Fairness Doctrine Video

[MichaelC]

In order for that to be true, the study would have to assume a few things:  1) No third view can exist.  2)  The definition of "Liberal" as everything that exists outside the narrow view of so-called "conservatives", is true.  3)  Fox is not conservative, it's "pro-gov't"  4) Mainstream Media is never  "anti-gov't".  5) Populism and economics have essentially no value in media.

Fox has an excessively "pro-gov't" view in it's regular news casts.  No mainstream media outlet is automatically "pro-gov't".  It's the duty of the media to de-cloak gov't and in some cases outright attack gov't, even a GOP run gov't.  Fox can not be "mainstream", and doesn't pretend to be "mainstream."

[cannon_fodder]

If the most popular of something isn't main stream... then the definition has greatly changed.  

quote:Mainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

By definition, if something is THE most popular, it is mainstream.  In Nazi Germany, whatever Herman Goering said was the mainstream, it was the only stream.  Mainstream does not mean right, just that it is the prevailing trend.
- - -

The study is not a loose cannon.  It is a well thought out and carefully researched product of the University of Chicago, UCLA, and Stanford.

They looked at the most cited references of Congress.  They then broke out Congressmen's ADA score (how conservative or liberal they are, 50 being center) and then looked at what sources they sited too.  The theory being, a conservative sites the Heritage Foundation more than the Brookings Institute.

They then compared various media outlets and referenced their stories to see how often they utilized the various sources.  Clearly the process is much more in depth than I can explain here, their methodology is presented in their research:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm



" Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress."


"Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist"

So there are the findings of three HIGHLY respected Universities (two very liberal ones at that).  Your argument, and that of everyone else apparently, is simply your opinion.  I have not dont an in depth review of the news channels, I do not watch them.  So I will go ahead and trust Stanford on this one...

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If the most popular of something isn't main stream... then the definition has greatly changed.  

Mainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

The sum of all other Cable News media trounces Fox News.  Any of the big three, not even including Cable News, in their little 30 minute time slots, trounce Fox News.

You're confusing "most popular cable news network" with "prevailing current".

And "left of average congressman" means nothing.

[Lister]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If the most popular of something isn't main stream... then the definition has greatly changed.  

Mainstream: a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence

The sum of all other Cable News media trounces Fox News.  Any of the big three, not even including Cable News, in their little 30 minute time slots, trounce Fox News.

You're confusing "most popular cable news network" with "prevailing current".

And "left of average congressman" means nothing.

Just can't admit it when you've been owned huh?

Michael C has been OWNED!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Lister

Michael C has been OWNED!

Thanks for your contribution, moron.

Being the most popular entity of many entities, does not make "mainstream".  Particularly if the majority of entities are in opposition to you.

And being "pro-gov't" doesn't make "mainstream."  It makes "propaganda."

[Lister]

(Personal attack removed.  You already made your point)

[rwarn17588]

Apparently Lister hasn't yet graduated from the fifth grade.

[Lister]

(Play nice. Personal attack removed)

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Apparently Lister hasn't yet graduated from the fifth grade.

It's hard to tell really, but it could be considered cute in some circles.  He's at least weird, I kind of like weird.  Most of the time anyway.

[cannon_fodder]

You are correct, the sum of the other news channels trounce Fox.  Just like all other records sold in 1958 trounced Elvis.  They were all very different than and mostly hostile towards Elvis.  Nonetheless, no one could deny that Elvis was mainstream (Im not comparing Fox to Elvis, just trying to show you where I am coming from).  Fox News has more viewers than any other news source, even with the network news evening bump... (the network news are akin to one large concert, Fox has many small concerts... at the end more have seen Fox.  Elvis theme, yay)

And I believe trying to differentiate between "prevailing" and "current most popular" is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. I understand what you are saying, that overall the style of Fox News is not the prevailing wind, but nonetheless, to pretend it is not mainstream is not being honest.
- - - -

To define something as liberal, conservative, or centrist you have to identify a defining center.  The poor fools at Stanford thought using our elected body as an indication would be the best way to define the center.  Read their methodology and try to find a better way, there would probably be $100,000 in it for you if you come up with one.

Even if you do not think it is the best way and you beat Stanford, U of Chicago and UCLA by finding a better one... their criteria is still not meaningless.  It means that ALL major news aside from Fox is more liberal than the average representative in the United States.  One can easily extrapolate that the news networks are more liberal than the voters who put them there.  And therefor, that there is a severe liberal media bias.

Even when presented with a firm scientific study from 3 well respected Universities you will still not yield any ground.  Seems like you are rooted in your opinion in spite of arguments or evidence to the contrary.  Did you read the study?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

To define something as liberal, conservative, or centrist you have to identify a defining center.  The poor fools at Stanford thought using our elected body as an indication would be the best way to define the center.  Read their methodology and try to find a better way, there would probably be $100,000 in it for you if you come up with one.

The problem with selecting some average of congress as "center", is that it essentially makes all "pro-gov't" news "centrist."  Not gov't news, "pro-gov't" news.  That baseline makes the study worthless, Fox couldn't possibly have been anything but "centrist" according to their methodology.

That Fox doesn't pretend to be mainstream, that they pretend to be an "alternative," tells me I don't have to bother worrying about them.  Until they're version of selective "pro-gov't" news is the majority news, they won't be mainstream.

The most simple test of Fox's intentions, would be to elect a Democratic President.  My money is on "Fox goes wild," and kicks "pro-gov't" to the curb.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


So Hannity doesnt count against them because it is not news.

Hannity doesn't count anyway, no matter what the context.

[cannon_fodder]

Michael, no.  Your analysis is patently wrong.

The study has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with pro or anti government.  As I stated above, it reference what resources the news agencies site as a source.  It doesnt matter if the story was pro government, anti government, or about daisies.  It has NOTHING to do with pro or anti government. NOTHING.

Any news agency could be anything based on the sources they utilize.  A rapid anti government channel could be centrist.  And a Vote for Bush station could be leftist - if they used liberal sources for their stories.  It has NOTHING to do with their governmental stance.  Sheesh.

Do you understand?  Please go read the study, apparently I am not doing a good job explaining it.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The study has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with pro or anti government.

What would "pro-gov't" news be, if not centrist?

Using Congress as a baseline, and Fox's selective "pro-gov't" news model, what was Fox supposed to be?  And what are they now?  Given that Congress has turned over.

[cannon_fodder]

For the love of god.  Pro government news could be leftist if there is a leftist government in power, or conservative if there is a conservative government in power, or leftist on some issues, or centrist or... it can be anything.  In this study, it would depend entirely on what that news channel and what those member of congress used for source material to support their views (perhaps this is  the core of the problem, you are unfamiliar with support for a view).

NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE GOD DAMN STUDY LOOKS AT WHAT POINT OF VIEW THE CHANNEL TAKES.

If every news story were about flowers, nothing about the government at all, they would still be able to rate them based on what sources they utilized.  It has NOTHING, at all, what-so-ever, to do with anyones point of view at all period, fin, QED.  That's the entire point of a scientific study.

It matters what SOURCE material they utilize.  If they site to the Heritage Foundation in a story about teenage pimples it is weighted as conservative based on the source material.  It doesnt matter if they are pro or anti governmental pimples.  

GO READ THE STUDY!!!!!!

You are not even arguing a logical position.  Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.  Its frustrating to argue with someone who doesn't understand what's going on.  I tried very hard to provide a detailed study illustrating why I believe what I do.  I then went out of my way to explain it repeatedly.  I then explicitly TOLD YOU that you were wrong and again explained why.  

Yet you persist with your nonsensical argument.

For the final time, in this study - the political slant of a news organization has NOTHING at all to do with its opinion of the sitting governmental body.  PERIOD.

Do you get it?