Fox v MSNBC -- preliminary

[varwoche]

In a thread concerning bias at Fox News, Cicero claimed (I think) that MSNBC is a worse offender than Fox. The purpose of this thread is to work with Cicero to define criteria that we can use for a structured thought experiment in order to score the networks.

My thinking is that initially we focus strictly on the criteria. And if we succeed then we move to step 2 where we apply the criteria.

It's your claim Cicero. What are your thoughts?

(I've placed this thread in the 2008 election section under the assumption that we're going to focus on election related topics. If that turns out not to be the case, I welcome the mods to move it.)

 

[Cicero]

In a thread concerning bias at Fox News, Cicero claimed (I think) that MSNBC is a worse offender than Fox. The purpose of this thread is to work with Cicero to define criteria that we can use for a structured thought experiment in order to score the networks.

My thinking is that initially we focus strictly on the criteria. And if we succeed then we move to step 2 where we apply the criteria.

It's your claim Cicero. What are your thoughts?

(I've placed this thread in the 2008 election section under the assumption that we're going to focus on election related topics. If that turns out not to be the case, I welcome the mods to move it.)

Well, first you have to concede that FOX News is of course a conservatively tilted cable broadcast network. That is why it kills MSNBC and CNN collectively in the ratings. Neither CNN, nor MSNBC, admit publicly to their liberal leaning programing and ideology, yet their own shows, hosts, and comments betray any claims otherwise.

Naturally, liberals are incensed at the name FOX "News" and the very subjective moniker "fair and balanced." The egregiousness of cable networks with staked out ideologies is whether there are other points of view presented, their frequency, and the diversity of opinion.

 

[boloboffin]

Well, MSNBC wasn't included in this media survey, but NBC was.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

The three misperceptions surveyed were that links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. As you can see, viewers of NBC ranked much higher in not having these misperceptions than viewers of FOX.

 

[Kerberos]

Well, MSNBC wasn't included in this media survey, but NBC was.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/FOXNBC.gif[/qimg]

The three misperceptions surveyed were that links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. As you can see, viewers of NBC ranked much higher in not having these misperceptions than viewers of FOX.

Which proves nothing. Those are conservative misconceptions and FOX is conservative. If you checked for liberal misconseptions (like that Bush engeneered 9/11) you'd get the oposite result.

 

[boloboffin]

Which proves nothing. Those are conservative misconceptions and FOX is conservative. If you checked for liberal misconseptions (like that Bush engeneered 9/11) you'd get the oposite result.

Sounds like an excellent hypothesis. Got any evidence?

 

[Kerberos]

Sounds like an excellent hypothesis. Got any evidence?

Not unless you count common sense,

 

[boloboffin]

Not unless you count common sense,

So, no evidence then? Thanks for playing.

 

[Kerberos]

So, no evidence then? Thanks for playing.

I'll take common sense over hopelessly biased evidence any day of the week. If you prefer to ucritically accept any evidence that fits your procenceptions then that's up to you.

 

[boloboffin]

So you're following the third part of your lawyer's maxim, then?

 

[Cicero]

Well, MSNBC wasn't included in this media survey, but NBC was.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/FOXNBC.gif[/qimg]

The three misperceptions surveyed were that links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. As you can see, viewers of NBC ranked much higher in not having these misperceptions than viewers of FOX.

You got to love a 2003 study concerned only with the Iraq War, six months in, that starts off with:

"Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

Why did the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation fund this "study" in 2003? What were the compelling circumstances that necessitated a review that belittles FOX and props up liberal NPR/PBS?

Didn't Colin Powell show the U.N. and the world that Iraq had WOMD's as supposedly depicted in his satellite photo? Why wouldn't Americans beleive there were WOND's in Iraq in 2003? Did NPR and PBS discredit that photo in 2003?

Then there is this hokey construct:

"Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions."

The study specifically names Republicans, yet refers to Democrats/liberals as "people who do not have such political positions." How did this study manage to pin point Republicans with "misconceptions," yet become clueless as to figuring out the ideology of the "significant number" of those others with "misconceptions?"

 

[boloboffin]

You got to love a 2003 study concerned only with the Iraq War, six months in, that starts off with:

"Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

They didn't start with that. That was a conclusion of the study.

Why did the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation fund this "study" in 2003? What were the compelling circumstances that necessitated a review that belittles FOX and props up liberal NPR/PBS?

This is a thread about FOX v. NBC, but you are calling the motives of the study into question. Fine. Can you demonstrate this motive throughout the methodology? Can you find some fault in their figures?

Didn't Colin Powell show the U.N. and the world that Iraq had WOMD's as supposedly depicted in his satellite photo? Why wouldn't Americans beleive there were WOND's in Iraq in 2003? Did NPR and PBS discredit that photo in 2003?

That depends on what part of 2003 we're talking about. Before the war, maybe so. But after the war, when Bush and his buddies started have trouble demonstrating the veracity of their intelligence, shall we say, plenty of people might have cause to start doubting what they'd been told by Powell.

That is, if their chosen source of news was telling it to them.

And why should anyone have thought for one second that Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks? There's never been any evidence of that.

Then there is this hokey construct:

"Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions."

The study specifically names Republicans, yet refers to Democrats/liberals as "people who do not have such political positions." How did this study manage to pin point Republicans with "misconceptions," yet become clueless as to figuring out the ideology of the "significant number" of those others with "misconceptions?"

Perhaps they asked them. And as the study shows, being a supporter of President Bush was a far more reliable indicator of believing misperceptions than party preference. Maybe you should read it before dismissing it.

 

[jj]

Well, first you have to concede that FOX News is of course a conservatively tilted cable broadcast network.

Then you concede it's bias to start with?

Game, set, match.

Goodness!

 

[Kerberos]

So you're following the third part of your lawyer's maxim, then?

I must have missed the part where I raised my voice, or where the law enters into anything, or were the facts where against me for that matter. But out of curiosity what exactly is my sinister motive for prefering logic to bias? You're ignoring logic because you're a liberal and it suits your agenda. That takes care of your motive. What's mine? I'm sure your answer will be entertaining.

 

[varwoche]

Well, first you have to concede that FOX News is of course a conservatively tilted cable broadcast network.

Yes. We're in mutual agreement that Fox tilts right and MSNBC tilts left.

That is why it kills MSNBC and CNN collectively in the ratings.

You're probably right. You're not suggesting that ratings be used as a criterion though, are you?

Neither CNN, nor MSNBC, admit publicly to their liberal leaning programing and ideology, yet their own shows, hosts, and comments betray any claims otherwise.

OK, this is a good first step (though I think it would be best to save the conclusions until we reach step 2): Any program that clearly leans one way or the other should publicly admit their leaning. Is that your proposal?

An obvious stumbling block is that we need to define which programs clearly lean which way or the other. I'll look over the lineups and post my best guesses later on and you do the same.

Naturally, liberals are incensed at the name FOX "News" and the very subjective moniker "fair and balanced." The egregiousness of cable networks with staked out ideologies is whether there are other points of view presented, their frequency, and the diversity of opinion.

I don't see a proposal here for a criterion -- correct me if I'm wrong.

(The conversation is going to bounce around of course, but I'm hoping to keep our dialog focused on the task at hand. I'm not complaining mind you -- just letting you know why I may not respond to commentary that's getting ahead of the game.)

 

[joobz]

I'll take common sense over hopelessly biased evidence any day of the week. If you prefer to ucritically accept any evidence that fits your procenceptions then that's up to you.

You are equating common sense with "something I wish to be true."

I think your point of conservative missconception vs. liberal missconception is a valid point. But you weaken by claiming assertion and insinuation is proof enough.

 

[joobz]

Well, first you have to concede that FOX News is of course a conservatively tilted cable broadcast network. That is why it kills MSNBC and CNN collectively in the ratings. Neither CNN, nor MSNBC, admit publicly to their liberal leaning programing and ideology, yet their own shows, hosts, and comments betray any claims otherwise.

Naturally, liberals are incensed at the name FOX "News" and the very subjective moniker "fair and balanced." The egregiousness of cable networks with staked out ideologies is whether there are other points of view presented, their frequency, and the diversity of opinion.

Fair and Balanced implies unbiased.

 

[Cicero]

Fair and Balanced implies unbiased.

Unless news programing were delivered by a machine, there will always be bias. Even a computer can be bias depending on the programmer. A fair referee may prefer one team over another, but still call the same fouls on both. Of course, there will always be those who think the ref has penalized their team more than the opposing team.

FOX News always has on liberal voices on their pundit shows. For some reason, MSNBC's "Countdown" only has on Olbermann echo chambers. Why is he afraid to engage in a discussion with anyone that holds a different ideological opinion than himself?

Maybe that is why he petulantly calls Fox "Faux News," "FOX Noise," etc, because they allow for differences of opinion.

 

[Cicero]

Then you concede it's bias to start with?

Game, set, match.

Goodness!

Why would I not concede the obvious? I am not a liberal. Just because The New York Times, L. A. Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, etc are biased as well does that mean that a thread to determine who allows for more access to opposing voices means we can't get on the court because we are not wearing white?

 

[Cicero]

They didn't start with that. That was a conclusion of the study.



This is a thread about FOX v. NBC, but you are calling the motives of the study into question. Fine. Can you demonstrate this motive throughout the methodology? Can you find some fault in their figures?



That depends on what part of 2003 we're talking about. Before the war, maybe so. But after the war, when Bush and his buddies started have trouble demonstrating the veracity of their intelligence, shall we say, plenty of people might have cause to start doubting what they'd been told by Powell.

That is, if their chosen source of news was telling it to them.

And why should anyone have thought for one second that Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks? There's never been any evidence of that.



Perhaps they asked them. And as the study shows, being a supporter of President Bush was a far more reliable indicator of believing misperceptions than party preference. Maybe you should read it before dismissing it.

It is actually a thread about 24/7 cable news shows FOX News, not FOX channel, and MSNBC, not NBC.

There are maybe 2.5 million viewers watching FOX News compared to NBC's 23 million +. Explain how such a small number of the viewing population required a study to determine whether their "misperceptions" if they actually exist, had any effect on the 2004 election? Surely the purpose of the study was to somehow explain how Bush 43 would be elected again in 04 because the measly 2 million FOX News watchers, according to this study, would automatically vote for him.

 

[GreyICE]

It is actually a thread about 24/7 cable news shows FOX News, not FOX channel, and MSNBC, not NBC.

There are maybe 2.5 million viewers watching FOX News compared to NBC's 23 million +. Explain how such a small number of the viewing population required a study to determine whether their "misperceptions" if they actually exist, had any effect on the 2004 election? Surely the purpose of the study was to somehow explain how Bush 43 would be elected again in 04 because the measly 2 million FOX News watchers, according to this study, would automatically vote for him.

Really? Because those of us in reality-based society know that Fox is the top-rated news channel.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6517290.html

You're suffering from typical Fox watcher syndrome - misinformation (lies, if we wish to be blunt) designed to reinforce a false perception (in this case, the perception that Fox is hideously picked upon, instead of given the fair evaluation that its position deserves).