That particular PEJ report has its shortcomings, that is true; but the confluence of data provided here more or less agrees upon one fact: Fox News is more deliberately bias than many other news networks.
Which is somehow worse than liberal bias, either deliberate or unintended? The confluence of information proves nothing since there's so much subjectivity involved anyway. Granted: Fox is biased to the right. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that. Which makes the rest of the discussion boil down to: My Bias can beat up your Bias!
I'm also guessing that if you read the study deliberately to counter my opinion, you would selectively read data to do as such. It is amazing what ideological agreement/disagreement does to the interpretation of data.
Fox is biased Republican and heavily Neocon, I am neither.
However, I share the overall opinion found, and it is based on more than that Media Analysis report. When 89% of guests on Fox are avowed Republicans
Any data on the make up of guests for NPR, NBC, etc., and their political classification? Before Fox Republicans were an after thought for the networks, as was properly indentifying far left individuals and orgs. It's no wonder more of them show up on a network that is not only friendly to them, but challenges BS from the other side that would normally have gone unchallenged and unnoticed. For example, do you think anyone would have called Dan Rather on his story if Fox wasn't in the mix? I'm honestly unsure. And consider how many such incidents may have happened in the past without our knowledge because there was no right wing watch dog.
a poll of Journalists offers Fox as the most biased source (which was unprompted, apparently)
Substitute "Democrats" for "Journalists", and then ask me why I'm not surprised...
Also, the need to market news to people does not guarantee a centrist view, a statement I remember reading in this thread. It guarantees a variety of views aimed at market segments, some centrist, some liberal, some conservative. The need to market cars doesn't lead to every one of them looking like a Ford Taurus. You get variety, targeting, and differentiation, not homogeniety.
Also, if you check out the wiki on the subject, you'll find that a lot of the formats Fox uses, like the point counter point one, are designed to
fight bias. Success of course depends on execution. Brit Hume might not be the best moderator to say the least.
FAIR (although it is admittedly progressive) finds bias, their viewers are the most misinformed
Says who though? Cherry picking facts which might be disputable on certain grounds isn't a way to find out. For example: Saddam did have WMDs and did use them on people... in the past. At the time of the invasion his capacity to develop was still there in large part, his supplies were non existent, and he was totally without
usable WMDs, with only rotten left over gas cannisters for the most part. Ask the question in just the right way and you get the answer you want, and get to claim error or 'misperception' where semantics is really the issue.
and several Fox News producers and executives admit deliberate bias,
Which to my mind is better than the flaming libs who hide or deny it, even when it's as blatant and obvious as a strap-on on a nun. People often misunderstand journalism, objectivity is a recent development. In the US heyday newspapers proudly trumpeted their politics for everyone to see. They didn't try to maintain some BS, and impossible to achieve, facade of objectivity. You knew where they were coming from and as such could sift for facts among the dirt, knowing what they would likely be biased about.
On the note of the public opinion poll, each respondent was asked three questions based on factual events in the Iraq War. They were then asked to provide the source of that data. The exact wording of the questions escapes me now, but the deliberate bias within the study is nowhere near what you are insinuating, and the data remains valid (as a public opinion poll can be), in my opinion.
Until I see the questions I remain skeptical. The only truly unbiased question would be asking for an event and a date. Almost anything else can be subject to careful wording and interpretation. For one person Saddam sending checks to suicide bombers is enough to classify him as a terrorist. Others want more. Also, what facts are the study's authors not aware of?
To be fair and balanced (pun intended) Fox News seems to be one of the more centrist news outlets in terms of their straight news
I disagree. They're centrist for the most part and then WHAMO, bias you wouldn't believe hits you out of the blue.
Fox News is ostensibly and deliberately Conservative as an incredibly intuitive Market strategy: They saw a demographic alienated with the potential for capitalization, and they took it - they make no subtle hints as to their purpose, primary audience, or the justifications for their actions, so I am confused as to why you are now?
I never did. What I am questioning is the motivations and methods of the studies which find bias. One, we are told the market will drive news to the center. No, it won't. That's a complete misunderstanding of how markets work. It will drive news to where the money is. Two, I see claims of bias but based on what measures? Asking someone to come up with an objective measure of subjective bias is like asking them describe the sound of one hand clapping. It's nonsense. By nature they will inject their own bias, and surprise surprise, every study done by liberals finds centrist to conservative bias, not only at Fox but in general, and every study by conservatives finds centrist to liberal bias. It boggles the mind... Which leads to my last point/question?
Who gives a flying ****?
"Fox news is biased to the right!"
"NBC is biased to the left!"
Thank you Captain Obvious on both counts is what I say. Wouldn't you have more fun debating facts of certain situations like the war, gun control, abortion, than arguing over how a bunch of vacant talking heads frame those issues? All news is biased. The second a judgement is made about a story - what to report, how to report, what to include, what to leave out, what adjectives and adverbs to use, who to interview, etc., etc., etc., etc. - bias is present. There is no way to avoid it.
So why bother?