Media Research Centers War Coverage Report Card

[Richard G]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/24/164833.shtml


Fox scored #1.

[zakur]

Gee! Who would have thought a conservative media watchdog group would like Fox News the most? :rolleyes:

[Baker]

Originally posted by zakur
Gee! Who would have thought a conservative media watchdog group would like Fox News the most? :rolleyes:

They gave good examples of why they came to that conclusion.

[corplinx]

Does FAIR have a scorecard yet? I'm sure Fox will get an F for not "exposing the Haliburton conspiracy to get Iraqi oil".

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Baker
They gave good examples of why they came to that conclusion.

They do give examples, but bias is pretty clear. Fox is specifically lauded for not being skeptical and not being liberal.

[zakur]

MRC analyzed the reporting from inside Baghdad and rated the New York Times widely acclaimed John Burns as the best. The worst were ABC’s Engel, who it said that might have been more useful to the Iraqi cause than any of the other correspondents except National Geographic Explorer’s Peter Arnett, who also made the worst category.

Among the embedded reporters, NBC’s Bloom, CNN’s Walter Rodgers and Fox’s Greg Kelly were rated the best, and ABC’s Koppel was rated the worst.Why no mention of Fox's most infamous embedded reporter, Geraldo Rivera? Certainly he should have made the list as one of the worst.

[Baker]

Originally posted by aerosolben


They do give examples, but bias is pretty clear. Fox is specifically lauded for not being skeptical and not being liberal.



What would you describe as not being skeptical not making the gloom and doom predictions that the other major networks where doing?
What is worse is only one reporter on the left apologized for his predictions.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Baker
What would you describe as not being skeptical not making the gloom and doom predictions that the other major networks where doing?

I didn't come up with the 'skeptical' label; I pulled it right off the webpage.

[zakur]

Originally posted by aerosolben
I didn't come up with the 'skeptical' label; I pulled it right off the webpage. Indeed. And they appear to apply the label inconsistently. In one paragraph they chastise Peter Arnett for not showing skepticism (and rightly so):...as Arnett parroted the false claims of Iraqi officials without a trace of professional skepticism.But then in another paragraph, they laud Fox for:...refusing to embrace the reflexive skepticism of most of the media elite.

[Baker]

Originally posted by zakur
Indeed. And they appear to apply the label inconsistently. In one paragraph they chastise Peter Arnett for not showing skepticism (and rightly so):But then in another paragraph, they laud Fox for:

Not if you look at the full report, they did on Fox News.

Indeed, by refusing to embrace the reflexive skepticism of most of the media elite, FNC’s audience was not misled by the unwarranted second-guessing and negativism that tainted other networks’ war news. On his 6 p.m. ET Special Report with Brit Hume, anchor Brit Hume provided an excellent one-hour summary of the war each night. The Fox anchor with the most face time, Shepard Smith, worked hard to keep the focus of the story exactly where it belonged: in the war zone, with Fox’s embedded battlefield reporters. Those who watched Fox were well-served by the networks’ refusal to fall into the standard traps of repeating liberal conventional wisdom as fact."