Campaign Desk
04:35 PM - March 25, 2011
The Real Problem with Fox News
A case study
On Thursday night, Fox News anchor Bret Baier was Jon Stewart’s guest on The Daily Show. The two men went back and forth about whether Fox is predominantly conservative opinion programming or straight news, with Baier contending that “viewers can discern between news and opinion,” and Stewart countering by noting that the opinion anchors and conservative columnists such as Charles Krauthammer appear on news shows.
Stewart suggested that Fox’s tendency to mislabel opinion as news is what differentiates the network from other, more traditional news sources. But that’s the least of it. The more important distinction is the conservative slant and essential inaccuracy of much of Fox’s news reporting itself. Stewart conceded Baier’s premise that because Fox has reporters stationed in Middle Eastern hot spots their reporting on world affairs is above reproach. It is not.
Take, for example, this video, also from Thursday, which shows multiple Fox News hosts gleefully announcing that health reform champion Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wants his home city to seek a waiver from the Affordable Care Act, and that Weiner’s statements prove the law is too cumbersome. In fact, if you watch his comments in full, it is abundantly clear that Weiner is in no way suggesting that the law imposes too many burdens on localities. He simply praises the law’s flexibility and says that if localities can independently fulfill the same objectives of expanded coverage and reduced cost, then they should be alowed to do so.
This episode exposes two core problems with Fox’s supposedly “fair and balanced” news coverage. The first is the simple inaccuracy demonstrated by the blatant misrepresentation of Weiner’s position. The second is the bias of story selection. Why does a congressman from the minority party with no leadership position making a statement at a think thank event on a possible move by a locality warrant multiple news segments? Only because Fox can present it as a victory for conservative ideology. No unbiased observer could possibly have concluded that Weiner’s statements deserved repeated discussion in the midst of three foreign wars, instability throughout the Middle East, a nuclear accident in Japan, high unemployment, and major battles over the federal budget in Washington.
There are real consequences to this kind of biased and misleading entertainment packaged as news: viewers come away believing things that just aren’t true. According to a 2003 study by the University of Maryland, Fox News viewers are more likely than consumers of any other news source to believe demonstrably false statements. Respondents were asked to assess the veracity of claims such as “evidence of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq” and “Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the attacks of September 11.” Fully 80 percent of Fox News viewers believed at least one of the three such statements they used, compared to only 23 percent of fans of NPR, which Fox constantly attacks for its supposed liberal bias.
Being a network with a lot of, even exclusively, conservative opining is a perfectly valid choice for Fox to make. There is nothing wrong with opinion journalism that openly proclaims itself to be just that. But pretending to do straight reporting while choosing stories and dishonestly presenting nuggets of information in order to advance a political agenda perniciously undermines the work of the entire press and ill serves American democracy.
You can view the interview in full on the Daily Show website.
Great article, I love Jon Stewart and his interviewing style, I only wish more people would try to be so objective about reporting.
#1 Posted by Jared Aesoph on Fri 25 Mar 2011 at 05:33 PM
Pot, meet kettle.
Did Weiner say he wanted to seek a waiver for Obamacare? Yes.
Was he one of its most vocal supporters? Yes.
Will he be running for mayor of NYC? Very likely.
There is nothing dishonest in this example of Fox' reportage. There is however, a great deal of dishonesty in Ben Adler's article.
Exactly how many conservative commentators or journos are on CJR? (There's nothing wrong with CJR being a vocal mouthpiece for the left, except that CJR refuses to acknowledge that fact.)
#2 Posted by JLD on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 01:18 AM
very biased analysis
#3 Posted by ed franks on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 02:49 AM
The best scientific data confirms that Fox News is indeed biased to the right...
While ABC, CBS, and NBC are all biased strongly to the left...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election
Why do we only see the "watchdogs" griping about Fox News here at CJR?
Where has CJR called the other three networks out?
Huh?
#4 Posted by padikiller on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 08:49 AM
It's like conservatives on here didn't read the article, nor the ones they posted, nor Weiner's comments. Which is precisely the problem with America. We are doomed as long as so many stupid people are led so easily. Please think for yourself. Do some research. Find solutions not problems. wtfu. you don't have to agree with me, but you have to at least pay attention.
#5 Posted by Brett Cantrrell on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 10:37 AM
Thanks -- insightful article. Your point about selection bias in the news is a good one. I wonder how someone might go about quantifying bias like that -- difficult, for sure.
I think it would be useful to know the number of viewer-hours (based on Neilson ratings or equivalent) that view its news coverage and the number of viewer-hours (based on ratings) that view its opinion coverage. Perhaps a visual display of this information could be powerful.
#6 Posted by stephen z. on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 11:56 AM
Ben's narrow point about Fox's handling of Rep. Weiner's seeking of exceptions to bill provisions is a valid one. But the case of waiver-seeking is more ambiguous than he indicates. A lot of friends of the health-care bill have been given waivers from its mandatory provisions. This went on even while the bill was being assembled, and was widely regarded as Administration payback in exchange for support for the bill. Weiner was only the latest to get in line. Naturally he has a specific case for his city. Most people do have specific reasons for why mandates and regulations burden them. An investigative reporter might ask if there is any politics behind the granting of waivers. Who is turned down, and why?
The broader point is dubious in implying that Fox and the conservative media are unique in playing with facts for an ideological purpose. For instance, on a page on NPR's website called "A Timeline in the Battle Against AIDS" occurs the following entry:
"May 1987
After four years of silence on the epidemic, President Ronald Reagan gives his first speech on AIDS."
This myth is widespread throughout liberal circles and the mainstream media. Dan Savage just repeated it on Terry Gross' show on NPR itself this past week. In fact, Reagan spoke on AIDS at a press conference in September 1985, about the issue of parents fearful of their schoolchildren going to school with an AIDS victim, Ryan White. He expressed sympathy with both sides. In his message to Congress in 1986, Reagan indicated spending on AIDS research would be ramped up, and in fact such spending did rise by leaps and bounds through the Reagan-Bush years, with many regulations being waived. The violence of the rhetoric about Reagan and AIDS was political, not moral. AIDS activists (and journalists) grew silent on the issue when Clinton took office, though people were still dying of AIDS. The big 'gay' issue in 1993 was 'gays in the military', if you recall. If you think about it, the subtext of the Reagan/AIDS myth, if it were true, might be - Why wasn't Reagan being asked about AIDS before 1987 (or, for that matter, 1985)? The answer to the latter question is, of course, that AIDS did not become a headline story until 1985, when Rock Hudson died. The Democrats didn't talk about AIDS in the 1984 presidential campaign, either. It didn't come up in the presidential debates and wasn't raised by Walter Mondale.
So, can I conclude that by your own standards, there is a problem with NPR that is institutional - its greater sensitivity to anti-Republican sentiments than to anti-Democratic ones?
The link citing a 2003 study proclaiming Fox's audience holding more 'misperceptions' than other news outlets (80%, with CBS at 71%, interestingly) used questions solely related to the Iraq war. The Iraq war had just begun. For several years, even the Clinton administration had been beating the drum that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. George Stephenopoulos published a piece urging the assassination of Saddam Hussein. These things may have biased the viewership (and accounted for the high 'misperception' ratings of other news organizations, too). On other issues - 9/11 conspiracy theories come to mind, the old 'October Surprise' hoax that was given a good run by the mainstream media, and, for that matter, the myth about Reagan and AIDS - I've little doubt that the audiences for other, more liberal news organizations would turn up a lot of beliefs in things that are not true.
Fox (and James O'Keefe) get an incredible amount of scrutiny because of their politics. AP put eleven reporters - eleven - on 'fact-checking' Sarah Palin's memoir, which resulted an embarrassingly trivial amount of nit-picking. By instructive contrast, I'm not aware that any large news organization used its resources to fact-check Barack Obama's two books on himself.
I'm not disputing that Fox leans to the right in
#7 Posted by Mark Richard on Sat 26 Mar 2011 at 03:20 PM
Story selection!? Where were all the stories on ABC, NBC, or CBS on the union thuggery in Wisconsin, including death threats against the governor and Repubulican legislators?
There was no coverage of this at all, compared to the hyperventilating (and usually false) coverage of the so-called violence and racism of Tea Party protests.
This "analysis" is complete bullshit and the reason why CJR is a lost cause. No coverage of JournoList. (Hits too close to home with Todd Gitlin, apparently.) Still no coverage of Dem staffers for Biden locking an Orlando Sentinel reporter in the closet to prevent him from covering a fund-raiser, and the Sentinel's editors soft-pedaling this outrage.
Silence from CJR on all counts.
The next snail mail solicitation I receive from them, I'm taping the postage-paid return envelope to a brick and sending it back to them.
#8 Posted by Buzz on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 11:45 AM
A new tag for this piece: Things we will very loudly denounce in public when people we don’t like do them
#9 Posted by Mike H on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 12:03 PM
Bill55
What a stupid question. But you want evidence? Go to numerous blog sites such as Ann Althouse's or Stacy McCain's and look at the documented violence and threats of violence in Wisconsin. Now see how much of that was covered in the MSM.
Compare the MSM's repeating the false charges of racism and violence at Tea Party rallies vs. the documented violence and racism at the union protests in Wisconsin, Ohio, Denver, and other places--documented with photos and video, not just vague accusations.
I could go on, but I doubt you care. You're as blinkered in your idiocy as CJR.
#10 Posted by Buzz on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 01:25 PM
"Did Weiner say he wanted to seek a waiver for Obamacare? Yes."
LIE, LIE, LIE...
What Weiner SAID was that he would be interested to see if NYC can come up with a cheaper, easier implementation of the plan. INTERESTED, as in 'Hmmm, it would be interesting to see if this would work or not.'. This is NOT a request and he did not STATE that he had made a request, this is hypothetical thinking. It's RIGHT THERE on the video.
Jesus, they SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE, and you STILL won't listen? There really IS something wrong with you Fox viewers, isn't there? You have some f'd up filter in your heads that just basically takes anything you don't want to hear and flips it 180 degrees until you like it.
What a shame.
#11 Posted by Mike Wells on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 03:05 PM
To Bill55, I cited above a small specific item in which NPR is retailing demonstrably untrue liberal mythology about Reagan and AIDS on its website. A small example, but not without its illustrative value about the way NPR adopts the framing and vocabulary of liberal-activist groups. To Mike Wells, in a similar vein, I believe I have shown CJR and you that Fox is not unique in purveying misleading information - or, in the case of the NPR item, false information. Evidence cited against Fox (and there is evidence) for partisan tilt can easily be rounded up against other news organizations, too. That's what Fox and O'Keefe have done that CJR will not acknowledge - they have put that longtime conservative hobby-horse, 'media bias', at center-stage of discussions of journalism, and provided 'metrics' by which it can be evaluated. The trouble for liberal journalists is, as Fox and O'Keefe know, such 'metrics' can be used against them, not just against Fox.
I think if Ben and CJR are being honest with themselves, they know that the real 'problem' with Fox is that its ideological mission is in opposition to their own political beliefs.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 07:16 PM
@ Mike Wells: If Obamacare is so great, why does its most vocal supporter want to come up with a "cheaper, easier implementation" to cover the largest city in the US? So Weiner is saying that Obamacare is (1) not cheap and (2) not easy.
And if you want a different "implementation" how is that any different from a waiver? Either you want the law to apply to you or you don't.
#13 Posted by JLD on Mon 28 Mar 2011 at 07:59 PM
Mark: I can't believe you're trying to draw an equivalence between Fox News and NPR. That is absurd!
You say: "the real 'problem' with Fox is that its ideological mission is in opposition to their own [liberal] political beliefs."
No, emphatically no! At it's worst, Fox engages in purposeful misrepresenation (as has been shown by leaks of internal memos). At it's best, Fox provides a far more biased selection of stories (such as the Weiner story) than exists at NPR. Yes, NPR covers science (is science a left wing thing these days?). It covers stories in depth. And of course every story will suffer some of the bias of the person that writes and/or delivers it. That is, by definition, unavoidable. But to suggest an equivalence between FOX and NPR is ludicrous.
#14 Posted by Rick Sullivan on Tue 29 Mar 2011 at 05:40 PM
Rick, I agree that Fox is biased to the Right, and that this is an institutional outlook effecting the trustworthiness of its product. And Fox tilts overtly more to the Right than NPR does to the Left. But that doesn't excuse NPR, and doesn't mean that standards applied remorselessly to Fox by CJR also end up wounding NPR and other news organizations. Above, in exasperation about the comparative whitewashing of liberal-leaning news outfits vis-a-vis the more forhrightly biased Fox News, I cited a rather nastily-edged example of the sort of thing that NPR does - a historical falsehood that NPR purveys that has a liberal narrative behind it. I could cite others, but I'm not writing a book, so I'll stick to one that is current.
This week an important sexual discrimination lawsuit is before the Supreme Court against WalMart, a long-time target of left-wing activism. Nina Totenberg on Monday summarized the plaintiffs' side, without loaded language. Then, switching to the 'other side', she stated that WalMart 'trots out' a female VP who sharply disputed the plaintiffs' charges. NPR changed the language in its transcript to 'presented'. You 'trot out' a pony for purposes of show. Obviously Totenberg was framing the female VP in patronizing and loaded language, and NPR's online editors knew it. Language matters. This is not surprising, since Nina Totenberg, though a good long-form reporter in many ways, has never expressed skepticism of the motives of trial lawyers and plaintiffs charging 'discrimination' in race and gender against a deep-pocketed defendant within my hearing, and I'm a regular listener. The plaintiffs' side could not have wished for a report on the case any different from what Totenberg put together, whereas I expect WalMart's side would have had a lot of trouble with the way it was framed. The test is whether you are trusted by both sides.
Then I turn to the 'On Point' webpage, and learn in the first sentence of its story on the case that 'the women of WalMart had their day in court'. Women of WalMart? There are six women suing WalMart who seek class-action status for their lawsuit - which would permit them to speak for 'all' women at WalMart. Aren't the women defending the company 'Women of WalMart', too? The framing of these stories is never 'Trial Lawyers Seek A Big Payday' at NPR. That's a side issue. The framing is summed up in the On Point story title as 'Women vs. WalMart'. By way of comparison, since self-described conservatives out-number self-described liberals in polling in this country, and Republicans outpolled Democrats last November, and some of them have pointed out accurately cases of bias at NPR, should the story of the GOP fight to defund NPR be titled 'Americans vs. NPR'? It would be approximately as accurate, as usage.,
NPR has a lot of virtues. I'm not sure what I wrote that prompted the science aside in your post, but, yes, NPR covers science, which is good. Fox doesn't, but neither do other television outfits. There is no dispute that NPR has a lot of trustworthy on-air staffers - Mara Liasson, Scott Simon. Fox does, too. Bret Baier's newshour is not by any means inferior to his competitors' stuff, and neither is that of Shepard Smith. But Fox's overall bias does not excuse similar if not as obvious tendencies at NPR, which is subsidized fairly substantially by taxpayers at the federal and local level. The evidence of the passing example above shows clearly that NPR is sympathetic to the WalMart lawsuit, since two of its programs used loaded language to frame the case. This kind of framing does not occur in an ideological vacuum. My point is that Fox is biased to the Right, and gets called out about it all the time by CJR, and that NPR is friendly to the Left, and does not get called out about the effect on its reporting - and its credibility with both sides of our blue-state/red-state divide.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard on Wed 30 Mar 2011 at 07:37 PM
This is a nice shtick the right has got marked out for themselves. They get to spend half their programming complaining about media bias against the stories they want told, usually employing dishonest framing if not outright falsehoods while telling these stories, and when someone points out that they are using lies and bad journalism to spread their little smears and politically helpful narratives, they jump around yelling "Hey! You're biased too! Pull the grain out of your own eye before you touch the plank in ours!"
It's too bad we've had this repetitive discussion before because otherwise I'd hold out hope that an accumulation of logic and evidence would change it.
Oh well, it's not like I don't have more serious matters to deal with.
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1303986.htm
#16 Posted by Thimbles on Wed 30 Mar 2011 at 11:25 PM
ALL MEDIA IS BIASED. The CJR.org is biased. Its blatantly evident when you title this article "The Real Problem with Fox News". Now that is real biased. I'm not conservative nor liberal. I'm a truther. And the truth is... when someone is using entertainment as their source of truth, then that person is out of tune of reality.
Watching cartoons we understand some truth. The truth that a knife or a chainsaw will cut something, but when you start saying things like the coyote is chasing that darn roadrunner again, or something like that roadrunner is blue and is the same size as the coyote, then something is wrong with your thinking. Cartoons are merely entertainment purposes only. Likewise, Jon Stewart is merely a comedian. Comedian=Entertainment. Maybe you should research your own things. Stop being spoon fed by entertainers. Get spoon fed by the facts.
Idiots.
#17 Posted by The Real Truther on Mon 24 Oct 2011 at 02:16 PM