MSNBC has 30% less factual reporting than Fox News

1. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special … landscape/
   
   Note for fans of Fox News that will almost certainly jump on this:
   Please stop watching it, it's still awful.
   
   This survey comprehensively analysed the changing landscape in television news reporting. They found that 55% of Fox News content was opinion or commentary, and factual reporting took up the remaining 45%. MSNBC faired the worst in providing factual reporting with a measly 15%, the remaining 85% being opinion or commentary.
   
   I bring it up only to persuade those who scream "Fox News!" when given a contrary opinion, that they are not the worst offender in the mainstream media for presenting more opinion and commentary than actual news coverage.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You want to hear what rubbish we have to put up with from the BBC and everyone with a TV in Britain has to pay for it as well.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I am British and I know perfectly well.

         replyreport
   2. 80

      Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A news station that hires a Reverend race baiter to be one of their spokesmen is found to be lacking in facts...who knew?!?!?

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thats interesting and I will not dispute your data. But the fools they made of themselves on election night 2012 is memorable.
      
      Fox News, recipient of the Ted Baxter Award for excellence in journalism.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So... I just saw this thread. I posted a similar link 27 hours ago. I thought you got the idea from the link I posted... till I noticed you posted yours 2 days ago. This makes me look bad, you should take yours down. lol

      replyreport
   5. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good evening, Innersmiff. I thank you for this interesting data on The State of the News Media 2013 {1}
      
      My criticism of Fox News has always been about the accuracy of the information offered as “news” and never about the ratio of factual reporting to opinion & commentary. The obvious corporate policy at Fox to intentionally lie and distort has been documented for years. For example, listen to these on the air false reports repeated by Fox News personalities and then denied by Bill O'Reilly:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrdfRAaS … re=related
      
      As you can see and hear for yourself, the lies do not come from only one Fox newscaster. Here is another example of a lie from Hannity:
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en … 172eAPdPFo
      
      The problem with quoting facts from Fox News is they have to be checked before they can be believed or repeated.
      
      {1} http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special … landscape/

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Oh no, say it ain't so...
         Hannity and Oberman(sp?) would make a great team to do a cross-country automobile road trip. - They deserve each other. I refuse to discuss anything about Hannity, but I might be a little confused by your response concerning O'Rielly, ie.
         
         The OP related stats on "news" vs. "opinion/commentary" comparisons, yet in your response you criticize the accuracy of the "news" facts by citing opinion/commentary" segments - apples and oranges?
         
         Regarding your first video evidence of Fox's presenting false "news" facts - "The O'Rielly Lie:  We never said you could go to jail if you don't buy health care"
         
         The opening O'Rielly segment in which he claims nobody at Fox ever said that appears to be dated April 13, 2010. And it appears he is trying to say nobody at Fox said that about the final health care bill that was passed.
         
         Whether he is clarifying or back-peddling is probably a matter of opinion, because it is obvious, as the video shows, that a lot of Fox personalities did say that you could go to jail.
         
         But, were they lying? It appears a little chronological context might be helpful.
         
         Obamacare was signed March, 23, 2010, and the spotlighted O'Rielly segment was on or about April 13, 2010.
         
         I did not dig deep enough to find the dates for all the "lie" examples in the video - but, I don't think it would be too dangerous to assume that they were pre-March 23, 2010 - when the "final" bill that O'Rielly claims he was speaking of was passed.
         
         Of course if that assumption is wrong, then what follows here is also wrong. But...
         
         The Baucus Health Care plan was proposed on 9/16/09, and it was "the hot topic" for much of the public health care bill discussions. I did not dig deep enough to see if it, or Rangel's bill was the predecessor to the final health care bill that was passed.
         
         The bill did go through the committee mark-up process, and there were hundreds of amendments offered. Even though the Baucus bill was not the final product - it did hold center stage in the health care debate for quite a while.
         
         And, the Baucus bill did include a penalty of up to $25,000 or 1 year in jail.
         
         "The proposal also creates an individual mandate that requires people to either buy insurance or pay a penalty...
         According to The Politico:
         
             "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for  failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it 'Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold'."
         
         Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27 … Future_Act
         
         This note was in response to Sen. Ensign's questions during a committee mark-up session on 9/24/09
         
         Here is a pdf image of the actual JCT note:
         http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_0 … ment2.html
         
         Also, at about 02:05 of the video, showing a Cavuto segment, you can clearly see a text banner proclaiming  "Baucus Plan" highlighted on screen.
         
         So if the Baucus plan did contain such a penalty, and the Baucus plan was the topic of discussion, were the Fox personalities lying?
         
         Of course I am only pointing out the possibility that they were telling the truth. Just as I am only pointing out that you are criticizing their "news" accuracy with "commentator" examples - not exactly a valid comparison.
         
         Also, of course, a couple of the "lying" examples may have been in news segments, but were they aired when the Baucus plan was the topic? If I were a betting man, (which I am), I would bet that they were, which meant they were not lying.
         
         Just as I would be leery of using a conservative source to debunk a liberal statement, I would also be leery of using MediaMatters to debunk a conservative statement - their bias is pretty obvious.
         
         ps. Even if I wanted to give O'Rielly the benefit of the doubt, (which I would), I think he mangled his explanation/clarification. But still, the MediaMatters video was just a piece of manipulated propaganda.
         
         GA
         
         edit added: BTW I do not take anything Hannity or Dick Morris say at face value - to speak very plainly - they are spotlight whores, Fox's credibility is hurt by both of them.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Greetings, GA. I’ve missed you. Where have you been hiding? Thanks for the detailed post. You make a few good points.
            
            You wrote:
            "...yet in your response you criticize the accuracy of the 'news' facts by citing 'opinion/commentary' segments - apples and oranges?"
            
            Actually, Gus, you must have added the oranges because my response was just about apples! I know the difference between facts and opinions. My remarks were centered on the lack of accuracy when reporting facts from the news. The statements made by Fox commentators and guests were not about their opinions but clearly about the “fact” that citizens would be going to jail.
            
            You wrote:
            “But, were they lying? It appears a little chronological context might be helpful…Obamacare was signed March, 23, 2010, and the spotlighted O'Rielly segment was on or about April 13, 2010.”
            
            Yes, a better chronological perspective might be helpful. For example, you might have mentioned that the “Obamacare” bill first passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416 – 0) and passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60-39). That leaves a full four to six months of on-the-air discussion before the spotlighted O'Rielly segment of April 13, 2010.
            
            You also wrote:
            ”I did not dig deep enough to find the dates for all the "lie" examples in the video - but, I don't think it would be too dangerous to assume that they were pre-March 23, 2010 - when the "final" bill that O'Rielly claims he was speaking of was passed.”
            
            I can accept that you “did not dig deep enough” and you “assume that they were pre-March 23, 2010.” I can also accept your repeated admissions that you have no factual data to offer, such as…
            …”Of course if that assumption is wrong, then what follows here is also wrong.”
            … ”If I were a betting man, (which I am), I would bet that they were, which meant they were not lying.”
            …”I do not take anything Hannity or Dick Morris say at face value…Fox's credibility is hurt by both of them.”
            
            You then conclude by asking us to believe ”the MediaMatters video was just a piece of manipulated propaganda.” There must be a mountain of evidence in your post that I just simply overlooked!
            
            Finally, you say nothing about the Hannity video clip, therefore, we must both agree he lied on the air about a fact from the news.  {1}
            
            After considering your opinions, I think I will stick with my statement, “the problem with quoting facts from Fox News is they have to be checked before they can be believed or repeated.
            
            Thanks for sharing your views, Gus.
            
            {1} http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en … 172eAPdPFo

            replyreport
            1. 82

               GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Damn! And I knew better too!
               Just like in school; if you don't do your homework, you should not volunteer in class.
               I hope you will accept my apology for a poorly researched response.
               
               And it gets worse, for me. I feel like I am on the wrong side of one of Bill Clinton's semantics arguments.
               
               Ok, maybe I did add the oranges, but only because I generally view "facts" as more likely to be facts when they are in a news segment - not an opinion/commentary segment - (probably why Hannity has never been a news person)
               
               And you are right, the house bill did pas on 10/9, and the Senate bill on 12/24
               
               But as late as 11/15, Ariz. House Rep. Shadeg was indicating the House version did not include the IRS penalty collection restrictions that section 1501 of the final bill did include - the version that O'Reilly claims he was referring to.
               
               And I was able to date 4 of the segments MediaMatters used to the time frame of 9/24 - 11/13
               
               So... technically speaking, it does appear that the clips of Fox talking heads speaking of the "jail" possibility were in the period when the various versions of the ACA were being reconciled into the final bill that was passed.
               
               So that's a discussion time frame of at least a couple months (give or take).
               
               It is section 1501 of the final bill that prohibits IRS criminalization of the non-payment of individual mandate penalty.
               
               So, I concede that the Fox talking heads have greatly exaggerated the "go to jail" point, and O'Reilly's opening defense of his denial sounds silly...
               
               But it appears to me, that at the time the statements were made, they were technically factually correct. Regarding the talking heads segments - doesn't a statement have to be false to be a lie?
               
               Now, regarding the MediaMatters video. If "little ol' me" could date the segments to a time frame when they were not lies, and if I were feeling generous I might accept O'Reilly's contention that he was speaking of a "final bill" denial...
               
               Unfortunately I could not find a video of O'Reilly's complete talking points of that segment, (hoping there might be some supporting context), but doesn't that look like MediaMatters is manipulating the image as much as they claim Fox was?
               
               Now, I have to go, defending the political excrement from those folks isn't worth the effort.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Nonsence, GA. There is no need to apologize to anyone.
                  
                  The possibility exists that your assumptions and your conclusions may be correct. I only pointed out that I did not think you made a convincing case.
                  
                  Thanks, GA, for your valuable counter-points. It is always helpful to shake the tree just to see what falls out.  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Kudos to both Quilligrapher and GA Anderson.  This is how I feel debate should take place. 
                     
                     Best wishes to both of you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanx.
                        

                        replyreport
                     2. 82

                        GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks also, but maybe you better leave the string attached to that compliment. Unlike Quill, I can occasionally  be a bit of an ass when the curmudgeon in me comes out.
                        
                        But I do appreciate your kind words.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 56

                           Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           We all get that way from time to time.
                           
                           Again, best wishes.

                           replyreport
2. 82

   GA Andersonposted 11 years ago

   More good news for Fox's credibility ratings.
   
   There is a rumor that Hannity will be removed from Prime Time in a major line-up change in September.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As for Hannity, good riddence.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Really?  I only turn him off 50% of the time as opposed to Rush Limbaugh, who gets 0% of my attention.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Don't have a TV so don't watch Fox. Where do you get your alternative view points?

            replyreport
         2. 80

            Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I know that Glenn Beck was a nut case, I would be surprised to learn that Fox allows Limbaugh a place in its broadcasts.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I have never seen Glen Beck, what makes him a nut case?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  In attempt to answer your question I provided two links
                  One why Beck was fired from Fox, as a personality similar to Hannity or Rush.
                  http://www.businessinsider.com/glenn-be … ngs-2011-4
                  http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/0 … ews/131451

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I am a conservative.  I have watched Beck.  I've listened to him.  I've read his books.  When he is on point, he is quite good.  Unfortunately, he tends to make sensationalized statements, and he speaks to the viewer in a condescending tone, assuming that the viewer is not well educated.  For these reasons, I prefer Hannity.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I have not watched him much and am more than willing to defer to your judgement here. But there have been moments when he granstands.

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I went to media matters.  How is Beck any different than most of the liberal talking heads I hear on the radio and the internet?
                     Some of their stuff is rude and crude.
                     .

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Ok, I acknowledge that, from the perspective of the conservative I believe that Rush, Hannity and Beck are mainstream.
                        
                        Much like how we followe Maher, Sharpton, etc.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Shawn McIntyreposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           This whole thread reminds me of one of my favorite Aaron Sorkin lines:
                           
                           "I'm a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage."

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              And I thought, that it was the liberals who position points were dominated by emotional arguments, hmmm?

                              replyreport
3. 66

   BigJulesMagsposted 11 years ago

   They all suck.  That's why I even bother to write.

   replyreport
4. 62

   Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

   Nobody watches MSNBC, and no one should be watching Fox News after this series of travesties:
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWuzezm1vL0

   replyreport
5. 76

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   As perhaps the only person in the universe who does watch MSNBC, I can state categorically that I can't think of a single show in any daypart that is masquerading as "news." It's OBVIOUSLY opinion and commentary. No one disputes that, do they?
   But they do not promote themselves as "FAIR AND BALANCED."
   I don't expect unbiased reporting. Unfortunately, I think the average Fox New viewer believes what he's watching is real journalism.
   BTW, I tuned in to The O'Reilly Factor the other night. Bill was in a restrained (fair and balanced?) mood, I guess. The segment I saw was formatted like most of the MSNBC segments -- cutaways to 2 guests representing two ends of the political spectrum. Honestly, Bill let the lefty sputter on and on and the poor righty was left trying to get a word in edgewise. I laughed. Just like watching MSNBC, but in reverse!
   

   replyreport