FYI: (This should get the juices flowing in some MFO Members)
The creation of Fox News in 1996 was an event of deep, yet unappreciated, political and historical importance. For the first time, there was a news source available virtually everywhere in the United States, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a conservative tilt. Finally, conservatives did not have to seek out bits of news favorable to their point of view in liberal publications or in small magazines and newsletters. Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters. Soon, it became the dominant – and in many cases, virtually the only – major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth.
When Fox News went on the air in 1996, it advertised itself as “fair and balanced,” which implied that its competitors were neither. At the time, there was unquestionably a liberal bias in the major media; not a huge one, but it was pretty consistent across the three major networks, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the rest of the elite media. As Dartmouth communications professor Jim Kuypers put it in a 2002 study, “There is a demonstrable liberal bias to the mainstream press in America.”[1]
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/05/how-fox-news-changed-american-media-and-political-dynamics/print/
Comments
A more-striking finding, coming from a recently-published paper by a former Reagan and Bush-41 operative, is that "Fox’s core viewers are factually worse-informed than ... those who don’t follow news at all."
Those two findings have been repeatedly demonstrated by studies going back more than a decade and the findings survive even after controlling for demographic factors like age, level of partisanship and level of education. There are, so far as I can tell, no studies to the contrary; that is, no serious inquiry that reaches the opposite conclusion.
I teach news literacy for our journalism program and have long argued that Fox has very little to do with what's called "the journalism of verification," a 20th century construct that says that journalists are professionals whose central obligation is to get the facts right through scrupulous investigation and review ("if your mother says that she loves you, get a second source!"). Like the partisan press of the 19th century, the anti-Semitic newspapers aligned with Hitler's party and much of the British press today, the Foxes start with their conclusions ("you should be mad as hell about another inept liberal media cover-up of the government's latest almost-criminal failure to ...") and then presents the facts appropriate to the conclusion.
Perhaps if they owned-up to being Fox Views instead of Fox News, it would be less pernicious.
I'll also note that there are occasional bright spots on the network. Megyn Kelly has done some nice work in confronting pompous fools (thinking of an real estate tycoon in particular) with challenges to their pompous foolishness.
Okay, off to do an interview and then a final grading push.
David
Reality has a well-known liberal bias, of course.
Kelly is bright chiefly only comparatively:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/12/14/3066111/megyn-kelly-santa-2/
But yeah, sometimes fun to listen to as you flip by.
People want to watch the news without being grouped into a category and then insulted for being in that group. Examples are, Christians, gun owners, and climate change deniers. A person cannot have their own opinion these days without being insulted because of it.
I watch very little television news these days.
Please, give it a rest.
We all know where you stand... isn't that enough for you?!
"A number of surveys have found Fox views to be less well informed and more likely to have factually untrue beliefs than those who receive their news from mainstream sources."
"...the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”
"Fox’s slipshod handling of facts was even acknowledged by Newt Gingrich during the 2012 campaign. “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about,” he said. “It’s a severe limitation,” Gingrich added."
"A 2011 survey found that Fox viewers were much more likely to be ill-informed about the Affordable Care Act than those of CNN or MSNBC. People were asked 10 questions about the legislation. Fox viewers tended to get more of them wrong."
"Fox’s bias is so bad that even some conservatives can’t stomach it. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress, has said, “There are certain shows on Fox I can’t watch. Because they’re totally not fair and totally not balanced.”
These quotes are extracts from the Bartlett paper featured on the Ritholtz link. The paper itself is quite long, with many footnoted reference sources, and I suggest a complete read for better understanding of the issues discussed, and the research that supports the findings.
AKAF, ha, you do not 'know where I stand'; trying to think what might've led you to that place. Oh, wait, social supports for the poor? Stimulus defense? Debt important chiefly as percent of gdp? What?
As I stated in my previous comment, "I watch very little television news these days." I avoid CNN entirely. I do not have MSNBC but if I did I would avoid them also. I watch NHK world news, BBC, and a bit of Fox though a little bit goes a long ways. ABC Australia is also good.
I use a newsreader app and look at Drudge Report for any breaking news. Most of my news information I get online. If there is a major story then I turn on the television to those channels I specified above.
and yes, davidmoran, you're dripping left of liberal and re-distribution in every little key touch. just take it easy, so there could be at least some variety of opinion on these forums.
Bartlett suggests that Limbaugh et al. were able to ply their trade because of the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine. Things were not nearly so neat. In terms of timing, the FCC had long abandoned enforcement before an appellate court ruled that the Doctrine wasn't even law, so the FCC could abolish it without Congressional approval. (That 2-1 ruling had Bork and Scalia in the majority.)
Even back when the fairness doctrine was in play, you had much more strident voices like Bob Grant decades before Limbaugh. This was because the Fairness Doctrine never required "fair and balanced" broadcasts. http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-fairness-doctrine/
The Fairness Doctrine was great. Without it, would we ever have seen Floyd R. Turbo?
Too funny, imputing to me or anyone homogeneity of opinion here, of all places. As if. Do you even read the threads? Progressivism is not in any majority, it seems.
If by 'redistribution' you mean higher taxes for some, oh the alleged leftist agony of being in the same place as Gates, Buffett, and the others at http://patrioticmillionaires.org/
Tell, how would you fund urgent needs? See if you can get a little more sophisticated than personal shots. Cheap work; being thoughtful is what's harder.
Some optional reading:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-21/you-know-its-fiscal-crisis-when-republicans-raise-taxes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/26/republicans-oppose-raising-taxes-except-when-they-dont-which-is-often/
Still waiting for Obama and his family...as well as anyone else in Congress who voted for it ... to enroll in Obamacare. Is that gonna happen when hell freezes over or when pigs fly???
MFOers, this Mississippi "librul", proud and true, has been watching as the markets become ambiguously boring; bright minds don't need to slum-it during the doldrums of the summer months. Especially when they slum-it at home by kicking their dogs.
This ought to make you feel even better!
"Major insurers in some states are proposing hefty rate boosts for plans sold under the federal health law, setting the stage for an intense debate this summer over the law’s impact.
In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016. The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.
All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-insurers-seek-hefty-rate-213400612.html
I don't believe I have ever participated in a political thread on this board. It's a lose-lose situation. But I have to agree with the quote above as it relates to me. Fox has some real abrasive personalities. Although sometimes I wonder if I am the Barry Goldwater Republican I always fancied myself. I am so far to the left on some issues and so far to the right on others, I wonder if in older age I have simply evolved into middle of the road. I can't stand conservative Rush Limbaugh anymore than I can stand those liberals on the TV show The View. I am just as likely to vote Democrat as I am Republican.
@Junkster- You know, that actually sounds pretty healthy to me. Also, that makes you a "swing" voter, which is important because in these days of rock-solid intransigence in the political arena your group has the potential to wield influence much greater than your numbers would suggest. I wish there were more like you!