Bost blatantly biased news is the most trusted

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/11/internet-fox-ne.html

Scary

D'oh and would a moderator fix my title spelling, I've been up studying all night.

GameboyRMH wrote: http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/11/internet-fox-ne.html Scary D'oh and would a moderator fix my title spelling, I've been up studying all night.

Don't get MSNBC on the island?

Fox New's bias is greatly exaggerated, and MSNBC is biased

If this line was news, it'd be like this:

MSNBC--------------------------------------CNN--Unbiased----Fox-------------------------------------------

Oh yeah we get MSNBC...they're right down there wth CBS but I find them just as bad as Fox. What's really scary here is the overall trend of the more biased news sources being the more popular ones. And what does "the internet" mean? It could be one of the mainstream news channels, or it could be the Survivalist Ranch Underground Newswire, or the Hippie Commune Happypage of Rainbows, and statistically it's probably one of the latter.

Quote from the ariticle said:These results are good fodder for Fox in defending its claims of being "Fair and Balanced" -- it's also interesting to note that more people in the poll described themselves as Democrats than Republicans

It's always the left screaming how unbalanced Fox News is. I find this quite funny.

Most all of the people who criticize Fox News that I speak to don't actually watch it, which makes me curious how they come up with the view that it's biased so much. Usually, they try to point to Shaun Hannity (obvious rightist), a guy who shares his program with Alan Colmes (obvious leftist). So where is the bias? Shepard Smith? He leans left, but reports the news pretty fairly IMO. Bill O'Reilly? It's an editorial show, not hard news, and while he is mostly conservative he is moderate on things like the environment and gay marriage.

All I know is this...I hated the news of the Big 3 networks. They never asked the questions I would ask and the bias was usually pretty blatant. CNN did better, Fox came along and upped the ante. Split your time between these two and I think it's the best your going to do for actual news reporting.

Slightly OT: I do miss Glenn Beck on CNN. Thank goodness he'll be back on Fox next year. Nothing like getting your hard news and opinion from a recovering alcoholic former DJ Mormon who eerily gets it right about 90% of the time.

When your news organization gets talking points from the Bush White House...I'd say you're pretty biased.

A friend of mine when I was high school once went to a Klan meeting. He was sucked in. When he came back to talk to us about it he said "They never talked about hating black people! It was all about brotherhood and pride and history." We just looked at him. Another friend said "They don't have to talk about lynchings, cross burnings, and hating white people. They're the KLAN!"

I feel the same way about Fox news. They don't have to say they're biased to the right as it's plain to anyone who watches or listens to their commentary. "Fair and Balanced" is pretty insulting to hear as you know they're saying it with a smirk.

As to being scared they're one of the most watched? It's going to happen. They're really the only news outlet out there telling righties what they want to hear. Of course it will be loved. I'm surprised they don't have "The Christian Prosecution Hour" where they talk about how hard it is to be a christian in the U.S. That show would make bank even though it would be as big a fantasy as True Blood.

Xceler8x wrote: When your news organization gets talking points from the Bush White House...I'd say you're pretty biased. A friend of mine when I was high school once went to a Klan meeting. He was sucked in. When he came back to talk to us about it he said "They never talked about hating black people! It was all about brotherhood and pride and history." We just looked at him. Another friend said "They don't have to talk about lynchings, cross burnings, and hating white people. They're the KLAN!" I feel the same way about Fox news. They don't have to say they're biased to the right as it's plain to anyone who watches or listens to their commentary. "Fair and Balanced" is pretty insulting to hear as you know they're saying it with a smirk. As to being scared they're one of the most watched? It's going to happen. They're really the only news outlet out there telling righties what they want to hear. Of course it will be loved. I'm surprised they don't have "The Christian Prosecution Hour" where they talk about how hard it is to be a christian in the U.S. That show would make bank even though it would be as big a fantasy as True Blood.

Go back and read ddavidv's post. He makes some salient points about the perception of Fox.

Many sheeple form their opinions from those of others. Too many people rank one source or another as biased simply because said source doesn't always follow their "party" line; it goes both ways.

The Fox opinion-based shows do have a particular slant, the reason I rarely pay them any attention. For the same reason, I find characters like Matthews and Olberman unappealing.

I will suggest, however, that if one pays attention to it's presentation of the news, it is rather balanced when compared to other "news" outlets. As ddavidv notes, there are questions asked on Fox that one never hears on other sources. If one construes that means there is a bias on Fox's behalf, it can equally mean there is bias on the "other side".

To claim otherwise is an excercise in intellectual-dishonesty.

Xceler8x wrote: When your news organization gets talking points from the Bush White House...I'd say you're pretty biased. A friend of mine when I was high school once went to a Klan meeting. He was sucked in. When he came back to talk to us about it he said "They never talked about hating black people! It was all about brotherhood and pride and history." We just looked at him. Another friend said "They don't have to talk about lynchings, cross burnings, and hating white people. They're the KLAN!" I feel the same way about Fox news. They don't have to say they're biased to the right as it's plain to anyone who watches or listens to their commentary. "Fair and Balanced" is pretty insulting to hear as you know they're saying it with a smirk. As to being scared they're one of the most watched? It's going to happen. They're really the only news outlet out there telling righties what they want to hear. Of course it will be loved. I'm surprised they don't have "The Christian Prosecution Hour" where they talk about how hard it is to be a christian in the U.S. That show would make bank even though it would be as big a fantasy as True Blood.

Perhaps you really need to start watching instead of commenting on what you don't understand. I'm in the business and I can tell you they do actually give you ALL the news, with an obivious bias slant. CNN, MSNBC, etc. really filter their news to a huge extent, and only give you what the left wing has approved as appropriate for your consumption.

I watch all the networks, and some stories on the major outlets are appalling in the "details" they leave out or don't report. It's all of course to help you think what the left wants you to think, not just a slanted viewpoint. They have a definite agenda, and it is working for the most part. This propaganda from the 21st century. I'm certainly not saying Fox is perfect, they are far, far from that, but at least Fox only seems to be slanted, they do give you all the news even if it goes against the right wing. Whether you agree with the slant or not is up to you, but at least they do report it.

It always amazes me what people consider balanced, and it usually ends up with which network agrees with their philosophy. And most of the time they slam others without actually giving them an honest look (such as their are some things I like on CNN). Whatever happened to news outlets actually reporting the news instead of trying to shape it. Those days are long gone. And you certainly don't see the right trying to ban all the liberal news the way the left is trying to ban conservative talk radio and TV. I don't listen to it, so if you don't like it, TURN IT OFF.

Oh, and Glen Beck is awesome, one of the best hosts on TV. It'll be good to have him back.

Slightly OT: I do miss Glenn Beck on CNN. Thank goodness he'll be back on Fox next year. Nothing like getting your hard news and opinion from a recovering alcoholic former DJ Mormon who eerily gets it right about 90% of the time.

+1. He did some AWESOME interviews with Bob Barr.

On topic: IMO, there is obvious bias in the media. I realize that others don't see it this way, but sometimes you have to look from the other side of the fence to see it.

Have you guys heard about the dudes making the "How Obama Got Elected" documentary? The purpose of the video is to show the effect of the media, NOT to call Obama voters stupid. I said it when I posted it the first time: The responses from voters in our precinct (90% Republican) wouldn't have been any better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

ddavidv wrote: It's always the left screaming how unbalanced Fox News is.

It is nearly impossible to find a truly unbiased news source.

I personally like the Christian science monitor. I find their news to be really interesting and fresh with little bias basically because they use little reuters or AP content. It's all their own people. Do some reading about it and on it.. Look past the name.. I don't prescribe to their religion or whatever.. but read the comments from wikipedia below on them..

wikipedia said: Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisers who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.[2] The Monitor's inception was, in part, a response by Eddy to the journalism of her day, which relentlessly covered the sensations and scandals surrounding her new religion with varying degrees of accuracy. In addition, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World was consistently critical of Eddy, and according to many historians, this along with a derogatory article in McClure's, furthered Eddy's decision to found her own media outlet.[2] Eddy declared that the Monitor's mission should be "to injure no man, but to bless all mankind."[2] Since its founding, the paper has won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism seven times. It is particularly well known for its in-depth coverage of the Middle East, publishing material from veteran Middle East specialists like John K. Cooley.

I really like the second paragraph about sensationalism of its day. I find the CSM to be one news source freaking out about celebrities or Jean Benet Ramesy like cases.

Please note... I worked hard to keep my socialist whacko views out of this post and tell you guys about a good solid news source. Don't tell me I have religious leanings for these people etc... I'm an atheist; and thats all I'm saying.

I have to agree with pretty much the way oldsaw and ddavidv see it. Don't forget BBC America. Yes, for an ex alky,dj, mormon, Beck pretty much nailed it 99% of the time. If only more sheep would listen objectively......

Sorry, but I have TRIED to watch Fox News, on sunday mornings, and I couldn't believe how far up the figurative(sp?) butt of the White House they were. IF, they do the same thing during the Obama presidency, I still won't call them unbiased, just stooges and/or shills who will stoop to anything to get a scoop.

BTW, when I first started watching BBC World News, I thought I would finally get some unbiased reporting. They can make Fox News look like "pikers" when they want to bash the U.S., tho they could often be less so when it came to the president, himself.... strange?

FWIW, I didn't used to like Hannity much, but in the last several months, he's been pretty honest about the Bush administration destroying the Republican party and throwing the true Republican ideals in the garbarge, moving more toward the left. While he's certainly not "unbiased," and doesn't claim to be, I wouldn't say he's "up the White House's butt."

ZOMG, IGNORANT'S A CLOSET BIBLE THUMPER!!!11!!1ONE. (joking.)

poopshovel wrote: ZOMG, IGNORANT'S A CLOSET BIBLE THUMPER!!!11!!1ONE.

repent sinner.

"Survey also shows that the people interviewed are complete morons..."

In the other categories, The New York Times was the most trusted newspaper and Rush Limbaugh (12.5 percent) came out on top among news personalities closely followed by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly (10.1 percent).

I'm sorry but... when Rush Limbaugh is the most trusted news personality... that's just moronic.

No one else noticed that Stephen Colbert was also on that list of trusted news people. He got less than two percent.

Owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch endorsed Barack Obama.

I'd like to see the actual poll and the result data. They did mention that more Democrats participated in the poll than Republicans. WARNING: I'm not trying to start a E36 M3 storm. Most of the Democrats I know (I'm not talking about the ones here on the board, but the ones I hang out with) don't get their news ANYWHERE. 3 of our close friends who we see almost every weekend don't watch the news, don't read the newspaper, and sure as E36 M3 don't know who Pelosi, Reid, or Barney Frank are. They couldn't stop talking about how stupid Palin is, but couldn't reference anything but Saturday Night Live for their opinion on her.

CONVERSELY: Most of the hardcore koolaid chugging Republicans I know ALL watch fox news, and listen to talk radio.

My point: It's not surprising to me that even with Democrats being the majority of those who participated in the poll, FOX news ended up on top, as most of the Democrats I know don't watch the news. Another (probably more likely) explanation could be that with multiple choices on the left-leaning networks (MSNBC and CNN were the only others mentioned, and combined counted for 31% of the vote versus FOX's 39.3%,) the vote was just split among the democrats, where Republicans really only have one place to go for "right-leaning" news.

I'm wondering who the other 29.7% voted for!? I'm also wondering which other "News Personalities" were available as choices in the poll. If the only choices were the ones listed, I'd have a hard time saying I "trusted" any of them, but could understand why, among Republicans, Rush and O'Reilly came out on top (again, assuming there were no other choices.)

mtn wrote: Owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch endorsed Barack Obama.

First of all, I don't think Murdoch ever "endorsed" Obama. He called him a "Rock Star," and said he would win the election. I don't think he ever said he was voting for him.

Secondly, Cox Enterprises owns 45 newspapers, 15 Television stations, and 81 radio stations. The Cox family is a family of hardcore Democrats (Governor James Cox ran against Harding in the 1920, with none other than FD mother berkeleying socialist R as his running mate,) but they carry Boortz, Hannity, Cane, and others on their radio stations, because those are the guys who bring in the listeners.

poopshovel wrote: I'd like to see the actual poll and the result data. They did mention that more Democrats participated in the poll than Republicans.

It said more people "Identified" themselves as "Democrats". What that means, I'm not entirely sure. I'd say it actually points to one of two things:

It is possible that more people are "Democrats" right now, due to a combination of Obama's popularity and that the political pendulum is just swinging that way.

It is also possible that the study was flawed, and their population sample did not accurately reflect the population.

Given that we don't know anything about the study or how it was done, I'm inclined to go more with the latter. The article was way too vague though. We don't know how many people (by what margin) described themselves as belonging to which party. We also don't know how many people described themselves as belonging to neither party.

We don't know how this survey was conducted. Was it done online? If so, I wouldn't trust the results.

Plus, the individuals identified as most trustworthy news sources, leads me to think that this wasn't the best survey.

That these people also view the internet for the most trustworthy news points to the people surveyed being not-too-bright.

Heck, I trust the validity of Fox News more than I trust the validity of most internet news, unless it is affiliated with some other news source that I know is required to maintain journalistic standards.

WARNING: I'm not trying to start a E36 M3 storm. Most of the Democrats I know (I'm not talking about the ones here on the board, but the ones I hang out with) don't get their news ANYWHERE.

Sure sounds like you're trying to start a E36 M3 storm. I think most people don't get much news anywhere. Or that most people get their news from morning radio, or the little news snippets on their web-mail homepage.

I'm going to have to go with the simpler explanation being that, you lean to the "conservative" side of the political spectrum, and that tints your view of other people. Or maybe your description of the people you know is correct, and that they are not representative of the wider population, as a whole.

I'm on the liberal side of things and it bothers me that there are people that get the majority of their news from Air America, or some other liberally biased source. Media bias definitely goes both ways, I think the problem is that news is seen more and more as entertainment and people want to hear things that reinforce their own views. We just get more and more isolated into our separate little camps and we either think the other people are evil for the conclusions that they come to when the truth is we just have very different perceptions of reality; or we point our fingers at their prefered news organization and talk about how biased they are and how it's a conspiracy to brainwash people.

Really the news media is a business and they're just giving people what they want.

That's my take on it but it's heavily influenced by the ny times, npr, the economist and the above mentioned cs monitor.

lol liberals r dum.

Sure sounds like you're trying to start a E36 M3 storm. I think most people don't get much news anywhere. Or that most people get their news from morning radio, or the little news snippets on their web-mail homepage. I'm going to have to go with the simpler explanation being that, you lean to the "conservative" side of the political spectrum, and that tints your view of other people. Or maybe your description of the people you know is correct, and that they are not representative of the wider population, as a whole.

Definitely not (trying to start a E36 M3 storm OR implying that Democrats are generally politically ignorant.) Just throwing out my "real world" experience. I hope you can take my word for it. And I'm guessing (again) the data was a bit misleading as there were multiple options for "left-leaning" news sources, and as far as we know, only one "right-leaning" news source in the poll.

While I certainly don't agree with a lot of your views, I definitely don't think it's for your lack of an "informed" opinion. Mkay?

I did not know that Air America was still around.

The results of this poll are surprising to me since it apparently contains more Dems than Reps. Most Democrats i know think that FOX news is the official channel of the Anti-Christ.

I'm going to have to go with the simpler explanation being that, you lean to the "conservative" side of the political spectrum, and that tints your view of other people. Or maybe your description of the people you know is correct, and that they are not representative of the wider population, as a whole.

This statement has just as much merit when "liberal" is substituted for "conservative".

Broad-brush generalizations may not offer the best means to make one's point.

I'm just sayin'.