Is Fox News bad for you?

[Chaos]

You're begging the question to a considerable degree. What you might call facts, I might call opinions, and vice versa. Who is to decide which is which? If the news media were reporting on the solution to a quadratic equation, it should be possible to agree on all of the facts. But what if it is reporting on whether somebody's health insurance plan is now "better" than it was before? If the new plan is not clearly better in all material respects (cost, copay, coinsurance, deductible, coverage, out of pocket caps, and provider network) than who is to decide the relative merits of each of those factors? And what if one side is claiming that certain hidden costs are being ignored, e.g. cost to taxpayers, cost to other premium payers, cost in terms of the quality of medical service overall or perhaps the speed of medical innovation? Reporting on issues which divide us politically is always tricky. If all of the relevant facts were clear, then the issue probably wouldn't be one on which we were divided politically.

Which facts? There are an infinitude of facts out there. It's always a subjective judgment call as to which facts are worth reporting. A uniformity in editorial selection of what to report would indeed betray a troubling group-think, and such a scenario is not to be welcomed.

Facts are facts, no matter if your viewers or the guys who pay your salaries like them or agree with them. Report them as impartially as humanly possible, or stop calling yourselves journalists.

A "News" channel that is in fact a thinly-to-not-at-all veiled hyperconservative editorial section pisses on the concept of "News" - Fox "News" is the only thing that´s Orwellian here.

 

[MontagK505]

Facts are facts, no matter if your viewers or the guys who pay your salaries like them or agree with them. Report them as impartially as humanly possible, or stop calling yourselves journalists.

A "News" channel that is in fact a thinly-to-not-at-all veiled hyperconservative editorial section pisses on the concept of "News" - Fox "News" is the only thing that´s Orwellian here.

It would be Orwellian if it were the only news.

 

[Ziggurat]

Facts are facts

That's not the issue. Sampling is. Here, I'm make it simple for you:

Suppose a person makes 100 statements, and of those statements, 50 of them are lies, and 50 of them are true. They are lying half the time.

But suppose I don't examine every single statement this person makes. Instead, I only look at a sample of 10 of those statements. Suppose that, in my sample, I find 8 true statements and 2 false statements. How often does the person lie? Well, 20% of my sample is lies, but they're still lying 50% of the time. Why the discrepancy? My sample is not representative. By picking an unrepresentative sample, I can make it appear that this person is either lying more or less than they actually are. I might pick an unrepresentative sample intentionally, or I might even do so accidentally.

Is Politifact's sampling representative? We have no reason to expect so. When people perform actual scientific studies that rely upon sampling, they have to take steps to ensure that their sampling is as representative as possible. Has Politifact taken any steps to ensure this? No, they have not. Furthermore, they don't even claim to have done so, and I don't think they claim that their sampling is representative either. There is, therefore, no legitimacy in using their sample as if it's representative.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, and for those who think that CNN is really so much better than Fox, well...

 

[DavidJames]

Which facts? There are an infinitude of facts out there. It's always a subjective judgment call as to which facts are worth reporting. A uniformity in editorial selection of what to report would indeed betray a troubling group-think, and such a scenario is not to be welcomed.

What a bunch of gobbledygook pseudo skeptical clap trap. Barely worthy of a participation trophy (but does drive up your Internet Points). I understand reluctance to make a negative comment about your team, but I'm sure you realize you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

What a bunch of gobbledygook pseudo skeptical clap trap. Barely worthy of a participation trophy (but does drive up your Internet Points). I understand reluctance to make a negative comment about your team, but I'm sure you realize you're not fooling anyone.

So you're defending the idea that media reporting should all be the same?

Strange. I wonder what "team" that viewpoint represents.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, and for those who think that CNN is really so much better than Fox, well......

Sensationalizing an actual fact is not the same as purposeful deceit. Those hornets are as big as the palm of your hand, I'd see pictures of them before.

 

[lobosrul]

Sensationalizing an actual fact is not the same as purposeful deceit. Those hornets are as big as the palm of your hand, I'd see pictures of them before.

Methinks you need to take a closer look at the map.

 

[sunmaster14]

Methinks you need to take a closer look at the map.

Somehow I don't think that will help. This might though.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's not the issue. Sampling is. Here, I'm make it simple for you:

Suppose a person makes 100 statements, and of those statements, 50 of them are lies, and 50 of them are true. They are lying half the time.

But suppose I don't examine every single statement this person makes. Instead, I only look at a sample of 10 of those statements. Suppose that, in my sample, I find 8 true statements and 2 false statements. How often does the person lie? Well, 20% of my sample is lies, but they're still lying 50% of the time. Why the discrepancy? My sample is not representative. By picking an unrepresentative sample, I can make it appear that this person is either lying more or less than they actually are. I might pick an unrepresentative sample intentionally, or I might even do so accidentally.

Is Politifact's sampling representative? We have no reason to expect so. When people perform actual scientific studies that rely upon sampling, they have to take steps to ensure that their sampling is as representative as possible. Has Politifact taken any steps to ensure this? No, they have not. Furthermore, they don't even claim to have done so, and I don't think they claim that their sampling is representative either. There is, therefore, no legitimacy in using their sample as if it's representative.

I think this was meant for the other thread. You know, the other idiotic one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sensationalizing an actual fact is not the same as purposeful deceit. Those hornets are as big as the palm of your hand, I'd see pictures of them before.

Um... did you not notice the map?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Methinks you need to take a closer look at the map.

Whoops!

But that error is not going to be something they did purposefully which is what the discussion is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whoops!

But that error is not going to be something they did purposefully which is what the discussion is.

The OP makes no mention of intentional false reporting. Intentional false reporting may be what interests you in this thread, but there's no reason the rest of us need limit our discussions to that alone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The OP makes no mention of intentional false reporting. Intentional false reporting may be what interests you in this thread, but there's no reason the rest of us need limit our discussions to that alone.

Basically Fox news is full on conservative hosts who spend a great deal of time reading all the hate mail they get as proof that they are doing a good job.

I'm pretty sure the question, is it bad for the country, is not about sloppy mistakes.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm pretty sure the question, is it bad for the country, is not about sloppy mistakes.

Not to quibble, but sloppy mistakes can be just as bad as deliberate lies. Some of these people believe their own lies or sloppy mistakes. Part of it the marketplace effect of slanting your output to match a audience. It does bother me when writers can't be bothered to proofread their own poop.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not to quibble, but sloppy mistakes can be just as bad as deliberate lies.....

Can be, but we aren't talking hypotheticals here. An idiot staffer on CNN that marked Hong Kong on a South America map in no way compares to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes using fake news to promote a political agenda.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can be, but we aren't talking hypotheticals here. An idiot staffer on CNN that marked Hong Kong on a South America map in no way compares to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes using fake news to promote a political agenda.

Have you forgotten about Dan Rather and Mary Mapes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you forgotten about "OutFoxed" and the fact Fox News lies every day?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The Daily Show is more than just a comedy show, and Jon Stewart née Leibowitz is more than just a comedian.

What was the point of that?

 

[sunmaster14]

What was the point of that?

Stewart was his comedic stage name (although I guess it has since become his real name). I was claiming that he is more than just a comedian, so I thought it appropriate to refer to the real name he had until early adulthood. I'll admit also to having a slight bias against performers who create new names for themselves. There seems to be something ungenuine about it, which I suppose is consistent with the type of person who would organize a "nonpartisan" rally in DC three days before the 2010 mid-term elections in a desperate attempt to stem the Republican tide.