otherwise only makes themselves sound ignorant.

Here's the DNC slogan for '06: 'We Have No Plan, But Vote For Us Because Bush Sucks.'

young_activist said...

Those "wmd" where very old and and would not have been able to have been used for at least ten years. Please find another arguement.

young_activist said...

If liberals hate it whne the media is fair and conservatives love it then why does Fox have to twist the truth towards the right for the ignorant conservative masses to call it balanced. They attack every news organazation that doesn't slant to the right. CNN and NBC is news. Fox is an opinion disquised as news.

Jaz said...

It’s amazing that you are not willing to see that mainstream media news outlets like NBC have traditional slanted to the left. Do you imagine that Katie Couric and Matt Lauer are not left leaning?

While I have witnessed and discussed (http://philosofix.blogspot.com/2005/01/cnn-sux_30.html) the fact that CNN exhibits a left leaning, or at least anti-bush bias, I’ll concede that they are somewhat objective. I really do not have a problem with CNN. I simply find that FOX provides more insightful and interesting commentary, discussion, and analysis. That’s my opinion, last time I checked I was entitled to have one. As member of the totalitarian Left it must bother you that Americans are allowed to determine their own opinions and draw their own conclusions.

It’s not that perhaps the majority of commentary on Fox is right leaning that bothers you the most. What bothers you the most about Fox is simply that it exists. As Kent brilliantly surmised, “Liberals don't trust people to agree with them after both sides [of an argument] have been presented.”

Furthermore, your conclusion about Fox, based on all of these studies that you are citing, seems to rely on the idea that is it somehow underhanded to even present conservative ideas at all. That people are perhaps not able to discern the difference between reporting and opinion is not the fault of Fox news. The argument against Fox seems to boil down to: That people are stupid, Fox is evil. As I have pointed about before, any coherent liberal idea that exists is presented on Fox News. Do you feel that the liberal message is not getting out? Plenty of people are familiar with liberal ideas on the issues, its just simply that the majority of Americans reject them.

It strikes me that you imagine that more people would become left leaning if only the message of lefty thought was getting a fair presentation. You can’t fathom the idea that the ideas are out there, but are simply rejected. Therefore, you see Fox News as one these imagined impediments to the presentation of liberal thought. Liberal and progressive viewpoints have plenty of outlets. It is not that liberal philosophy is not getting exposure that more Americans are not libs, it’s that the philosophy of international appeasement of our enemies and cradle to grave social wellfare are unsound in most peoples estimation in a post 9-11 world.

What of Air America? The faltering Liberal radio network is not going off the airwaves because Fox News exists or because of any conservative conspiracy to stifle the liberal/progressive message. Air America is struggling because ultimately having and entire network devoted to the spewing of anti American and lefty venom is not a viable business model. There are no advertising dollars to be found in or on a network that no one cares to listen to. Virtually no one cares to tune into 24 hours a day of America and Bush Bashing. Based on the numbers, it seems that even hardcore lefties don’t even spend much time listening to such drivel, otherwise ratings for the network would at least exist. Even the roughly one third of the population who represent the hate Bush, hate America crowd apparently are not tuning in the Network. It makes sense to me. From all of the interest that this post has generated amongst liberals it strikes me that liberals seem to be spending more time with and are more concerned with Fox News than their own flagship network, Air America. Could it possibly be that the discussions that take place on Fox News are more compelling because both sides of the argument are presented?

If all you libs hate Fox News so much, I implore you to simply stop watching it as much as you apparently do. Please, go listen to Genie Garafolo and Al Franken on Air America and leave Fox News to us reasonable and fair-minded Americans.

young_activist said...

Fox being biased isn't an opinion, it's fact. Everyone is entitled to a well informed opinion and Fox denies that to its viewers. As far as NBC goes the last time I watched them was when I got to see the cast being made live in Chicago. In the same study that said 68% of Fox's stories where biased I found the 24% of NBC's stories where biased, that's a little too high for me. I did flip on NBC for a couple of minutes and I agree that while not as bad as Fox it is very opinionated and is unfair to the true story.

Another media organazation that has drawn critisim from conservatives for being too biased is NPR, however when I listend to NPR I fond them to be fair to both sides, not to argue with their guests, and to be as unbiased as possible. I have found that there are even many conservatives who get their news from NPR. As far as liberal bias goes the claim against NBC is entirely valid, the ones against CNN and NPR are baseless.

JAZ, GET ONE THING STRAIGHT, JUST BECAUSE LIBERALS DISAGREE WITH YOU AND THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ANY LESS PATRIOTIC THAN YOU OR THE PRESIDENT.

young_activist said...

The "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists" stand has got to stop.

"If tyrrany and oppresion come to this Land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
James Madison

"Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism"
Thomas Jefferson

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush