Fox News anchors publicly upset over Fox and Friends Obama bashing

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80
The mainstream media is way left wing while Foxnews is right of center. That is what makes them more fair and balanced.

That is not accurate. There are dozens if not hundreds of scientific studies and meta analyses of media bias that have determined otherwise. There has been exactly one study that has claimed there is in fact a bias, and its methodology has been widely condemned.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80
The mainstream media is way left wing while Foxnews is right of center. That is what makes them more fair and balanced.

That is not accurate. There are dozens if not hundreds of scientific studies and meta analyses of media bias that have determined otherwise. There has been exactly one study that has claimed there is in fact a bias, and its methodology has been widely condemned.

Actually all the academic studies prove that the MSM and journalism as a whole is biased to the left.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

I'm still not following your point or question. My point was the CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN are way more biased to the left and you will never see an anchor call out another anchor for cherrypicking a political quote. Hannity is the only person at Foxnews that makes them remotely "right wing" and he's not even part of the news he is commentary. Their news staff is extremely fair and balanced in their NEWS reporting. Foxnews at least shows both sides of any issue (as exemplified in this incident) while the mainstream media will do what it can to protect their political interests.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Bill O'Reilly's not right wing at all. Neither was John Gibson... he's right down the center. Brit Hume's certainly not a hard right wing pundit in his spare time, and to call Oliver North right wing would be just downright wacky. I mean sure about half of their programming is extreme right wing opinion shows, but hey they had a guy who is normally a hard right wing attack dog say that after two hours of attacking Obama they should switch to something else! The bravery! The balance!

That all being said, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you think this way. Unfortunately objective, scientific research has come to a different conclusion. Sorry. We actually had a wonderful thread on that awhile back. I would encourage you to read it.

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.

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.

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

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

I'm still not following your point or question. My point was the CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN are way more biased to the left and you will never see an anchor call out another anchor for cherrypicking a political quote. Hannity is the only person at Foxnews that makes them remotely "right wing" and he's not even part of the news he is commentary. Their news staff is extremely fair and balanced in their NEWS reporting. Foxnews at least shows both sides of any issue (as exemplified in this incident) while the mainstream media will do what it can to protect their political interests.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Bill O'Reilly's not right wing at all. Neither was John Gibson... he's right down the center. Brit Hume's certainly not a hard right wing pundit in his spare time, and to call Oliver North right wing would be just downright wacky. I mean sure about half of their programming is extreme right wing opinion shows, but hey they had a guy who is normally a hard right wing attack dog say that after two hours of attacking Obama they should switch to something else! The bravery! The balance!

That all being said, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you think this way. Unfortunately objective, scientific research has come to a different conclusion. Sorry. We actually had a wonderful thread on that awhile back. I would encourage you to read it.

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.

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.

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

Hahaha, I almost put the UCLA study in my post by name, but decided not to. Looks like I should have. That's exactly the study I was referring to as the one that said there was, but has been widely discredited. Its methodology has been totally trashed. (do some research on that study and you will see it has been roundly beaten to a pulp).

All academic studies do absolutely nothing of the sort. Here, I'll show you some:
First one.

In case you don't have access to academic journals here is the abstract:

A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in news magazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.

Translation: The media isn't biased, and if there is any measurable bias at all it is small and likely insignificant.

Article 2

It won't let me copy and paste, so I'm not going to type out the conclusion in case you can't see it, but it effectively says that their study detected no media bias either.

So, I hear:

Originally posted by: JS80

Actually all the academic studies prove that the MSM and journalism as a whole is biased to the left.

Care to revise that statement?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari
Has anyone been to their website. Racism is rife over there.

that's f'n ridiculous.

Did you read the obama-richardson thread?

no, why?

Lots of ugly words in the responses below the story.

Don't worry about it, it's just typical white people doing what typical white people do.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

I'm still not following your point or question. My point was the CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN are way more biased to the left and you will never see an anchor call out another anchor for cherrypicking a political quote. Hannity is the only person at Foxnews that makes them remotely "right wing" and he's not even part of the news he is commentary. Their news staff is extremely fair and balanced in their NEWS reporting. Foxnews at least shows both sides of any issue (as exemplified in this incident) while the mainstream media will do what it can to protect their political interests.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Bill O'Reilly's not right wing at all. Neither was John Gibson... he's right down the center. Brit Hume's certainly not a hard right wing pundit in his spare time, and to call Oliver North right wing would be just downright wacky. I mean sure about half of their programming is extreme right wing opinion shows, but hey they had a guy who is normally a hard right wing attack dog say that after two hours of attacking Obama they should switch to something else! The bravery! The balance!

That all being said, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you think this way. Unfortunately objective, scientific research has come to a different conclusion. Sorry. We actually had a wonderful thread on that awhile back. I would encourage you to read it.

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.

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.

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

Hahaha, I almost put the UCLA study in my post by name, but decided not to. Looks like I should have. That's exactly the study I was referring to as the one that said there was, but has been widely discredited. Its methodology has been totally trashed. (do some research on that study and you will see it has been roundly beaten to a pulp).

All academic studies do absolutely nothing of the sort. Here, I'll show you some:
First one.

In case you don't have access to academic journals here is the abstract:

A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in news magazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.

Translation: The media isn't biased, and if there is any measurable bias at all it is small and likely insignificant.

Article 2

It won't let me copy and paste, so I'm not going to type out the conclusion in case you can't see it, but it effectively says that their study detected no media bias either.

So, I hear:

Originally posted by: JS80

Actually all the academic studies prove that the MSM and journalism as a whole is biased to the left.

Care to revise that statement?

Your first link is "Media bias in presidential elections."
Your second link requires a subscription.

I do care to revise my statement:

The mainstream media is biased to the left, and there are some studies that support that view. Regardless, I can see it with my own eyes.

 

[OrByte]

your own eyes see what you want to see so of course you see bias

dont you see?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Your first link is "Media bias in presidential elections."
Your second link requires a subscription.

I do care to revise my statement:

The mainstream media is biased to the left, and there are some studies that support that view. Regardless, I can see it with my own eyes.

Why does it matter if it's presidential elections? Are you saying that the media is unbiased in presidential politics, but biased everywhere else? If so, what is your support for such a claim?

Your revised statement is still total crap. You start with an unproven presupposition, then take one piece of evidence that supports it and ignore all others. Then you claim you just know that's how it is. That's top notch. Saying "I see it myself!" is a very convincing argument by the way. Who cares if teams of researchers have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars researching something? JS80 SAW it! He's certainly not biased, so case closed!

Psst: everyone thinks that news sources that conform to what they believe are 'centrist', and that ones that don't are ideologically biased.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Originally posted by: JS80
Now only if we can get a hint of integrity on cbs news, abc news, cnn, etc.

Are you giving credit to Fox News when an anchor is going against Fox News script?

i'm not understanding your question

Maybe I'm not reading your statement correctly, then.

I assumed you were stating that Fox News had some form of integrity because of the walk-off by the anchor, and you were attributing this integrity to the whole news network when in fact, the anchor himself went against Fox News script and rhetoric.

I'm still not following your point or question. My point was the CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN are way more biased to the left and you will never see an anchor call out another anchor for cherrypicking a political quote. Hannity is the only person at Foxnews that makes them remotely "right wing" and he's not even part of the news he is commentary. Their news staff is extremely fair and balanced in their NEWS reporting. Foxnews at least shows both sides of any issue (as exemplified in this incident) while the mainstream media will do what it can to protect their political interests.

O M G! That's either the most sarcastic post or the most far-right biased. Oh, you are serious!:laugh:

 

[tweaker2]

it's quite interesting to note how studies have determined where the arbitrary "center" is between left and right, when each of us have our own interpretation of where that fulcrum point actually exists.

ie - to those with extremist opinions or philosophies, any beliefs more moderate of their own belongs on the othe side of the seesaw, with their own opinions being their version of the "norm".

 

[Ferocious]

'If it doesn't have a conservative slant, then it must be liberal bias'

-Fox News worshippers

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari
Has anyone been to their website. Racism is rife over there.

that's f'n ridiculous.

Did you read the obama-richardson thread?

no, why?

Lots of ugly words in the responses below the story.

Don't worry about it, it's just typical white people doing what typical white people do.

Those are not typical white people.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

I'm still not following your point or question. My point was the CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN are way more biased to the left and you will never see an anchor call out another anchor for cherrypicking a political quote. Hannity is the only person at Foxnews that makes them remotely "right wing" and he's not even part of the news he is commentary. Their news staff is extremely fair and balanced in their NEWS reporting. Foxnews at least shows both sides of any issue (as exemplified in this incident) while the mainstream media will do what it can to protect their political interests.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Bill O'Reilly's not right wing at all. Neither was John Gibson... he's right down the center. Brit Hume's certainly not a hard right wing pundit in his spare time, and to call Oliver North right wing would be just downright wacky. I mean sure about half of their programming is extreme right wing opinion shows, but hey they had a guy who is normally a hard right wing attack dog say that after two hours of attacking Obama they should switch to something else! The bravery! The balance!

That all being said, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you think this way. Unfortunately objective, scientific research has come to a different conclusion. Sorry. We actually had a wonderful thread on that awhile back. I would encourage you to read it.

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.

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.

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

Hahaha, I almost put the UCLA study in my post by name, but decided not to. Looks like I should have. That's exactly the study I was referring to as the one that said there was, but has been widely discredited. Its methodology has been totally trashed. (do some research on that study and you will see it has been roundly beaten to a pulp).

All academic studies do absolutely nothing of the sort. Here, I'll show you some:
First one.

In case you don't have access to academic journals here is the abstract:

A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in news magazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.

Translation: The media isn't biased, and if there is any measurable bias at all it is small and likely insignificant.

Article 2

It won't let me copy and paste, so I'm not going to type out the conclusion in case you can't see it, but it effectively says that their study detected no media bias either.

So, I hear:

Originally posted by: JS80

Actually all the academic studies prove that the MSM and journalism as a whole is biased to the left.

Care to revise that statement?

Your first link is "Media bias in presidential elections."
Your second link requires a subscription.

I do care to revise my statement:

The mainstream media is biased to the left, and there are some studies that support that view. Regardless, I can see it with my own eyes.

Might want to try to open your ears then. Its easier to discern bias that way, or in this case, the lack thereof in the mainstream media.

Your 1 study that has been widely shown to not use proper methodology certainly does not qualify as "some studies that support that view". The many other studies that were done properly would suggest you are wrong.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari
Has anyone been to their website. Racism is rife over there.

that's f'n ridiculous.

Did you read the obama-richardson thread?

no, why?

Lots of ugly words in the responses below the story.

Don't worry about it, it's just typical white people doing what typical white people do.

Those are not typical white people.

Why not? According to Obama "typical white people" are racist.

 

[Brigandier]

You are stupid, Obama doesn't think a typical white person is a racist.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80
The mainstream media is way left wing while Foxnews is right of center. That is what makes them more fair and balanced.

That is not accurate. There are dozens if not hundreds of scientific studies and meta analyses of media bias that have determined otherwise. There has been exactly one study that has claimed there is in fact a bias, and its methodology has been widely condemned.

Actually all the academic studies prove that the MSM and journalism as a whole is biased to the left.

actually you are incorrect.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari
Has anyone been to their website. Racism is rife over there.

that's f'n ridiculous.

Did you read the obama-richardson thread?

no, why?

Lots of ugly words in the responses below the story.

Don't worry about it, it's just typical white people doing what typical white people do.

Those are not typical white people.

Why not? According to Obama "typical white people" are racist.

and according to gore he 'invented the internet'

 

[Superrock]

To be fair, trying to convince the "Fox and Friends" anchors to use reason and logic is as productive as trying to argue with a retarded kid.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: JS80Hannity is the only person at Foxnews that makes them remotely "right wing" and he's not even part of the news he is commentary. Their news staff is extremely fair and balanced in their NEWS reporting. Foxnews at least shows both sides of any issue (as exemplified in this incident) while the mainstream media will do what it can to protect their political interests.

That's fscking hysterical! LOL. :laugh:

Nice work.

 

[Jeff7]

Wow, sensationalize much, Huffington Post?

"MAYHEM at Fox News."

Oh my god! Someone walked off a television studio set! It's mayhem! It's, dare I say it, MADNESS!!!!!

I guess "Irritation at Fox News" wouldn't sell as well.

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
It sort of looked staged to me.

/Conspiracy theorist

Anywho, that lady needs to be slapped. Her cackle is almost as annoying as Hillary's.

All of it probably is staged to some degree, or thought out.
"Oh my god, some TV show guy just got annoyed and walked off. This must be really serious. I'm totally voting for Obama now out of respect for that guy's incredible integrity."

 

[Moonbeam]

When an idiot looks at a situation he comes to idiotic conclusions. An idiot is someone who invents reasons for situations not in evidence.

 

[Thump553]

I watched the original clip. It seemed to me what made the guy walk off was the disparging comment about sportscasters, not what was said about Obama.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Wow, sensationalize much, Huffington Post?

"MAYHEM at Fox News."

Oh my god! Someone walked off a television studio set! It's mayhem! It's, dare I say it, MADNESS!!!!!

I guess "Irritation at Fox News" wouldn't sell as well.

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
It sort of looked staged to me.

/Conspiracy theorist

Anywho, that lady needs to be slapped. Her cackle is almost as annoying as Hillary's.

All of it probably is staged to some degree, or thought out.
"Oh my god, some TV show guy just got annoyed and walked off. This must be really serious. I'm totally voting for Obama now out of respect for that guy's incredible integrity."

You think Fox News did this to garner support for Obama?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Dari
Has anyone been to their website. Racism is rife over there.

that's f'n ridiculous.

Did you read the obama-richardson thread?

no, why?

Lots of ugly words in the responses below the story.

Don't worry about it, it's just typical white people doing what typical white people do.

Those are not typical white people.

Why not? According to Obama "typical white people" are racist.

In the 1930s they were and that's what he was talking about.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I watched the original clip. It seemed to me what made the guy walk off was the disparging comment about sportscasters, not what was said about Obama.

No, he walked off because of the airheads he was talking to. The sports remark was just dumb as well.