Fox v MSNBC -- preliminary

[Kerberos]

um... that is the very assumption I was talking about.

'
You should take that up with the authors of the study. Or rather you shouldn't because the study would make zero sense if you studied people who watched fx FOX and MSNBC equally, because any misconceptions they had could have been from either source.

Sure. How about the assumption that they didn't control for viewer bias?

I didn't make that assumption anywhere. Anything else?

Another assumption is that media sources that do a poor job of reporting one kind of story would necessarily do a good job of reporting another kind of story. Alternatively that media sources that do a really good job of reporting one kind of story would necessarily do a bad job of reporting another kind of story.

The entire thread is about bias not incompetence. That's an entirely different subject. In either case it makes little difference, because I'm not arguing a that FOX is less biased or even equally biased. What I'm arguing is that the data is consistent with those possibilities.

I assume you mean "skewed against conservatives"?

I meant it was the kind of thing that conservatives, or rather pro-war types would want to believe.

So, your argument is not that the conclusion doesn't follow logically, it is rather that they chose to study a public understanding of a Iraq war? But that was the purpose of the study. To do anything else would have been outside the scope of that study. It would be like saying the theory of evolution doesn't follow logically because it does not address the big bang.

I'm referring to the conclusion that FOX is more biased in general, which the study never made. The study does prove that those three misconceptions are more common among FOX viewers, but any broader conclusion is unwarranted.

22% vs 43%? Not exactly an equal but opposite trend.

I said opposite, I never said equal. After all it would be really, really stupid to expect one misconception as a function of politics would exactly match 3 totally different misconception as a function of news source, now wouldn't it?

PBS/NPR viewers had the least amount of misconceptions concerning the Iraq war.

It showed that they had the least of these 3 misconceptions. There's no basis for extrapolating to anything beyond that.

Do you believe they would have the most misconceptions about a conservative issue rather than simply being an objective news source? If so, why?

a) Because there’s no such thing as objectivity. There is no god-given baseline.
b) Because even if they were this mythical objective news source their viewers could still be expected to have more misconceptions about fact convenient to conservatives, because FOX having a bias could be expected to drone on about that fact (such as casualties being down) 24/7 while our “objective” source would balance their coverage more.

Now how did you manage to exclude the possibility that CBS could have an opposite bias?

 

[Cicero]

.

Once we're done hashing out the leanings (we're pretty close I hope) we'll see which programs admit to their leanings and then we're good to go. (I don't know of a program that admits its leaning. Do you?)

Of course we'll also have a simpler measurement at hand: a tally of the programs that lean per network.

I would say that admission of a show's tilt is rather superfluous since that is going to be a subjective appraisal as we just demonstrated.

The sine qua non of whether a cable network is providing a platform for contrary views/opinions is to look at the regular guest pundits/commentators/personalities.

FOX News has these liberals on all their shows routinely:

Professor Michael Eric Dyson
Professor Lamont Hill
Bob Beckel
Al Sharpton
Jane Hall
Neal Gabler-before he left with Eric Burns who was a horrible host-
Susan Estrich
Kirsten Powers
Ellis Henican
Mora Liasson
Lanny Davis
Marvin Kalb
Terry Mcauliffe


But MSNBC's top rated program "Countdown" is a conservative free zone.

 

[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.

Why wasn't MSNC used in this study? How do you exclude them and include FOX News and CNN which are cable networks? But viewers of CBS, which has news only in the evening, were a mere 9 points behind FOX News that has 24/7 news.

It sure seems then that people who watch CBS are getting an extremely deadly does of "misperceptions" in a smidgen of the time it takes FOX News to dole out their "misconceptions."

 

[Wolrab]

Hmm, nicely dodged the part about Fox having the highest viewership again Ciccy?

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/24/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-june-23/4232

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for June 23, 2008

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 968,000 viewers
CNN – 535,000 viewers
MSNBC – 364,000 viewers
CNBC – 278,000 viewers
HLN – 224,000 viewers

They did on Monday.

 

[Policenaut]

I don't know how people can watch MSNBC seriously. Olbermann is the epitome of a whackjob and so are most of his "guests" aka friends who agree with all his crazy musings. I've never seen such a hypocrite who staunchly believes in the First Amendment but refuses to even let someone with a differing view onto his show. Free speech as long as you agree with me. Matthews used to be funny when he just shot down guests without letting them get a word in but since he's somewhat mellowed out he's just a boring parrot. I think it's time to give Alan Keyes his show back. That was possibly the high point of MSNBC (as far as entertainment is concerned). I remember watching it one day when he had some Palestinian-American organization head on and he actually cut off the guys mic and spewed out a diatribe on how racist the guy was. It was awesome.

 

[varwoche]

I would say that admission of a show's tilt is rather superfluous since that is going to be a subjective appraisal as we just demonstrated.

Agreed. I'm just following your lead however, which I think was leading us to a place that wasn't going to support your initial claim.

The sine qua non of whether a cable network is providing a platform for contrary views/opinions is to look at the regular guest pundits/commentators/personalities.

It sounds like you're wanting to switch gears here. Since I don't know how to determine which shows have which guests without watching the networks 24x7, this feels like a dead-end.

Also, I don't think the guest lineup is as definitive as you suggest. O'Reilly often has contrary guests however it seems to me that they frequently are poor spokesmen for their cause and O'Reilly uses them as punching bags.

FOX News has these liberals on all their shows routinely...

So? I'll bet that I can produce a list of regular conservative guests on MSNBC.

 

[Cicero]

Agreed. I'm just following your lead however, which I think was leading us to a place that wasn't going to support your initial claim.

It sounds like you're wanting to switch gears here. Since I don't know how to determine which shows have which guests without watching the networks 24x7, this feels like a dead-end.

Also, I don't think the guest lineup is as definitive as you suggest. O'Reilly often has contrary guests however it seems to me that they frequently are poor spokesmen for their cause and O'Reilly uses them as punching bags.

So? I'll bet that I can produce a list of regular conservative guests on MSNBC.

MSNBC's flagship program is "Countdown." When Dan Abrams was the VP in charge of programing, he was keen to mold MSNBC in the image of KO. He succeeded.

You say O'Reilly, FOX News most highly rated show, only has on "poor spokesman for their cause?" That is absurd. Is it his fault if representatives of American public schools, illegal immigration advocates and Code Pink are incapable of making their points using any substance or logic?

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann does not allow for spokesmen, poor or otherwise, on any issue with a contrary point of view from his own. See Policenaut's above comment.


Go ahead and produce a MSNBC list of REGULAR conservative guests.

If you have not watched either FOX News or MSNBC with any degree of regularity, how do propose to act as an informed judge on this topic?

 

[varwoche]

MSNBC's flagship program is "Countdown." When Dan Abrams was the VP in charge of programing, he was keen to mold MSNBC in the image of KO. He succeeded.

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann does not allow for spokesmen, poor or otherwise, on any issue with a contrary point of view from his own.

You're jumping all over the place randomly. What happened to the concept of putting your claims to the test via a structured experiment?

Go ahead and produce a MSNBC list of REGULAR conservative guests.

First let me know that my efforts won't be for naught. If I succeed in producing the list, will you concede without equivocation that your newly formed criterion is shot down?

If you have not watched either FOX News or MSNBC with any degree of regularity, how do propose to act as an informed judge on this topic?

I don't propose to act as the judge, at least no more or less so than any other participant in the thread.

 

[Cicero]

You're jumping all over the place randomly. What happened to the concept of putting your claims to the test via a structured experiment?

First let me know that my efforts won't be for naught. If I succeed in producing the list, will you concede without equivocation that your newly formed criterion is shot down?

I don't propose to act as the judge, at least no more or less so than any other participant in the thread.

1) You made the completely rigged caveat that O'Reilly does not give a platform to dissenting opinions because those on the other side that appear om his show are incompetent. This was your feeble attempt to disqualify "The Factor", FOX News ratings winner, as a show that provides balance.

2) I do not beleive there is anyone making the argument that KO's "Countdown," MSNBC's top ratings show, has even the semblance of balance. Not even you.

3) If you cannot even name MSNBC conservatives from memory, as I have done with FOX News libs, then you do not make a strong advocate for your side.

4) Any participant in this thread, whop does not watch both channels without any degree of regularity, would automatically render their comments moot.

 

[dudalb]

Just as an aside, does Fox News publicly admit to its conservative-leaning programming and ideology?

Nope. And that is the problem I have with them. If they would just state that they are a "News from a conservative perspective" channel I would have no quarrel with them. I don't share the almost physical loathing for FOX that some liberals have. It proves that Some liberals are no more broad minded towars opposing viewpoints then certain conservatives.
And I also think that MSNBC should admit they are a "News From A Liberal perspective" network, since it is obvious that is the way they are going.
CNN I think leans slightly toward the liberal view, but not nearly as far as FOX and MSNBC do in their viewpoints.
CNN Headline News is an insult to intelligence, no matter what your politics. I only tune in to see Robin Meade because she is HOT!
But other then that the programming their sucks.

So Conservatives think that Fox is "fair and Balanced" and Liberals think that MSNBC is "Fair and balanced". Big surprise.

 

[Cicero]

Nope. And that is the problem I have with them. If they would just state that they are a "News from a conservative perspective" channel I would have no quarrel with them. I don't share the almost physical loathing for FOX that some liberals have. It proves that Some liberals are no more broad minded towars opposing viewpoints then certain conservatives.
And I also think that MSNBC should admit they are a "News From A Liberal perspective" network, since it is obvious that is the way they are going.
CNN I think leans slightly toward the liberal view, but not nearly as far as FOX and MSNBC do in their viewpoints.
CNN Headline News is an insult to intelligence, no matter what your politics. I only tune in to see Robin Meade because she is HOT!
But other then that the programming their sucks.

So Conservatives think that Fox is "fair and Balanced" and Liberals think that MSNBC is "Fair and balanced". Big surprise.

And yet, FOX News is the focus of liberal loopy types like the dailykos, media matters, moveon.org, huff po, who threatened Democratic presidential candidates to boycott the cable channel. I wonder why there was no counter boycott proposed by conservative entities to have conservative candidates boycott MSNBC/CNN?

While FOX News is of course a conservative tilt channel, they give air time to liberals on every show. MSNBC is unabashedly the Obama channel and their top ratings "news" show, "Countdown," is unabashedly proud of not airing dissenting opinions.

That alone makes MSNBC an enemy of free speech, but it seems to escape the scrutiny of the same "studies" that routinely target FOX News.

BTW: FOX News employees donated $14,000 to 2008 Republican Presidential candidates and $310,800 to Democratic Candidates.

 

[Policenaut]

Nope. And that is the problem I have with them. If they would just state that they are a "News from a conservative perspective" channel I would have no quarrel with them. I don't share the almost physical loathing for FOX that some liberals have. It proves that Some liberals are no more broad minded towars opposing viewpoints then certain conservatives.
And I also think that MSNBC should admit they are a "News From A Liberal perspective" network, since it is obvious that is the way they are going.
CNN I think leans slightly toward the liberal view, but not nearly as far as FOX and MSNBC do in their viewpoints.
CNN Headline News is an insult to intelligence, no matter what your politics. I only tune in to see Robin Meade because she is HOT!
But other then that the programming their sucks.

So Conservatives think that Fox is "fair and Balanced" and Liberals think that MSNBC is "Fair and balanced". Big surprise.

MSNBC is just so bad I don't know how they stay afloat. I guess ultra liberals really need to hear people on tv spew the same crap they do every day to affirm themselves.

Fox is bad sometimes but most of their programming outside O'Reilly and Hannity are very fair to both sides. Actually if you compare Olbermann and O'Reilly, O'Reilly looks much more sane even when he was on his "war on christians" rants. What I don't like about CNN is that when they show their bias (and it's a liberal one) it usually does so in an extremely heavy handed way. Especially when it comes to "green". Most of the time (barring some of the more lunatic commentators they allow on sometimes) CNN is pretty decent as far as middle of the road news goes. CNN Headline is gold with Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. They are so over the top ridiculous especially Beck's rants which he does at least 10 times per episode that it's entertaining.

Also I don't know how company policy it is but I believe I've heard O'Reilly say that Fox leans right before. Of course he's not the spokesman for the channel but it's not like they hide that most show commentators that are not on strictly news-only shows are conservatives for the most part. I still say that Tim Russert was the last good thing left at that station. Now that he's gone I don't see any reason to watch it ever again (except to ridicule Olbermann).

 

[Cicero]

MSNBC is just so bad I don't know how they stay afloat. I guess ultra liberals really need to hear people on tv spew the same crap they do every day to affirm themselves.

Fox is bad sometimes but most of their programming outside O'Reilly and Hannity are very fair to both sides. Actually if you compare Olbermann and O'Reilly, O'Reilly looks much more sane even when he was on his "war on christians" rants. What I don't like about CNN is that when they show their bias (and it's a liberal one) it usually does so in an extremely heavy handed way. Especially when it comes to "green". Most of the time (barring some of the more lunatic commentators they allow on sometimes) CNN is pretty decent as far as middle of the road news goes. CNN Headline is gold with Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. They are so over the top ridiculous especially Beck's rants which he does at least 10 times per episode that it's entertaining.

Also I don't know how company policy it is but I believe I've heard O'Reilly say that Fox leans right before. Of course he's not the spokesman for the channel but it's not like they hide that most show commentators that are not on strictly news-only shows are conservatives for the most part. I still say that Tim Russert was the last good thing left at that station. Now that he's gone I don't see any reason to watch it ever again (except to ridicule Olbermann).

It is obvious you do indeed watch all three channels. Perhaps varwoche can eventually be as well versed in this subject.

 

[varwoche]

1) You made the completely rigged caveat that O'Reilly does not give a platform to dissenting opinions because those on the other side that appear om his show are incompetent. This was your feeble attempt to disqualify "The Factor", FOX News ratings winner, as a show that provides balance.

It was an opinion that has no bearing on our proceedings.

2) I do not beleive there is anyone making the argument that KO's "Countdown," MSNBC's top ratings show, has even the semblance of balance. Not even you.

Clearly the show is agenda-driven.

3) If you cannot even name MSNBC conservatives from memory, as I have done with FOX News libs, then you do not make a strong advocate for your side.

What I can or can't name from memory has no bearing on the price of bread.

You seem to have a problem answering my questions in a direct manner. Let me try again:

If I succeed in producing the list, will you concede without equivocation that your newly formed criterion is shot down?

4) Any participant in this thread, whop does not watch both channels without any degree of regularity, would automatically render their comments moot.

Fine.

It doesn't seem like you're interested in boiling your claim down to a testable proposition. If that's the case, just say so and we can cut bait. It's not as if the forum lacks for threads that are repositories for your unsupported opinions.

 

[Cicero]

It was an opinion that has no bearing on our proceedings.

Clearly the show is agenda-driven.

What I can or can't name from memory has no bearing on the price of bread.

You seem to have a problem answering my questions in a direct manner. Let me try again:


Fine.

It doesn't seem like you're interested in boiling your claim down to a testable proposition. If that's the case, just say so and we can cut bait. It's not as if the forum lacks for threads that are repositories for your unsupported opinions.

Well, you just admitted to posting a fact, that you now concede was an opinion. Too bad you have not also admitted that your Michelle Malkin thread is also opinion, not based on fact. Perhaps you could actually recall an opinion I posted that is masquerading as fact, and conversely, facts that I have posted that are not substantiated? We already have other posters in this thread that are at odds with your supposition that FOX News is more biased than MSNBC.

But to help you along with your pursuit of MSNBC conservative paid contributors:


Pat Buchanan
Tucker Carlson
Armstrong Williams (once in a blue moon)

unpaid:
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel

And here is this:

MSNBC, Leaning Left And Getting Flak From Both Sides
By Howard Kurtz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703047_pf.html

 

[varwoche]

Well, you just admitted to posting a fact, that you now concede was an opinion.

Do you even bother to read what's been written...?

it seems to me that they frequently are poor spokesmen

Too bad you have not also admitted that your Michelle Malkin thread is...

What in Odin's name does it take to keep you on topic?

But to help you along with your pursuit of MSNBC conservative paid contributors:

Thanks. But I'm still not doing the legwork until we agree what it means.

The premise of this thread is that we conduct a structured experiment in order to score the networks. In order to do so we must establish a scoring system, however rudimentary.

You came up with a FOX list. What will it mean if I come up with a smaller/similar/larger MSNBC list?

 

[Lurker]

You say O'Reilly, FOX News most highly rated show, only has on "poor spokesman for their cause?" That is absurd. Is it his fault if representatives of American public schools, illegal immigration advocates and Code Pink are incapable of making their points using any substance or logic?

It is O'Reilly's fault if he chooses guests that are illprepared to argue their case. He had on two college kids the other day and one was a complete idiot. I suspect O'Reilly's producers knew it and it made O'Reilly look good.

I wonder why O'Reilly never has Alterman on? Or Krugman (although he may have had him once). Those are liberals that make their cases well.

 

[Lurker]

MSNBC is just so bad I don't know how they stay afloat. I guess ultra liberals really need to hear people on tv spew the same crap they do every day to affirm themselves.

You seem to have discovered the reason Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage are so popular on Talk Radio.

 

[Cicero]

It is O'Reilly's fault if he chooses guests that are illprepared to argue their case. He had on two college kids the other day and one was a complete idiot. I suspect O'Reilly's producers knew it and it made O'Reilly look good.

I wonder why O'Reilly never has Alterman on? Or Krugman (although he may have had him once). Those are liberals that make their cases well.

O'Reilly has on Phil Donahue. Is he not considered astute enough to argue his liberal cause? Or is he too old?

How about when O'Reilly gives the far left Sunsarah Taylor, the head of "The World Can't Wait," a forum on his show? Even though she is a screechy lib with the hippie name, and looks about 18 years-old, she stands her ground with O'Reilly and manges to get out all her slogans, ideology and vexations with the Bush administration. Or is she too young? She also appears on Hannity & Colmes, Fox & Friends, and the Alan Colmes Radio Show. So she has some experience speaking her mind on camera and the radio.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l-F-zmTNuk4

O'Reilly has on those people who have made political comments that for some reason or another, have made news. If the college kids come-off as moronic, then they should have prepared better before going on. That is the point of having them on. They get publicity by making drive by comments, and when they are called to account for the statements, they either wither under scrutiny, or manage to defend their positions with a degree of competence.

Even though Krugman did appear once on O'Reilly, he refuses to come back on. People like Chomsky, Zinn, Alterman do not seek out forums where their views are challenged.

 

[Policenaut]

You seem to have discovered the reason Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage are so popular on Talk Radio.

Yes that's true for the opposing ultra republicans but I never listen to radio shows so I pretty much block them out of existence in my mind. On the other hand, I do watch a decent amount of TV and I do switch between all the major cable and non-network news channels often just to see if any earth shattering thing has happened like non-biased reporting. I do feel sad and angry at people who get all their news from these channels because they are getting biased info (and more often than not opinions masked as fact) and use this crap to try to talk real politics in the outside world and if you challenge them on it they are thicker than bricks.