Fox News is NOT a news channel
- promisemposted 8 years ago
0I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.
Fox is not a news channel that seeks the truth. It provides reporting and commentary about the news with a conservative viewpoint. That's an important difference.
Pew Research:
"The Fox News audience skews more ideological than that of its two main competitors (CNN and MSNBC).
"Fully, 60% of Fox News viewers describe themselves as conservative, compared with 23% who say they are moderate and 10% who are liberal, according to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center.
"By contrast, the ideological makeup of CNN viewers (32% conservative, 30% moderate, 30% liberal) and MSNBC viewers (32% conservative, 23% moderate, 36% liberal) is far more mixed."
If you want to watch Fox News, so be it. But please don't tell everyone including the forums on HubPages that it's a news channel that "tells the truth".How naïve , Whatever YOU think of Fox news , a majority of people aside from liberal poll takers , believe they are more neutral than other news sources and they are ! Obviously ,by your own posts and comments ,you're one of " them ", my advice if you don't like Fox and you obviously don't , then turn your ears in the other direction . You obviously don't know enough about media neutrality , integrity and especially honesty to tell us what WE should believe , How is it that it's " conservative bias " and yet what are all the other sourses ,liberal scripture ? I suggest you go back to your Huffington post
Classic extremist response -- attack the person, attack the source, attack the experts, deny the facts.
The same widely respected Pew Research also found that MSNBC had far more negative coverage of Romney's campaign than positive.
Does that now make it a conservative poll taker?Msnbc , Is the National Enquirer of media , no more no less !
Yet it has a nearly equal number of viewers from all three political groups -- 32% conservative, 23% moderate, 36% liberal.
Are the conservatives who watch MSNBC wrong and the conservatives who watch Fox News right?
My mother watches both channels. Does that make her a conservative or liberal?I for one , can watch several news outlets , judge each of them objectively , and then make my own conclusions . THAT is where most people who simply skim the news choice of the political ideology don't do . Its less troubling to the conscience if you just watch that which you wish to hear .
I suggest Mr. Rogers for most liberals . It much less in depth , that way you don't have to think !
Can you provide a link to this Pew poll?
How interesting that it is interpreted in this way. I would suggest that it conservatives are more open minded than liberals considering how few liberals are willing to view a "conservative" news station and how many conservatives willingly tune into MSNBC and CNN - not conservative news by any stretch of the imagination.
As for "tells the truth," from what you posted, this poll is about viewership, not about accuracy or objectivity in reporting. I would suggest that those metrics are still available for debate.Surprising answer from someone who says he is left of center.
It really has nothing to do with left and right. It has to do with interpreting data correctly.
Your only source of data from your original post were of the audience composition of Fox News vs MSNBC and CNN. Audience composition has nothing to do with accuracy of news reporting. The only thing we can conclude from this data is that liberals are less likely to watch Fox News. The why that you've proposed is because Fox News is inaccurate. But it could also be because liberals are less open minded. Again, the only data you provided (in your initial post) is of audience composition.
Looking at that same data pool we find that the NYT, Colbert Report, Rachel Maddow and Daily Show are heavily skewed towards a liberal audience composition. Does that establish them as inaccurate or biased sources? Does that mean they are utilizing a business model of appealing to people's "liberal biases" and not seeking the truth?
We simply can't make such conclusions off of audience composition. Your other sources are closer to the mark regarding that aspect.Audience composition has everything to do with bias and accuracy.
Men's Health magazine has an audience that is 88% male. It intentionally writes articles that appeal to men because its focus on men is the company's business strategy.
Professional journalism standards require a credible news organization to produce content without regard to the politics of its readers. Credibility is essential to attracting the largest number of readers or viewers.
As a business strategy, a city with one newspaper wants and needs to reach the largest number of people for the sake of advertising. If it simply appealed to one side or another, it would quickly lose a large number of readers and go out of business.
Maddow, Colbert and Daily Show have no such constraints. They are no different than Men's Health in that they intentionally appeal to a narrow target. They don't claim to be "news" shows.
NYT skews left because its editorial pages are left while news pages are required to be neutral. Is it perfect? Certainly not. But that's why the business works even with imperfections.
Fox News as a "news channel" has no such need or intent. Instead, it intentionally produces content that appeals to conservatives, which is why its viewership is 60% conservative, 23% moderate and 10% liberal.Media targeting a specific audience doesn't make the content of said media inaccurate. What part of men's health magazines are ideological, biased or inaccurate?
Take another look at your claim:
"Fox News is ideological, biased and inaccurate because 60% of its viewers are conservative."
It is identical to saying
"Men's health magazines are ideological, biased and inaccurate because 88% of its viewers are male."
Audience composition by itself does not tell you whether or not something is inaccurate or biased.In the case of news organizations, yes, it does. In the case of magazines, no, it doesn't.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to explain clearly enough the distinction between the two.I'm sorry to say that saying "yes it does" and "no it doesn't" without an explanation doesn't clarify matters.
As I've already said, a discrepancy between liberal and conservative audience participation does not necessarily mean the news organization is biased. It could be that the audiences themselves are biased.
But I think I see where you're coming from. You think that news sources are mostly impartial and if there is any discrepancy in audience participation, it must be because the news source is not impartial or accurate.
Unfortunately, that's a naive position to take in this day and age:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/09/13/ … ecade-low/
Less than 1/3 people think news sources get their facts straight, and less than 1/5 think that they deal fairly with all sides.
This isn't something exclusive to Fox News and it isn't something you'll deduce from audience composition.I gave you my explanation in detail in my previous post. You chose not to hear it. There is nothing I can say that would result in an agreement or even meeting me halfway on your part.
At some point, the discussion becomes a waste of time, doesn't it?I heard it just fine. You're just not making a good argument.
Again, your hypothesis is "audience composition has everything to do with bias and accuracy." If I accept that this is true of Fox News, what other news source does this hold true for? Does this hold true for anything else? If not, why not? (From what I can tell men's health magazines don't suffer from inaccuracy, despite being marketed for one specific audience).My argument is just fine. I presented a thesis, a credible source of information and insight from extensive experience in media strategy to support it. You provided nothing in return.
You are simply being coy and equate mental gymnastics with debate and discussion.Since you think I've provided nothing, let's test your hypothesis.
Here's the audience ideological profile of various news sources: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/po … zation-09/
Most Liberal (> 6)
The New Yorker
Slate
Very Liberal (6-4)
The Daily Show
The Guardian
Al Jazeera America
NPR
The Colbert Report
The New York Times
Liberal (> 3)
BuzzFeed
PBS
BBC
The Huffington Post
The Washington Post
The Economist
Politico
The following are also highly liberal, progressive sources, but were not included due to small sample size:
ThinkProgress
Daily Kos
Mother Jones
The Ed Schultz Show
Here is a graph measuring overall levels of Trust for each news source: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/po … zation-10/
More trusted than distrusted (trust ratio > 1.75)
BBC
NPR
PBS
The New York Times
The Washington Post
As trusted as Fox News (trust ratio 1.75 to 1.2)
The Guardian
The New Yorker
Politico
About equally trusted and distrusted (trust ratio 1.2 to 0.8)
Mother Jones
Slate
The Huffington Post
The Colbert Report
ThinkProgress
The Daily Show
More distrusted than trusted (trust ratio < 0.8)
Daily Kos
Al Jazeera America
BuzzFeed
Just from the above I can tell that audience composition has no bearing on accuracy or bias, which is measured by trustworthiness.
If you really want the point hit home, just look at the Very Liberal category:
High trust (> 1.75): NPR, The New York Times
As trustworthy as Fox News (1.75-1.2): The Guardian
About equally trusted and distrusted (1.2-0.8): The Daily Show, The Colbert Report
More distrusted than trusted (< 0.8): Al Jazeera America
or the Liberal category:
High trust (> 1.75): PBS, BBC, The Washington Post, The Economist
As trustworthy as Fox News (1.75-1.2): Politico
About equally trusted and distrusted (1.2-0.8): The Huffington Post
More distrusted than trusted (< 0.8): BuzzFeed
Trust of liberal sources is all over the place. Liberal sources range from 'highly reputable' to 'complete garbage'.
we can even look at Conservatives, all 6 of them (small sample size should limit our inferences from this data):
High trust (> 1.75): The Blaze
About equally trusted and distrusted (1.2-0.8): Breitbart
More distrusted than trusted (< 0.8): The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, The Glenn Beck Program
News sources with a balanced audience composition are more interesting. All of them are more trusted than not trusted (which is also true of Fox News). The weakest such source, Yahoo News, is as trustworthy as Fox News. The rest have a trust ratio of at least 2.
What you should be concluding from this is that news sources with a balanced audience composition are likely to be trustworthy. That does not mean that a news source with a skewed audience composition is untrustworthy. You are doing the latter, not the former.Since I can't respond directly to your last post, I will add the following:
Correct, you did not provide any previous substance based on fact, credible sources of information or lengthy media experience until now.
I saw the same numbers long before you found them. They are both interesting and a mix of apples and oranges. They include true news organizations and media with a distinct point of view.
Despite my previous explanations, you don't seem to believe in the distinction between a news organization and other forms of media.
You don't seem to believe in the distinction between the news content of a newspaper and its editorial pages.
You don't seem to believe in the distinction between a New York Times that is perceived liberal by conservatives and a Fox News that is perceived conservative by conservatives.
Finally, I must point out that you seem to think I am accusing Fox of something. Look at my original post and other posts. Again, I have been talking about the Fox News business strategy.
If you want to watch Fox News and believe everything they tell you, that's your business. But it is not a news channel for the reasons I have explained in great detail.No, it was not "until now." I quote:
"Unfortunately, that's a naive position to take in this day and age:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/09/13/ … ecade-low/
Less than 1/3 people think news sources get their facts straight, and less than 1/5 think that they deal fairly with all sides.
This isn't something exclusive to Fox News and it isn't something you'll deduce from audience composition."
You must consider the above a credible source of information if you are to be consistent. It's from the same think tank you used. If it isn't credible neither is your own source.
If you don't find any substance in stating that most news organizations are not accurate or biased, in a discussion about accuracy and bias in news organizations, then I don't know what to say. I guess lengthy media experience doesn't provide any advantage in common sense.
I never denied the distinction between news organizations and other forms of media. I am quite aware that you have correctly pointed out that news organizations are obliged to be neutral (ideally, anyway) while other forms of media aren't. Likewise with editorial pieces. But that distinction doesn't make your hypothesis any more valid. You haven't demonstrated that other forms of media, which are not obliged to be neutral, are inaccurate by virtue of their audience composition. Is the Rachel Maddow Show inaccurate? Are the opinion pieces of The New York Times, The Economist, BBC etc. inaccurate? Do you think these poll respondents are measuring trust solely based on news reporting, as opposed to an a more ubiquitous analysis which would include opinion pieces and their accuracy and impartiality (or lack thereof)?
"Finally, I must point out that you seem to think I am accusing Fox of something."
You're wrong. I am accusing you of using a poor piece of evidence for your hypothesis. Based on other pieces of evidence I am probably in agreement with your end conclusion (and I expanded that to include media in general as being inaccurate, not just Fox News). I am in disagreement with using audience composition as evidence of that claim.
An analogy would be if you were to say that poison tree frogs are highly toxic because they're brightly coloured. I'd agree with your conclusion, but not your premise, because bright colours aren't always indicative of toxicity nor are they a direct mechanism for toxicity.
It would be just as revealing to learn more about the political views of someone who thinks that conservatives are more open minded than liberals.
Would conservative viewers flock to a channel with a liberal viewpoint? I find that quite hard to believe.
The fact that Fox News has a conservative viewpoint seems well known to everyone except for conservatives.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … -fox-news/Thank you for the link.
As for the sound of a mind closing, listen:
It would be just as revealing to learn more about the political views of someone who thinks that conservatives are more open minded than liberals.
There it is.
Let's do this as a simple exercise in logic.
If more conservatives willingly tune into CNN and MSNBC, despite the liberal slant of those outlets than liberals tune into the conservative Fox News, then one may reasonably conclude that conservatives are less put off by liberal views than liberals are put off by conservative ones.
What is open mindedness?
Is it the willingness to listen to an opposing view point or is it shouting down that view point and driving it off campus? We have seen what liberal open mindedness means on college campuses all over the nation. Shout down, bully or flee in terror from any viewpoint that challenges the "openmindedness" of the academy.What is close mindedness? It is bias and generalization about everyone except for conservatives.
Bias and generalizations can be found even in highly intelligent people who can't see themselves or anyone else with objectivity.
It is believing that all media is liberal except for Fox News, all conservatives are open minded, all liberals are closed minded and colleges are filled with students shout down and bully anyone who is a conservative.The qualifier "all" has been placed in this conversation by you, not I.
Yes, that word was placed by me, but in response to your generalizations about liberals, i.e., "shout down", "bully" and "conservatives are more open minded than liberals".
The word "all" is implied in blanket generalizations.I think the word you really want is inferred.
Oh, please. Are you so desperate to evade me that you are going to start nitpicking about individual words?
No, you drew or INFERRED what you wanted. It is not nit picking words, it deconstructing your thinking.
retief, Easy to see how "f"ed up the media is if this guy worked in it for 30 years.
Again, this says nothing about accuracy in news presentation. It is about viewership. Fox News has conservative commentators and liberal ones - Greta Van Susteren is no ones Rush Limbaugh. Yet where is the conservative on MSNBC with an hour long show? I would offer that there is no conservative on Fox News as wildly unfit to serve as a network host as is Al Sharpton, yet he is embraced by MSNBC.
Yet MSNBC has a larger portion of conservative viewers than Fox News has of liberal ones, why? What explanation is there for this other then conservatives are less put off by MSNBCs liberalism than liberals are put off by Fox News' conservatism.
Speaking strictly as a conservative, I find Fox News far less conservative than a liberal can understand.
A liberal does not understand conservatism. That, sir, is an example of a tautology.People who understand the Fox News business strategy best are professional journalists and media executives who don't identify themselves as liberals or conservatives.
People who understand it least are passionate viewers who take everything that is said as fact and reject any criticism about the channel's objectivity.
That being said, multiple research studies support that same point. Pew Research found that, out of 13 news channels, Fox had the highest credibility rating among Republicans and the lowest among Democrats. More importantly, it had the lowest rating among political independents.
CNN is the most trusted major network and Fox the least trusted.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … mplicated/
Fox is viewed as the most ideological network. Its viewers see other networks as liberal (hint). Even Fox viewers see Fox as mostly conservative.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/29/ … l-network/
Other studies found that Fox viewers were least informed about domestic and international events.
http://www.poynter.org/2012/survey-nprs … ed/174826/
Your question about MSNBC is an easy one. Morning Joe is one of their most popular shows with a Republican host and a Democrat host. The show is dominated by the Republican.
Even my solidly Republican parents watch Morning Joe, and they watch Fox News more than any other channel. Thanks to Fox News, they also believe Obama is a Muslim and communist who wasn't born in the U.S.
"A liberal does not understand conservatism" is not a tautology. It is a sweeping generalization."Morning Joe is one of their most popular shows with a Republican host."
Republican does not equal conservative - more evidence of how little liberals actually understand about either.
"Thanks to Fox News, they also believe Obama is a Muslim and communist who wasn't born in the U.S."
I defy you to offer evidence of causality regarding this most sweeping of generalizations.
"A liberal does not understand conservatism" is not a tautology. It is a sweeping generalization.
If a liberal actually understood conservatism, he would no longer be liberal."If liberals actually understood conservatives they would no longer be liberal "..........Brilliant !
Liberals , by educational indoctrination since the nineteen sixties and beginning in elementary education , have almost totally brainwashed most of our young . I was there during he transition -from neutral education and teachings TO an assumed liberal brainwashing and political correctness . The American education system has been railroaded by socialist indoctrinated teachers , just like the justice system has !
Fox news is one of the last hold outs in our entire media for truths - My advice reclaim your children's education and neutral political and conservative values - home school them if you have to ! Let the socialists die along the path of political correctness and divisive nanny state mentality !
There is nothing worse in the political and education spectrum than pseudo-intellectual socialism ! It has destroyed your children's future .Must all Republicans be conservatives? There was a time not long ago that the party embraced people like me -- those of us who can think for ourselves but at the same time believe in certain principles.
Now it is simply the bastion of extremists who ironically are destroying the party, nominating Donald Trump and fueling the rise of far left liberals like Bernie Sanders.
You don't throw everyone else off a sinking ship just because you control the lifeboats.The topic was liberals on Fax News, i.e. Greta Van Susteren. You countered with Joe Scarborough as a Republican on MSNBC. I said republican and conservative are not the same thing. This is hardly a statement that (again your word) "all' Republicans need be conservative.
You offered Scarborough as an example equivalent to Van Susteren - whose actual political party affiliation I am unaware - as if he were a conservative as a counter point to my saying she was liberal. I wonder do you understand what you write?
It is hardly conservatives who are most for Donald Trump, witness National Reviews denunciation of him. Almost every writer in the "no Trump" issue is a well known conservative.
Trump and Sanders are responses to a distant and antagonist Washington political elite ignoring the effects of their self serving politics. Both are reactions supported by grass roots disenchantment - if not out right anger - at a political system that appears to exist solely to serve as a way to keep those currently in office perpetually in office.
Trump is a symptom, he is an imperfect vessel into which a large portion of the Republican electorate has poured its resentment of a distant and antagonistic Republican leadership in Congress.
"I wonder do you understand what you write?"
Are we now making this personal? I would be glad to trade insults if you are frustrated that you can't browbeat me into submission and give up both published facts and my personal beliefs. Maybe freedom of expression is available only to the far right.
Republican does equal conservative. I suggest you read more about the turning point with the party that led to the ouster of moderates and right of center Republicans like me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … d-species/
Please read my alleged generalization again. I said it was my parents who believe it. That's not a generalization. That's a specific.
I might be tempted to say, do you understand what you read?It is an epistemological commentary on the inconsistencies in your reasoning. If there were ideological purity in the Republican party there would not be a need for conservatives "caucusing" separately
You say, "People who understand the Fox News business strategy best are professional journalists and media executives who don't identify themselves as liberals or conservatives."
Well that's a straight up lie. See when challenged on the facts liberals just make things up. All studies show that professional journalists and media executives are liberal biased. Here is just one http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view … asp?id=207
And as far as MSNBC goes, what significance is the breakdown of their audience when Fox's audience is 4-5 times larger? "32% conservative, 23% moderate, 36% liberal." If anything those in their audience who claim to be conservative or moderate are really liberal because most liberals actually think they are moderates and it is no secret MSNBC is a shill for liberalism, period!I'm supposed to believe what a right-wing blog says about the media? Seriously?
You don't have a clue how the media works. Try working in it for 30 years before you make such extravagant claims.Another typical liberal tactic, ignore the facts and claim the facts are right wing biased. I said there are many studies, here is what UCLA found (not exactly right wing)
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.
There isn't one study that claims as you do that there are "professional journalists and media executives who don't identify themselves as liberals or conservatives."
That's just absurd and if it were true I'm sure you'd have provided evidence already, but you have no evidence, just innuendo and lies, exactly what a typical liberal does and that is no secret but pure fact.You clearly have a serious problem with liberals. In fact, I'm not a liberal. My politics are purely right of center. I voted for Reagan both times.
I don't have to claim what I said is true. I lived it for more than 30 years. Have you ever worked in the media? Of course not.
I just don't like bullies who spread propaganda.
You clearly didn't read my other posts on this thread with multiple links to credible sources of information and not silly right-wing blogs.I NEVER said you were a liberal now did I? I said you use liberal tactics, and you obviously do (of course what else would anyone expect of you, having been in media?)
So you just used another liberal tactic which is miss state whatever I said and totally ignore the facts I gave you. I can cite more studies all show the media and journalists are liberal, virtually no conservatives among them especially at the top. And UCLA is a right wing blog?
And as I said, if you think you are conservative you are probably one of those journalists who are really liberal to moderate and think that is conservative, cause you certainly don't use debate tactics that anyone wouldn't consider liberal tactics, staight from the liberal playbook. Liberals don't need to provide evidence of what they say is true, they are know it alls...you to a tee!
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
Americans have reached a point , right or left , where we no longer trust our government , our media or our economy , what that alone speaks of is a separation of a people from its government , = a state of mind open to revolutionary change ?
Related Discussions
- 14
Why do so many people hate Fox News?
by arizonataylor 7 years ago
Why do so many people hate Fox News?There are many biased channels that do not receive the negative statements Fox News receives. Whether you believe Fox News is biased or not, why does it receive so much negative attention?
- 31
MSNBC has 30% less factual reporting than Fox News
by James Smith 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...
- 35
What is Conservatism? What is Liberalism? An Experiment
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Having taken 10 years to publish my first book, "A Short History of Significant American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics" (Authorhouse, 2019), I am starting on a second whose working title is "Conservatism in America: History and Impact". This will be a Hub as well.One...
- 21
Who do you think reports the most honest news CNN, MSNBC, FOX
by American View 8 years ago
Who do you think reports the most honest news CNN, MSNBC, FOX
- 93
Fox News analyst blasts network as 'propaganda machine'
by promisem 6 years ago
I believe our country is in a political mess in part because of certain cable "news" channels that pander to people's political biases.Yes, MSNBC does it. But Fox created the concept.http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/media/f … index.html
- 23
Why is Fox News the Most Watched Cable Network?
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
Fox News Marks 35 Straight Months as Most-Watched Cable Network in Total DayThe network is finishing this month as the No. 1 basic cable network in total viewers across the 6 a.m. – 6 a.m. time period, marking 35 consecutive months as most-watched in the daypart Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight...