• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans

tytlyf

Not Religious
When I watch fox I can see these techniques. How do fox viewers not notice this going on?

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans

"TruthOut.org by Cynthia Boaz
July 2,2011
The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you.

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping."

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans | News & Politics | AlterNet

BLUNT: 14 Propaganda Techniques Fox News Uses to Brainwash Americans - YouTube
 
Last edited:

tytlyf

Not Religious
And please no replies stating "All mainstream media does the same thing."

I've heard that one too many times and is not the truth.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And please no replies stating "All mainstream media does the same thing."

I've heard that one too many times and is not the truth.

head_in_sand.jpg%253Fw%253D450%2526h%253D297.jpg


I watch MSNBC and Fox and then throw in some CNN for a more moderate POV. I can assure you that both Fox AND MSNBC use the VERY same tactics - blatantly. CNN less so, in my opinion - but their overall coverage is lackluster in general.

I get my news from a wide variety of sources and figure that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I also research any topic that interests me significantly, especially if I'm trying to decide how to apply the information to my life.

I never trust a single news source for ANYTHING. They all have an agenda, every last one of them.

Follow the money.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
People who say Fox isn't as bad as the other channels never, in my experience, offer any scientific evidence for their claim. Instead, they appear to be grabbing their claim from god knows where. Now, I'm not saying the other channels are pristine bastions of truth -- I'm certain you can find some false or misleading reports on them too. After all, all the channels are corporate owned, not just Fox. But if the non-Fox channels file false or misleading reports as often as Fox, why can't Fox defenders point to any science that supports their claim?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
OK - I think that Fox falsifies and exaggerates news very often. Since this forum is already chock full of examples of their shenanigans, I am not going to repeat those here. Instead I will give some examples of other media/network shenanigans:

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : NBC News and the Death of Truth
Edited 911 call - George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case

Lost in Translation
Numerous mainstream media sources perpetrate the erroneous statement from Iran -Ahmadinijad has never stated that he intends to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" with any sort of military action whatsoever.

ABC Errs on Obama's Iraq Votes
ABC errs on Obama's Iraq Votes

ABC's Iran Propaganda
More from ABC on Iran

CBS Undercounts Iraqi Deaths
CBS severely underreports Iraqi civilian deaths

PBS Responds on Dow-Funded Series
Dow Chemical funds PBS show - violates PBS underwriting guidelines, but what the heck, they're keeping it.

Good article on typical "mainstream media" tactics at play in the recent Wisconsin recall vote:
Dear News Media: Please Stop Spinning…It’s Unethical. Also Embarrassing. | Ethics Alarms

MSNBC on Memorial Day - absolutely unbelievable:
Memorial Day Ethics Dunce: MSNBC Host Chris Hayes | Ethics Alarms

CNN's "Question of the Day"
Insidious Bias: CNN’s “Question of the Day” | Ethics Alarms

Is discussing the relationship between Rev Wright and Obama a "racist tactic?"
Racism, the Media, and Reverend Wright Distortions | Ethics Alarms

The Washington Post's ridiculous headline regarding George Zimmerman's genetic pool:
Ethically Confounding Quote of the Year (Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Division): The Washington Post | Ethics Alarms

Ahhh, the irony - MSNBC's Chris Matthews gets to experience a bit of karma:
Chris Matthews Gets A Lesson On The Golden Rule | Ethics Alarms

I can get a lot more of this stuff, but this should do for a start.

By the way, please note that the Ethics Alarm website as well as Fair.org are NOT "right wing" websites at all. I could not find any apparent bias in either website. Can you?
 
It is interesting to note that FAIR is decidedly on the left, and as far as I can tell every example Kathryn used from FAIR points out a conservative / pro-business / pro-American bias in the TV news networks. This runs contrary to the common claim that while Fox News has a conservative bias, it at least serves to balance out the alleged liberal bias in the rest of the media.

As far as ethicsalarms.com goes, I wouldn't take it seriously. The WP did not run a "ridiculous headline" about the Trayvon Martin shooting, as Kathryn claims, it was a sentence in an article. Furthermore, that sentence does not deserve to be the "ethically confounding quote of the year" as ethicsalarm.com claims. In context, the quote is entirely appropriate and relevant and, if anything, it supports the view that George Zimmerman was not racially motivated.

Still, I probably agree with Kathryn that we should not take any of the TV news networks seriously, frankly. Especially the 24-hour news channels.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It is interesting to note that FAIR is decidedly on the left, and as far as I can tell every example Kathryn used from FAIR points out a conservative / pro-business / pro-American bias in the TV news networks. This runs contrary to the common claim that while Fox News has a conservative bias, it at least serves to balance out the alleged liberal bias in the rest of the media.

As far as ethicsalarms.com goes, I wouldn't take it seriously. The WP did not run a "ridiculous headline" about the Trayvon Martin shooting, as Kathryn claims, it was a sentence in an article. Furthermore, that sentence does not deserve to be the "ethically confounding quote of the year" as ethicsalarm.com claims. In context, the quote is entirely appropriate and relevant and, if anything, it supports the view that George Zimmerman was not racially motivated.

Still, I probably agree with Kathryn that we should not take any of the TV news networks seriously, frankly. Especially the 24-hour news channels.

Right on. However, I would add that if one is interested in ethical questions in our current society, the Ethics Alarm site is VERY interesting and full of all sorts of tidbits and questions - and does not seem to be biased in any particular direction.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
OK - I think that Fox falsifies and exaggerates news very often. Since this forum is already chock full of examples of their shenanigans, I am not going to repeat those here. Instead I will give some examples of other media/network shenanigans:

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : NBC News and the Death of Truth
Edited 911 call - George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case

Lost in Translation
Numerous mainstream media sources perpetrate the erroneous statement from Iran -Ahmadinijad has never stated that he intends to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" with any sort of military action whatsoever.

ABC Errs on Obama's Iraq Votes
ABC errs on Obama's Iraq Votes

ABC's Iran Propaganda
More from ABC on Iran

CBS Undercounts Iraqi Deaths
CBS severely underreports Iraqi civilian deaths

PBS Responds on Dow-Funded Series
Dow Chemical funds PBS show - violates PBS underwriting guidelines, but what the heck, they're keeping it.

Good article on typical "mainstream media" tactics at play in the recent Wisconsin recall vote:
Dear News Media: Please Stop Spinning…It’s Unethical. Also Embarrassing. | Ethics Alarms

MSNBC on Memorial Day - absolutely unbelievable:
Memorial Day Ethics Dunce: MSNBC Host Chris Hayes | Ethics Alarms

CNN's "Question of the Day"
Insidious Bias: CNN’s “Question of the Day” | Ethics Alarms

Is discussing the relationship between Rev Wright and Obama a "racist tactic?"
Racism, the Media, and Reverend Wright Distortions | Ethics Alarms

The Washington Post's ridiculous headline regarding George Zimmerman's genetic pool:
Ethically Confounding Quote of the Year (Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Division): The Washington Post | Ethics Alarms

Ahhh, the irony - MSNBC's Chris Matthews gets to experience a bit of karma:
Chris Matthews Gets A Lesson On The Golden Rule | Ethics Alarms

I can get a lot more of this stuff, but this should do for a start.

By the way, please note that the Ethics Alarm website as well as Fair.org are NOT "right wing" websites at all. I could not find any apparent bias in either website. Can you?

Could you save us some time by pointing out which of your references is to a scientifically conducted study or studies? Anecdotes can be informative in some ways, but they give little information on how frequently something happens. I agree that most -- and probably all -- news channels lie to, or mislead, their audiences. I just think the science supports the contention that Fox does it at a rate, or to a degree, that is exceptional.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Whenever Fox is criticized on this Forum, one or more people leap to point out that other channels do similar things. That's fine, even though it's a bit diversionary, and sometimes results in straying far from the OP. However, if we therefore were to conclude that Fox is in any sense justified in what it does, because other channels might do similar things, I think we would be guilty of fallacious reasoning. Specifically, the tu quoque fallacy.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Could you save us some time by pointing out which of your references is to a scientifically conducted study or studies? Anecdotes can be informative in some ways, but they give little information on how frequently something happens. I agree that most -- and probably all -- news channels lie to, or mislead, their audiences. I just think the science supports the contention that Fox does it at a rate, or to a degree, that is exceptional.

Do you think that the OP is handing us some sort of scientific study that Fox News is more deceptive? Or is the example in the OP an opinion piece?

Can you please give an example of a scientific study regarding Fox News so I can know precisely what you're looking for? Then I will gladly save you some time if possible.

Personally, as one who views most major US news sources as deeply flawed (follow the money is the term that springs to mind), INCLUDING but not limited to Fox, I'd like to see if there are some unbiased scientific studies out there that compare networks.

So far, I haven't been able to find one, but perhaps you have some info you could share.

Thanks.

Oh, one other point. I don't think ANY journalist or news source can be justified when they deceive the public - whether it's by blatant lies, misrepresentation, unfair balance of viewpoints, or "errors" of omission. Just because Fox does it - and of course they do - in no way justifies the same behavior in any other individual or organization.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Here are some actual studies done on bias in the media:

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/2012 Communicating Release.pdf
Page 4 specifically addresses the question of bias.

Interesting tidbit from this study:
Obama's First 100 Days | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

"There are significant variations in how the different media sectors have covered the Obama presidency. Newspapers and evening network television were most positive in their treatment of Obama. Online news sites were more neutral. Within the cable news universe, MSNBC and Fox News offered strikingly different portrayals of the young presidency, while CNN more closely reflected the tone of the media overall. Meanwhile, NPR and PBS offered the highest percentage of neutral stories of any outlets studied."

Study from UCLA:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

MS580

My question is this - why do ANY supposedly objective news programs/ journalists/networks lean one way or the other?

Is it even possible for them NOT to, might be the bigger question.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Do you think that the OP is handing us some sort of scientific study that Fox News is more deceptive? Or is the example in the OP an opinion piece?

Can you please give an example of a scientific study regarding Fox News so I can know precisely what you're looking for? Then I will gladly save you some time if possible.

Personally, as one who views most major US news sources as deeply flawed (follow the money is the term that springs to mind), INCLUDING but not limited to Fox, I'd like to see if there are some unbiased scientific studies out there that compare networks.

So far, I haven't been able to find one, but perhaps you have some info you could share.

Thanks.

Oh, one other point. I don't think ANY journalist or news source can be justified when they deceive the public - whether it's by blatant lies, misrepresentation, unfair balance of viewpoints, or "errors" of omission. Just because Fox does it - and of course they do - in no way justifies the same behavior in any other individual or organization.
There's pew research studies done on fox and other cable news. The study consistenly finds that fox viewers are the least informed.
Fox fights for it's right to lie in court.
These days I can't even watch fox because I can smell their BS immediately. Which I don't notice on other networks.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
All of the following studies have in common that they found Fox News viewers to be significantly less well informed on various matters than viewers of other channels. The last study even found Fox News viewers to be significantly less well informed than people who did not follow the news at all.

If Fox News is pumping out propaganda at a greater rate than other channels, this is precisely what one might expect to find.

Now, I suppose you could argue that Fox News viewers are naturally more ignorant than viewers of other channels, and that Fox News is not contributing to their ignorance with misinformation and lies. And there might be a little truth to the notion that Fox News viewers are naturally more ignorant. But I myself suspect that the greater truth is Fox News significantly contributes to its viewers ignorance. Just a hunch, though.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Fox-News.pdf

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8148.pdf

http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/kgarrett/MediaMosqueRumors.pdf

Some News Leaves People Knowing Less
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
My question is this - why do ANY supposedly objective news programs/ journalists/networks lean one way or the other?

Is it even possible for them NOT to, might be the bigger question.
I don't necessarily have an issue with a Network leaning a certain way, these are private companies. But it's another thing to lie and misinform on purpose.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
All of the following studies have in common that they found Fox News viewers to be significantly less well informed on various matters than viewers of other channels. The last study even found Fox News viewers to be significantly less well informed than people who did not follow the news at all.


Is that the question?

That's not what I asked you for. What I asked you for is an example of a scientific study comparing the incidents of bias in news sources.

Actually, I gave an example of such a study. Do you have others?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I don't necessarily have an issue with a Network leaning a certain way, these are private companies. But it's another thing to lie and misinform on purpose.

I agree - but is it even possible to give accurate news coverage if you are "leaning" in a certain political direction?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I don't necessarily have an issue with a Network leaning a certain way, these are private companies. But it's another thing to lie and misinform on purpose.

It is also one thing for a network to lean one way or the other, but quite another thing for its viewers to be duped by it. Studies of Fox News viewers consistently show them to be less well informed than viewers of other networks -- regardless of those network's alleged leanings. This might suggest that Fox News viewers are more systematically duped by Fox News.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Is that the question?

That's not what I asked you for. What I asked you for is an example of a scientific study comparing the incidents of bias in news sources.

Actually, I gave an example of such a study. Do you have others?

See post 19 as to why the sort of study you're asking for would be inconclusive.
 
Last edited:
Top