GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
I can't for the life of me figure out why you are making this so difficult. You made the claim that Fox was worse than the rest for factual integrity. I asked you for an independent verification. I rejected Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism as evidence rising to the level of independent verification. I provided you with an example of the kind of study I was interested in, and although I made no claims about the contents of the study itself, you threw a tantrum over an imaginary agenda which you projected onto me. So I asked again, and in response, you've given me another half-a-dozen paragraphs that do not support your claim. In case you missed this point amongst all your rambling:
I haven't even said that you are wrong about Fox News being more factually inaccurate. Stop foaming at the mouth over it.
If I have, and simply haven't realized it, I apologize, in which case your responses might be justified. If I have, please point out where I have and I will apologize accordingly. I have no emotional investment in whether Fox News or any other media outlet is more accurate or less accurate than the others, I just want the evidence that points me to the right answer. Don't give me Media Matters. I am a registered member there and visit their site on a regular basis. I know what they are saying. They have an agenda. They are not hiding it. This is from the "Who we are" section of their website:
MediaMatters.org said:
I also visit Media Research Center, another conservative counterpart to MM. They are really only interested in finding liberal media bias. The existence of both organizations, and anything they report, provides evidence of the only claim I actually have made: that all outlets have at least some political bias in their reporting. Nothing either side produces can be taken at face value to the extent that they prove that any outlet is "worse" than the others, as you have claimed, because they each admit that they are only looking at one side.
If there are well-done studies, please just link to them. I am interested in reading them. (Although I didn't ask for studies on bias, I'm looking for studies on factual accuracy; you know, related to that which you claimed). I am not arguing with you; I am looking for objective reasons to accept or reject your claim that Fox News is less factually accurate than other media organizations. So far, you have not provided any reason to accept it.
The answer can be "I don't have any studies." Fine. If that is the case just say so. It can be "I resent the fact that Fox gets great ratings despite the fact that alot of what they report challenges my political beliefs." Whatever the answer is, I don't really care. Heck, there are reasons to find Fox News objectionable beyond factual integrity. How about the fact that they actually made the conscious decision to be a biased media outlet? IMHO, I think most major left-leaning media have drifted slowly left over time, the unfortunate and undeliberate consequence of the fact that "liberal" news sells better to a wide audience. Among the major media, there was somewhat of a void of conservative viewpoints in the market. Along comes Rupert Murdoch, and you can argue that he is a genius from a capitalistic standpoint that he recognized the void and filled it, but you can also argue that it is detestable from a pure journalistic standpoint that an organization would consciously seek such a biased foundation upon which to build a network. But now I'm just rambling. And somewhat off topic.
[smarta$$]
Perhaps I brought this on myself. I actually look at people's post counts. I probably shouldn't pay attention to them, but I do, and I have a bad habit of thinking that the higher the post count, the more skeptical the poster should be. I think I just figured that with more than 10,000 posts, you would have better evidence to support what seems now to be an idealogically driven belief.
(sorry, a guy's gotta have some fun with this)[/smarta$$]
