The Most Biased Name In News: Fox News

The Most Biased Name in News
Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt
By Seth Ackerman

"I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."
--Rupert Murdoch (Salon, 3/1/01)

"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look. "

www.fair.org...

Ok. Conservatives might have Fox. O'Reilly isn�t a liberal, that�s for sure (though I might be wrong � he opposes the death penalty, whereas most conservatives support it so I hear). Greta was a CNN employee who came to fox. While at CNN she seemed to support Clinton (didn�t think he should be impeached, etc). The Hannity and Colmes show speaks for itself. Of course WSJ may support republicans � it�s a paper about money, capitalism and isn�t going to support candidates that don�t support what the journal stands for. I don�t see the WSJ as being mass media like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc � it�s apples and oranges. Rush? C�mon � same thing as WSJ � even more so. Rush isn�t news � it�s conservative commentary and quite honestly it�s successful. (Why can�t the left counter with a leftist/liberal talk show??? � wait, they have and they all fail). In reality � they do have a radio market: it�s NPR. Which can only succeed with public funds.

So, while the conservatives may have fair and balanced Fox on their side the balance of the media is still tilted to the left. And if the WSJ editorial page is right leaning then what about the NY Times � their whole paper is left bias. Not to mention all the other so-called former democrats at the other outlets like CNN � they mention Tony Snow � but what about Chris Matthews, Russert, Phillips, George Stephanopoulos, Dan Rather (a Demsy fundraiser favorite), Katie Couric (secure.mediaresearch.org...) and the list goes on and on. Oh � how�s Donahue doing these days.

This is an absurd thread considering the rest of the media is so biased to the left that it makes someone posting such a claim to be either totally brainwashed to the point they are unable to see the bias or is unhappy because their is a lone voice in the wilderness to counter the leftist agenda and feels it needs to be silenced.

That Fox News is taking so much of the viewing public must be disturbing to the ones that have had total control of what the American viewer is allowed to see.

The actual news is "fair" as it is passed along to the viewers, without the obvious subjective deliveries given by the likes of Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and all of CNN. It also seems to pick up on stories that the left would rather the public not know, which is another way of showing bias on the part of the "mainstream" media.

Where Fox News does seem to corner the market is in commentary and news talk shows. These, however, might be something the American liberal should watch in order to get the "other" side's point of view. This is something that "mainstream America" was fed continuously until Fox News - the other side's point of view, that is.

The Right Wingers have spoken!!!
Guys, did you read the article, or just the excerpt?
How, for a second, can you even attempt to make the argument that the advertiser-needy-Big Seven-Corporate Media, that owns every outlet is not right biased!?!?!

Read this again, ok?
"Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

CNN - Right
Fox - Far Right
MSNBC - Right
WSJ - Far Right
WP - Right
NYT - Moderate to Right

Vivendi/Universal
AOL/Time Warner
Disney
Bertlesmann AG
Viacom
News Corporation
......The Kings of all Media, globally

www.mediachannel.org...

You think Viacom is going to let Dan Rather or Dave Leterman tug the leash to far without yanking back? Same for Disney & Jennings or GE & Brokaw?

Originally posted by Bout Time

Vivendi/Universal
AOL/Time Warner
Disney
Bertlesmann AG
Viacom

In the Eu, these medias are biased to the left ( when it's not the far-left ). But I don't know how they act in the USA.

BT, you really think the NY TIMES is moderate to right? That's funny. They're the most liberal bias paper in the US, imho.

Here's a great site for you to look at:
www.mediaresearch.org...

NYT, CNN...right-wing? *howling with laughter!*

"Let's see, if we say that CNN and NYT is right-wing press, then we can make them be part of what is obviously what the majority of America considers itself. If the majority of the majority of Americans buy that line of bull, then we can feed them the continuous liberal garbage and get them where we want them!"

Yup, that was the beginning of the game plan. Their motto isn't "If you can't beat'em, join'em", it's more along the lines of "If you can't beat them fairly, use lies, deception and ploys!"

The media anymore is obviously right wing.Fox News does not even try to hide the fact that they are biased in their reporting & I dismiss anyone who gets their news from Fox.Thats like me saying I get my news from The Star or the Globe or the New York Post or Matt Drudge.The best place to get the news anymore is BBC or The Guardian.If you want to know whats going in the US,turn to the foreign press.Whenever I hear people talk about the "Liberal Media Myth", I always ask if this is the same 'Libera Media' that crucified Bill Clinton?The same 'Liberal Media' that dismiss all of George Bush's 'Bushisms' (as Jay Leno said,"Thats right.After 9/11 Bush became smart")Look at all those who own the press nowadays.Anyone can see for themselves that these CEO's are BIG supporters of the Republican Party(Rupert Murdoch probably the biggest)

I recently saw the movie "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington" A great movie!!!Anyway,even back then they were discussing the Corporate Media & how they owned all the press & controlled what the politicians 'THEY" supported had to say.All the Republicans I work with & most my family (who are Republicans) even say the Media is very conservative.I have no idia why the Right Wing gets so pissed off when thats pointed out to them.They should be proud,after all thats what they want.History repeats itself & this country is turning into Berlin,1939.Just read the book '1984' & this could have been written today.I'm sure I'll be crucified for saying this,but why are so mant Republicans so out of it when we refer to the media as being conservative?You own the AM radio waves,the house & Senate,why is the media any different?Isn't that the republican agenda?To control?To dismiss & discredit ANYONE who doesn't agree with the republican idias of what America should be?If you disagree w/Bush,your Anti-American & all of that.America should welcome idias that are different.I'm liberal & proud of it & enjoy nothing more than a civil debate w/those who have different idias than mine.Anymore,A magority of the Republicans I have encountered feel threatned & repulsed by those who are not conservative.

Anyway,didn't mean to go off on a rant.I'm new hear & have agreed w/those hear who are obviously republican on some issues in the past.The last thing I want is to get off on the wrong foot here,but I thought I'd just let some here know where I stand (cause I know where most here stand on most issues)Hopefully,this is a place where I can express myself w/out pissing people off.Anyways,this site isn't for everyone,but I found it pretty interesting beings its kind of the topic of choice here.

www.mediawhoresonline.com...

[Edited on 7-12-2002 by romantico]

I like fox news, they definitely are not 100% correct all the time but
they are the only ones with one of the best shows called hannity and colmes, although
colmes gets hammered into the ground every night because he is a liberal.

CNN thomas says left.

well i remember not to long ago them giving more air time to the
pro war rallies, when they would give no time to the anti war protesters
which far out numbered the pro war people by the thousands.

does that sound left??

peace.

Truth, it appears that the W.O.T. is the only thing going on in the world today, but there is more. Besides, there are plenty of liberals in the government that are pro-war, so it's hard to see the war as a right issue.

I have not noticed that the doves are in the majority at all. As a matter of fact, in the polls as well as in my experience it seems that most aree wanting to bust Saddam's chops.

[Edited on 7-12-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

Romantico: Welcome. Speak your mind and don't have a concern if you piss someone off...they'll let you know right quickly! I am as amused as you that they have a media monopoly AND still push the myth of a Liberal Media. Just think as the RNC chair stated "Working the Ref, working the ref".

Truth: "colmes gets hammered into the ground every night because he is a liberal."
No, he gets hammered because he's a former stand up comic!
These shows, by their own admission, are Harlem Globetrotter games laeled as political debate.

read the article

Bob

So, you're trying to say the Media is not biased towards Conservatives by quoting a CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK!?!?!
Let's take a look at their home page:
1) " the Media Research Center and other conservative critics have completely beaten the bias out of the liberal press"
2) " Al Gore's Awful Media Gaffes "
3) An ad for everyone's favorite transvestites book, Ann Coulters Slander

....and that's only half way down the page!

Damn Bob, you need to go fishing!
Meet you at Walker's Cay for some light tackle bone fishing?

LOL, Globetrotter games.

There is no doubt in anybody's mind that Alan, although a nice fellow, needs to be replaced with someone a little sharper. He has no chance of competing against Sean. I wish they'd put someone more comparable to the rival.

When was he a stand-up?

No, keep Alan. They put the brain of the DNC (Carville) on Crossfire against Tucker � so it all evens out.

I don't know, but I'm sure he brought home enough 'salad' after each show.
Not to be petty, but can he get any more freakin' UGLY!?!?!

Alas, letting Murdoch anywhere near a nation's media is not to be recommended -as any older reader of the London Times will know.
His rags print what sells and change according to location: here's a rather interesting tirade against the Vile One in the Ozzie media www.newaus.com.au...
where you'll see a directly opposite view of Murdoch from that being touted in the US scribble-market.
Newspaper and media owners are biased towards one thing only, to-day: their own wealth: and that generally involves identifying a lowest-common-denominator niche: if one lot support the Dems, support the GOP - you'll get about half the market.
It is largely true that the Reps kept quiet about the spineless US media during the Clinton era; but -then again -the media were seldom critical of anyone at that time.
Reps have a diffciult task with the media -on the one hand, the media is probably always on their side for purely capitalistic reasons: on the other hand, the media need to present this illusion of "independence" which means very often a "liberal" air: I don't imagine they give a damn what they publish as long as it sells more than anyone else sells.
And the Dems are big favourites among the vested interests who control the media ( probably because an air of liberalism helps disguise their greed)
One recalls GB1 trying to deal with pro-Israeli lobbyists and media hacks and getting a drubbing for it.
In truth, one would almost welcome a consistently biased source of news - at least one would have something that resembled a point of view.
In fact, one gets only sloppy "entertainment-value" cut and paste and insipid commentary sometimes sensationalised to the sort of degree of fake commitment and passion that one asociates with a sports commentator desperately trying to make a match sound entertaining - when it's awful -because that's what he's paid to do: regardless of the reality.

And although it's not what it was: the fact that the BBC is independent and essentially non-commercial is probably what keeps it as the best source of global news on the planet. It's the only organisation that still has a great chain of foreign correspondents: where CBS, say, once had 20-30 American media will have at most 4-5 and rely on cut and paste from ASP, Reuters etc. for the rest. Who's in Afghanistan now from the American media?
And it is rather intriguing that, while US media spend fortunes on the dubious services of this or that anchorperson -as if it mattered, as far as the news is concerned - the most trusted news service in the wolrd comes from an unseen person, probably earning less than Dan Rather's hairdresser's bill, on a radio tuned to the BBC World Service.

The whole premise of an unbiased or non politically motivated media, right or left, is so unplausable as to defy rational argument.

Might I ask, what purpose is served by a news organization having strong political motivations?

And please, no silly knee-jerk juvenile NWO responses. These news entities must make some degree of profit. We have witnessed, and are witnessing various news services under extreme financial difficulty, some have even failed. What possible motivation could lie in not catering to what maintains profitability?

Very true regarding the BBC....I turn to them regularly; in truth, I get my news from foreign sources about what's going on in my own damn country...pity.

News

Profitability = Info-tainment

Info-tainment = Bias

Bias = Under informed Voter

Under Informed Voter = George W. Bush

George W. Bush = Poverty, ecoglogical disaster, Perpetual War, a Two class caste system, the fall of Modern Rome

"Might I ask, what purpose is served by a news organization having strong political motivations?"

Political influence / access is massively profitable.
Media Access / influence is massively desirable politically.

[Edited on 10-12-2002 by Lupe_101]