So it's not FOX that is biased...it's people who watch it.....

[Andonyx]

From Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html


In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.
The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

Of course the problem with this poll and the conlcusions is the problem that all polls face, that correlation is not equal to causation, and as such it is impossible to say if FOX news is leading people to make ignorant false conclusions about events...or if just more stupid people happen to watch FOX.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Of course the problem with this poll and the conlcusions is the problem that all polls face, that correlation is not equal to causation, and as such it is impossible to say if FOX news is leading people to make ignorant false conclusions about events...or if just more stupid people happen to watch FOX.

The poll also lacks in questions that might reveal the kinds of misconceptions that non-Fox watchers might be more likely to make.

They could also have asked to find out who is more likely to believe that

"The US put Saddam Hussein in Power"

or

"Depleted uranium has been found to raise cancer rates significantly among civilians living near war zones where it was used."

or

"Saddam Hussein was primarily armed by the United States"

MattJ

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The poll also lacks in questions that might reveal the kinds of misconceptions that non-Fox watchers might be more likely to make.

They could also have asked to find out who is more likely to believe that

"The US put Saddam Hussein in Power"

or

"Depleted uranium has been found to raise cancer rates significantly among civilians living near war zones where it was used."

or

"Saddam Hussein was primarily armed by the United States"

MattJ

Hi Matt,
As you are no doubt aware that those statements about Saddam are thrown around so often around here by many posters that they are taken as a given.

I loved that link you showed from Sweeden. You know the one about arms imports into Iraq. It seemed that even Denmark was ahead of the US in "arming" Iraq.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Hi Matt,
As you are no doubt aware that those statements about Saddam are thrown around so often around here by many posters that they are taken as a given.

I loved that link you showed from Sweden. You know the one about arms imports into Iraq. It seemed that even Denmark was ahead of the US in "arming" Iraq.

I'm mostly just amazed that a survey purportedly intended to reveal 'bias' would be so... biased. Well, not so much surprised that some group would create such a survey, more surprised that the Post would recycle their press release into an opinion piece.

MattJ

[corplinx]

Fox is the big mac and fries of news channels. Its no surprise to me that its viewers are dumber than that of CNBC.

That said, I think there are a few shows (Special Report, News Watch) that are well done and a bit smarter than par.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by corplinx
Fox is the big mac and fries of news channels. Its no surprise to me that its viewers are dumber than that of CNBC.

That said, I think there are a few shows (Special Report, News Watch) that are well done and a bit smarter than par.

People used to call USA Today the "McPaper," but I think it serves it's purpose to a decent extent, which is to summarize the news of the day in fast easily digestible bytes. I usually read the Chicago Trib as my hard copy paper, but when traveling, USA Today gets me news without having to wade through the alderman's decision on zoning in Tuscaloosa, because Frankly I don't care.

The problem is when in depth reporting becomes the same thing. I think I agree with....hmmmm....was it Jennings? When he got a lot of flak for suggesting that TV news oculd not possibly give you the depth or perspective on a story that print news could because of format limitations. His producers and higher-ups got pretty pissed, but he stood by the comment, and I think he was right.

The problem isn't ultimately that FOX news is biased, the problem is that people are content to get their news...all of their news from one single source.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Andonyx

The problem isn't ultimately that FOX news is biased, the problem is that people are content to get their news...all of their news from one single source.


Actually, I think it works in two simultaneous and reinforcing directions. That is the (fair and balanced ;) ) FOX news chooses how it wants to slant the news to attract a certain audience. In turn, the audience let's FOX know (by ratings and letters) what it wants to see and, thus, imposes its biases on FOX. FOX, in turn, modifies its format along that line and becomes more biased in its reporting. It's a Gordian knot that nobody wants to unravel. There are undoubtedly similar biases taking place in other news reports, but FOX seems to be shooting for the lowest common denominator in order to attract a larger audience.

:(

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by dsm


There are undoubtedly similar biases taking place in other news reports, but FOX seems to be shooting for the lowest common denominator in order to attract a larger audience.

:(

Well, it's worked, they are the highest rated network news channel.

But it begs another question....

When does bias become so great that you lose fourth estate priviledges.

The freedom of the press and the associated priviledges that go with it are derived form the notion that the press gives citizens the information they need to be informed and take advantage of the services their society offers, as well as be responsible and productive participants in that society and its democratic process.

There has to be a point at which the distortion becomes so great that the press agency is no longer fulfilling their end of the bargain.

(I'm not accusing FOX of that, I just mean in general.)

[American]

Liberal networks created the market themselves by being so liberal. Now they're upset that people have a choice to judge the views and character of the reporters who cover stories.

Screw you, Dan Rather et al. You old men are obsolete relics, and it's time to retire and write your sad, angry memoires.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Well, it's worked, they are the highest rated network news channel.

But it begs another question....

When does bias become so great that you lose fourth estate priviledges.

The freedom of the press and the associated priviledges that go with it are derived form the notion that the press gives citizens the information they need to be informed and take advantage of the services their society offers, as well as be responsible and productive participants in that society and its democratic process.

There has to be a point at which the distortion becomes so great that the press agency is no longer fulfilling their end of the bargain.

(I'm not accusing FOX of that, I just mean in general.)

Freedom of the press is a "priviledge"? So what you are suggesting is that a free press is a priviledge dependent on something? I hope you are not saying that. How about free speech? What is that dependent on? Or free expression in general? Are you saying that these priviledges are conditional? And who decides what these conditions are? Community standards? Is it the old "Free speach is all fine and as long as folks don't go around just saying any old thing they want." kind of thing?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Andonyx
When does bias become so great that you lose fourth estate priviledges.

Never.

My father's union puts out a monthly newsletter. You gonna shut them down?

Can the Communist party print pamphlets if it wishes?

What about the KKK?


Are these actions not protected by freedom of the press?

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Two words: LA Times

[Cleon]

Originally posted by billydkid


Freedom of the press is a "priviledge"? So what you are suggesting is that a free press is a priviledge dependent on something? I hope you are not saying that.

Certainly--this is actually fairly obvious.

Freedom of the press depends upon having a press.

With computers and copy machines, this is more of a sliding scale than "you have it or you don't," but the reality is those who have the resources to print more have more freedom to print.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Never.

My father's union puts out a monthly newsletter. You gonna shut them down?

Can the Communist party print pamphlets if it wishes?

What about the KKK?


Are these actions not protected by freedom of the press?

Woah woah woah....

You guys are confusing freedom of speech and expression with freedom of the press and fourth estate priviledges....

These are priviledges that exist for the press that do NOT exist for the citizen, and no your friend's monthly newsletter does not count....

These priviledges include:

1. No prior restraint...
2. Being able to refuse to identify sources...
3. Certain protections from libel and slander suits without compelling evidence.

These are things news agencies take for granted that someone claiming free speech cannot.

Most of these things only ever come into play in the courtroom. But they are very crucial to the way mainstream press handles their business.

[Andonyx]

Additional examples, although dated:


This unique position of the journalist as an independent person even where he is employed by an industrialist is recognised in all democracies. Our Constitution makers have in their zeal for safeguarding the institution of democracy , given certain privileges to the Fourth Estate as well.
The newspaper owners also enjoy these privileges in the form of low cost land , postal concession, and the like . It is significant that when the government imposed duty on news print the owners went to court claiming exemption on ground of the freedom of the Press.
That the newspaper industry is different from other industry is also proved by the fact that the newspaper owners protested along with the journalists when the Defamation Bill was brought up and the Bihar Press Bill was published . Mind you, in all other industries the government has a right to examine the product before hand and subject all the products to quality control.
The Working Journalist taking orders from the industrialist employer is against democratic conscience: that is why there is the unique institution of the editor, from whom the journalist takes his orders. This is considered vital in safeguarding the freedom of the Press.

http://education.vsnl.com/nujindia/pub5.htm

But this still exists today in terms of how the news is handled with regards to censors.

In non news television or other media, the government used to maintain a hand in the censoship of foul language and obscenity on broadcast airwaves under the pretense that airwaves were the domain of a government branch...the FCC.

That is why cable networks, not using the public airwaves could put on anything they want. Most broadacst networks established their own departments of standards and practices to get around government intervention and avoid fines.

Newspapers, and news programs were never subject to this censorship in any way because under the protections traditionally afforded the press, the government could not intervene to stop a story from being published regardless of its content.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Andonyx

These are priviledges that exist for the press that do NOT exist for the citizen, and no your friend's monthly newsletter does not count....

These priviledges include:

1. No prior restraint...


The idea of no prior restraint on free speach is NOT only limited to the press, it applies to everyone. It's very rarely an issue outside of the press, but that's irrelevant to whether or not it applies.


2. Being able to refuse to identify sources...


That has to do with when you can refuse to speak, not when you are allowed to speak.


3. Certain protections from libel and slander suits without compelling evidence.


I've never heard of any individuals getting in trouble for slander that would not apply to the press, as long as you take into account that at least mainstream press can afford good lawyers to fight for them that most individuals cannot.


These are things news agencies take for granted that someone claiming free speech cannot.


Absolutely wrong on point 1, not really free speech claim as such on point 2, and I don't think 3 is correct either.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Andonyx


People used to call USA Today the "McPaper," but I think it serves it's purpose to a decent extent, which is to summarize the news of the day in fast easily digestible bytes. I usually read the Chicago Trib as my hard copy paper, but when traveling, USA Today gets me news without having to wade through the alderman's decision on zoning in Tuscaloosa, because Frankly I don't care.


Can you do that? From the endless argy bargy going on here about a fraction of the issues that are happening around the world, I would have thought that trying to reduce the news into easily digestible chunks is in fact a fraud.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Andonyx
2. Being able to refuse to identify sources...


Not generally true (http://volokh.com/2003_09_28_volokh_archive.html#106494751387414760) .

See this (http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-na-wenholee15oct15.story) for an example of journalists being forced to identify their sources.

Ziggy addressed the other two.