Report: Fox most balanced in reporting on candidates

Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

30 May 2008, 10:42 am

Quote:
An analysis of cable news coverage of the presidential election during the first three months of the year indicates FOX News dealt with the three major contenders most equally — with CNN and MSNBC both giving the Democratic candidates far more coverage than the Republican.

But what may surprise you are some of the conclusions in the report by The Project for Excellence in Journalism — a non-partisan research group:

"FOX News was the harshest of the three channels on the presumptive Republican nominee."

FOX News was also said to be more positive in its portrayal of Obama's major personal narrative than either McCain's or Clinton's. And... "FOX News did offer more positive than negative assertions about Clinton."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360301,00.html


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

30 May 2008, 11:03 am

OUTFOXED: Murdochs war on journalism

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3434902428



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

30 May 2008, 11:09 am

Ragtime wrote:
Quote:
An analysis of cable news coverage of the presidential election during the first three months of the year indicates FOX News dealt with the three major contenders most equally — with CNN and MSNBC both giving the Democratic candidates far more coverage than the Republican.



When McCain clinched the Republican nomination, newsiness on the Republican side immediately decreased. One could say that FOX's giving equal time when the stories were not of equal magnitude reflects their pro-Republican bias. Also, since Clinton and Obama were competing against each other, coverage of either of these candidates was more likely to involve coverage of the other Democrat - there was a natural tendency for comparing the two Democrats.


Ragtime wrote:
Quote:

"FOX News was the harshest of the three channels on the presumptive Republican nominee."



Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is also pretty harsh on McCain - not because Limbaugh is being fair in any way, simply because he hates McCain for not being conservative enough but still managing to get the Republican nomination.

Quote:
The dominant theme about McCain, that he may not be a true conservative, was established early in the coverage––evident in the first months of 2007—and has resonated as a concern even among those in his own party. As late as April 2008, more than a month after McCain has secured the party’s nomination, likely Republican voters were split in our surveys over whether he really is a true conservative.

http://journalism.org/node/11266


Is the fact that the media asks about McCains conservative credentials a reflection on their bias, or simply due to their coverage of the large number of people (especially Republicans) that are asking that question?



LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

30 May 2008, 11:59 am

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lol:


'Fox' and 'balanced' should never be in the same sentence, unless we're talking about a small European mammal highly skilled in the field of gymnastics...


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


Hector
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,493

30 May 2008, 1:22 pm

McCain ran away with the nomination early on while Clinton and Obama have been embroiled in a fairly bitter, close-run contest. Obviously the latter contest should be of more interest to both Democrats and Republicans.

After the Democratic nominee has been decided, then we can agree that the two candidates should have more or less equal coverage.



MR_BOGAN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2008
Age: 126
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,479
Location: The great trailer park in the sky!

31 May 2008, 1:07 am

Image


_________________
Dirty Dancing (1987) - Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8CmMJf8QA


Fred2670
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 305
Location: USA

31 May 2008, 1:51 am

Image

"Where the spin begins and he looks
out for nothing but his own ratings"..

Hey Bill, dont be so "coprophagus"

what a pinhead


_________________
ALT+F4=Life


Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

31 May 2008, 1:54 am

Really? :?

Bill O'reilly says that there is no homeless veterans; this comes as a surprise to homeless veterans.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAPf2x96I0[/youtube]

A group gets together to try to deliver to O'reilly a petition with 17,000 signatures verifying that there are in fact a fair number of homeless veterans.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPxJPdGwRYY[/youtube]

Bill O'reilly reponds to the event by insulting everyone associated with it, mostly in ways completely unrelated to the gathering itself, and conviently neglects to mention the petition, or concede that he was wrong.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0qSfH4TI30[/youtube]

And you don't see anything wrong with this? 8O



Thomas1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 470

31 May 2008, 2:24 am

Speckles wrote:
And you don't see anything wrong with this? 8O


Yes, I absolutely do.

O'Reilly's dead right. The majority of homeless people, veterans or not, are the result of mental illness and/or drug abuse.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

31 May 2008, 12:27 pm

Thomas1138 wrote:
Speckles wrote:
And you don't see anything wrong with this? 8O


Yes, I absolutely do.

O'Reilly's dead right. The majority of homeless people, veterans or not, are the result of mental illness and/or drug abuse.


Well, first thing, his claim was that there were no or later on very few homeless veterans. It doesn't particularly matter what reason he gives for them being homeless, he still was wrong and refused to admit the fact. Instead he tried to smear the people accusing him. This is very dishonest journalism; first he makes a poorly researched assertion, then doesn't admit his mistake, and then takes potshots at the people who try to correct him. The whole point of journalism is to reveal truth, not spin it.

Seconded, what the heck do you think happens when you put people on the front line? They become mentally imbalanced by the horrors they see and the ones they commit. Only true sociopaths can hurt and murder people without going a little loopy. If veterans develop mental illness from the stress or develop addictions, can you really blame them? Would you do any better in their place?

To try to ignore this damage, and just let them rot in the streets, unable to heal from the damage they got from serving their country, pretty much shows that Bill O'Reilly is a complete hypocrite when he claims to support the troops. He's showing that what he really supports is the war, and US imperialism; the people fighting it should just be ignored once they aren't useful anymore.

You ask people to put themselves in harms way, both body and soul, you f*****g take care of them after.



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

31 May 2008, 1:42 pm

Why were CBS, NBC,ABC and CNN (in other words, serious news organizations) not included in this study?


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

31 May 2008, 10:26 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
Why were CBS, NBC,ABC and CNN (in other words, serious news organizations) not included in this study?


Because fox news only considers other 24 hour cable news outlets to be "news" (PS: CNN was included)...

The **** they (and by they I mean all the 24 hour cable news outlets) get away with sickens me... it's a good thing I have an outlet for frustration or I would have probably lost my mind a long time ago...



Thomas1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 470

01 Jun 2008, 2:50 am

Quote:
Well, first thing, his claim was that there were no or later on very few homeless veterans. It doesn't particularly matter what reason he gives for them being homeless, he still was wrong and refused to admit the fact.


Well, I can't see your videos thanks to a firewall, but I've seen O'Reilly jump up and down about this subject more than once and he hasn't denied their existance. He's angry that people are using the economy as a reason for it. Furthermore, he encourages more to be done to help them.

Here's a transcript of one of his Talking Points and an interview immediately following:

Quote:
But first, let's look at our pal John Edwards, who's running for president. Edwards contends there are two Americas, one for the rich and the other for everybody else. And that everybody else is getting hosed. The fix is in, the economy's rigged.

"Talking Points" doesn't believe that. Of course the rich do have advantages, but I am living proof that you can start with very little and prosper economically if you work hard and keep it honest. To hype up this class warfare, Edwards is now bringing in homeless veterans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: Tonight, across this country, 200,000 men and women who wear our uniform and can serve this country patriotically, veterans, will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Now I've said on this program that we will pay for homeless veterans to be taken to the Edwards mansion in North Carolina for shelter. Of course, that's an immature remark, I know that, but there's a reason I'm saying it. Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about. But if Edwards admits the truth, it takes away the class warfare issue, which is his only issue. My criticism of Edwards has reached his own ears.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: I heard that last night Bill O'Reilly, who's a talk show host, just heard that I had said this about hundreds of thousands of veterans who don't have a place to live and were homeless. And he challenged me about whether that's true or not. Whether in fact we have that many veterans who don't have a place to live, and some of them are sleeping under bridges. Well, he ought to start by coming to Las Vegas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Fine. Here's the truth about poverty in America, Mr. Edwards. Listen up. You might learn something. And you need the lesson.

If you earn less than $10,000, you are poor. If a family of four earns less than $21,000, they are poor. Yet according to the government census, poor households in America have lots of stuff. 97 percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.

So if the poor are not destitute in America, and they obviously are not, why are so many veterans sleeping under bridges, John Edwards? The answer again they're mostly addicted or mentally ill. It has nothing to do with the economy.

Edwards is a charlatan, a man either too uninformed or too dishonest to be elected to anything. I am tired of hearing this nonsense from him and other callow politicians. We deal with facts here on "The Factor", not fiction. John Edwards owes us an apology. And that's a Memo.

Now for the top story tonight, reaction to this. Joining us from Washington, Cheryl Beversdorf, the CEO of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Here in New York City, our pal Joseph Califano, the president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, and author of the very fine book "High Society: How Substance Abuse Ravages America and What to Do About It."

All right, am I out of line here?

JOSEPH CALIFANO: Without dealing with Edwards directly at this point...

O'REILLY: Oh, you're a Democrat. You don't want to...

CALIFANO: Now wait a minute. But let me give you the facts on substance abuse. Our work and most of the research will show that about 90 percent of the homeless in this country have drug problems or alcohol problems or both. And most of those people also have mental health problems of one kind of another...

O'REILLY: OK, so that includes the veterans, too.

CALIFANO: The veterans -- we have 200,000 veterans who are homeless.

O'REILLY: Right.

CALIFANO: We have about 754,000 people who are out on the streets on any given night in the United States.

O'REILLY: OK, so 90 percent you're saying.

CALIFANO: Now one factor, a very important fact about the veterans. I mean, the veterans are -- the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them.

O'REILLY: And that is something that should be addressed.

CALIFANO: The Veterans Administration spends about half a billion dollars a year in substance abuse treatment and methanol maintenance for the heroin addicts. But that's not enough.

O'REILLY: OK.

CALIFANO: And it's not a...

O'REILLY: Nobody is arguing that, Mr. Califano.

CALIFANO: OK.

O'REILLY: What we're arguing about is this is being demagogued by a guy who's trying to put up a phony scenario, Ms. Beversdorf, that it's poverty driving the people who are in trouble out on the street. It isn't poverty. It is as Mr. Califano defined abuse of substance and mental health problems, which I think everyone agrees, particularly with combat veterans, should be addressed in a very urgent and aggressive way. But that's not what Edwards is saying, madam.

CHERYL BEVERSDORF, NAT'L COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETS: Well, I think that's true. I mean, there's a number of things that I want to comment on. First of all, using the figure of 200,000, I keep hearing about the fact that they're on the street. A homeless veteran may not necessarily be on the street. A homeless veteran could be in a community-based organization, which is the kinds of organizations that we represent, that provide support of services and housing for these individuals. They could be living with relatives. They could be...

O'REILLY: OK, but that's not what John Edwards is saying. He's clearly saying they're on the street.

BEVERSDORF: Well...

O'REILLY: Nobody will help them. The reason it is because the economy's terrible, because the rich people are taking stuff. We have a military analyst named Colonel David Hunt. He works with veterans who are in trouble up in Boston. And just as you said, just as you said, madam, there are places for them to go. There are services. We know they need more.

But here's what I want to get into with both of you. And I know you don't want to assassinate any characters, Joe. I know that. But this is wrong for a major presidential candidate to demagogue this issue and try to tell the people it's America's economic system that's causing this problem, is a lie, it's wrong, he should be called on it. And the resources should be put into the -- where you want them to try to make these people better.


I see little in in that transcript that's disagreeable or disrespectful of the troops. Also your second point in which you accuse O'Reilly of not understanding the nature of war and not caring about their mental health services is directly rebutted.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

01 Jun 2008, 11:41 am

Yeah, I'm going to call bullcrap on that. If choose to turn off your firewall for long enough to watch the first clip, you can see that Bill O'Reilly flat out denies the existance of homeless veterans, and ridicules the very idea.

Now, I could imagine he backing off a bit later, after the people in the second clip all but shoved to proof of his 'mistake' in his face. This would be more admirable if he hadn't then proceeded to mock them in the third clip I presented, and lie about the protest being unsuccessful, since if he ate his words it pretty clearly was.

But the real insult is that 'expert' he called to interview. 90% is an absolutely ridiculous statement. To quote the National Coalition of the Homeless's release on who is homeless:

Quote:
Approximately 16% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe
and persistent mental illness (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005).

and
Quote:
While there is no generally accepted "magic number" with
respect to the prevalence of addiction disorders among homeless adults, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors’ number in 2005 was 30%, and the frequently cited figure of about 65% is probably at
least double the real rate for current addiction disorders among all single adults who are
homeless in a year.


So, the maximum number of homeless that have mental illness or addiction is 46%. But it's actually going to be less then that, since obviously there are homeless who are both mentally ill and addicted.

So good for Bill O'Reilly, he got an 'expert' to flat out lie about the facts on his program and spit out figures that are twice the amount of the actual figures. How accurate are the rest of his figures? If he can't even be bothered to check his facts, then IMO that shows he doesn't really care.

Edit: Forgot to include the link to the release.

Who is Homeless?



Thomas1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 470

01 Jun 2008, 5:34 pm

Okay, watched it. Totally unimpressed with a couple of out-of-context quotes when I've got a full accounting of O'Relly's opinion here.

Take the hate elsewhere.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

01 Jun 2008, 6:09 pm

Thomas1138 wrote:
Okay, watched it. Totally unimpressed with a couple of out-of-context quotes when I've got a full accounting of O'Relly's opinion here.

Take the hate elsewhere.


Please elaborate, what exactly do you feel was taken out of context? And what about the huge discrepancy between the official numbers and the numbers given by his expert, Califano? Can you explain why there would be such a huge error in his official transcript?


(Also, putting aside the heat for a moment, could you please post a link to where you got the transcript? I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, so I only really see what I've heard on youtube, which I admit may be taken out of context. I don't think so myself, but as I strongly dislike O'Reilly, I might be biased. If you could link to the full transcript, then I could read what was said in context for myself. Same goes for anyone else reading this thread.

Also, if you could figure out which government census he's getting his figures about what <$10,000 a year families own. As far as I can tell he's pulling numbers out of thin air. He really should name his sources better, it would help with his credibility issues. Is it listed in the credits or something?)