| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: CMPA Study: Fox More Balanced than Networks |
Topic: CMPA Study: Fox More Balanced than Networks
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 12/29/2007 7:53:56 AM | show profile >> This kinda remains me of the phoney study about BOR .It came from a school that gets most of its money from liberal donors. << LINK PLEASE. DON'T MAKE THESE KIND OF STATEMENTS WITHOUT PROVIDING LINKS. NOBODY BELEIVES WHAT YOU SAY JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT. Frank: A study conducted by a group whose director is a PAID REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR to one of the subjects in the study is BY DEFINITION a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Also, I don't cite Moveon.org studies, so why bring up the straw man? I usually stick to MSM sources. That's not to say "independent" institutions aren't legit. But you have to vet them and cleary you haven't in this case. Why is it when a liberal points out a bias, the conservative response is to say "well, everyone does it". Aside form the fact that there are such things as legitimate and illegitimate organizations on both sides of this fence, to DEFEND this practice by saying "they do it, too" undermines your whole argument, because it shows that you recgnize the fact that this is an illegitimate study, RIGHT? RIGHT FRANK LOBO? One other point: you seem to be questioning the truth behind the information Crimedog re-hashed from other web sources. Does that mean that if I prove to you that these group give money to that institute, you will admit you're wrong and recognize that this study doesn't hold water? I doubt it, because you are, of course, always right. |
| chucho | Posted – 12/29/2007 8:17:10 AM | show profile >> As far as the Special Report w/Britt Hume goes- I was making the point that there is NO "crappy news" 1/2 hour Britt Hume hosted newscast "before the Simpsons" as was mentioned in an earlier post. << Good lord. Someone willing to consciously toss out non-seqitors like that (I never said there was a 1/2 hour Brit Hume nightly broadcast; I said the report stated it only reviewed the first half-hour of his program -- you know that, right? you're just making these kind of statements because that's your best rebuttal. ALSO: When i said that's the program that comes on before The Simpsons, I don't mean that literally. My point was that the Fox News Program they're talking about is the ONE THAT IS SYNDICATED ON FOX AFFILIATES on that same channel in your neighborhood that you watch the Simpsons on. I'm sorry if my comment confused you enough to provide that pointless rebuttal.) But, then again, perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying. And, if so, then I suppose you won't understand any of this, either. But I'll give it a shot: *** http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2515 (PS: FAIR is not funded by George Fucking Soros, OK? "Public support forms the backbone of FAIR?s operations. 80% of FAIR's revenue comes from subscriptions to Extra! and contributions from our community of supporters. Grants from foundations and public charities only comprise 12% of our total operating budget. FAIR does not accept corporate funding, governmental grants or advertising of any kind." So, don't even bother going there.) *** FROM FAIR: This is not the first time the CMPA has selectively sliced its data in order to arrive at the conclusion that the media favor a liberal position. As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has documented, this is something of a pattern with the CMPA and its founders, S. Robert and Linda Lichter: The Lichters' tendency to generalize from a narrow sliver of data is the main way that their studies end up supporting their preconceived conclusions of left bias. Take the Center's report on Gulf War coverage (Media Monitor, 4/91) and its widely cited claim that "nearly three out of five sources (59 percent) criticized U.S. government policies during the [Gulf] War." This, of course, is not 59 percent of all 5,915 sources, but of those 249 sources (4.2 percent) who in the Lichters' judgment stated an explicit position. This leaves only 148 sources, or 2.5 percent of all sources, who made explicit criticisms of U.S. policy (from the left, right or center). On what basis can you generalize from the 4 percent of sources who supposedly expressed overt opinions to the 96 percent who didn't? Doing so results in absurd claims, such as, "Surprisingly, the U.S. government fared little better than its Iraqi counterpart in the soundbite battle." That would be surprising, considering that 44 percent of total news sources were from the U.S. government, according to the Center's own research. In 1988, the CMPA published a study of PBS programming concluding that the network had a liberal bias -- but once again, it did so by excluding the network's conservative-leaning programming from its analysis. As FAIR reported: The Lichters' study of PBS is notable for what it leaves out: It excluded talkshows such as William F. Buckley's Firing Line and Morton Kondracke's American Interests, news reports like the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, and business programs like Louis Rukeyser's Wall $treet Week. The Center claims this is to ensure "a group of programs that were similar in style and content, to maximize the comparability of judgments." The study's focus, however, removes those PBS shows most often criticized for having a conservative slant -- programming that takes up more of the PBS schedule than the documentaries that the Center's study is limited to. Firing Line and American Interests -- programs underwritten by the Center's biggest funders -- provided approximately 50 hours of programming a year between them. ** So, no. As much as I was willing to accept the premise of the study. A little bit of online research has blasted my willingness to beleive it: even if it comes from that evil, commie institution we have come to know as colleges and universities. (That last sarcastic comment made me laugh because I've hear islamists say similar things to demonize higher learning institutions. Thanks for the chuckle.) |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 12/29/2007 10:15:09 AM | show profile nice research, chucho, but really, you sully yourself by wading into the mudpuddle. it's typical wingnuttery to ignore the overarching reality and worry one little point to death so that one is left to try and construct airtight refutations (it's like being a lawyer and drafting a contract). I mean, invoking Susan MacDougal, of all people! That made me laugh. If you want to save yourself time, just simply respond like they do. If they say, 'liberal media,' you just say, "Judith Miller." See how easy that is? Anyway, the best thing that could happen to these people is that they get the country they so fervently wish for, because then they'll be forced to live in it. He who laughs last, you know. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 10:33:19 AM | show profile Chucho - Stanley's correct about this. I gave them solid facts and the response is typical - liberals are monsters. It's pointless debating you'll never move these crack pots. CMPA's claim to be 'non-partisan' is undermined by an analysis of its sources of funding. Information provided by mediatransparency.org [4] reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations. The funding information, covering 1986-2002, lists the following donors: Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $267,000 from 5 donations Earhart Foundation John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations Thus, out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles: John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit." [5] Huffington Report |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 11:30:38 AM | show profile FAIR is also a liberal website just like Huff Post.Far from being non-partisan. Nice research ,quoting from a liberal website to try to disprove this study. But your same old messege is clear.Anything liberal is good ,FOX NEWS is evilllllllll !! If you go back to crimedogs post he rants about the study of BOR's name calling.Remember BOR is a meanie, he calls someone a name every 7 secs!!! I glad to have the country i wished for .. "He who laughs last is the last one to get it." |
| chucho | Posted – 12/29/2007 12:01:04 PM | show profile I know. I feel like that penguin on Tom Tomorrow when in the last panel of listening to some uppity conservative uttering platitudes, propaganda, or non-sequitors precisely designed to obfuscate any debate he just shakes his head and says "oh my". Basically the patent reply to ANYTHING a liberal citeas is to say that source is liberal pablum (but, they of course neve rprovide evidence: for example, if FAIR is part of the grand liberal conspiracy, it begs the question: from where is this person getting his information? And if I ask for information about evidence that FAIR is part of a liberal conspiracy, guess what? The conservative will cite some crazy marginal right-wing think tank founded by special interests as evidence that FAIR is part of the grand liberal conspiracy. Pot. Kettle. Black. But, again, you're right: why bother? If Frank will categorically deny the fact that those peopel listed above HAVE IN FACT GIVEN MONEY to that group solely on the basis that the source is a RE-POST on The HuffPo (a website I despise, by the way) then, really, there is no point to engaging him in deabte. (Hint: those donors DID give money to that group. So accept that FACT and address it form there instead of holding hand over your ears and says "nah-nah-nah". (Oh, by the way, Frank, when I say that thing about holding your hands over your hears I DON'T MEAN IT LITERALLY, so no "I don't hold my hands over my ears" comment is necessary. Sometimes I forget that conservatives tend to be literal interpretors so when I get "figurative" I see how conservative tend to get confused and off track by that.) Here's a question I'd like the token conservatives to answer: What sources are liberals allowed to use in your grand factual vision of How The World Really Is? That's a serious question. Since conservative write off anything a liberal says, I guess liberals must bow and ask permission from the conservative elitists as to which sources are acceptable and which ones are part of George Soros's plan to take over the world. And now I cede the floor to some asinine response or non sequitor from the usual suspects. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 12:29:13 PM | show profile Yes Frank - I like them all. - They are all 10s! Now reply to the factual posts with some degree of intelligence. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 12:59:13 PM | show profile "Before the Internet you'd likely me at a Klan rally." --crimedog On the surface theses 2 websites seem non-partisan Fair and Accuracy in Media.They both seem to only want to make people area of the media. But when you look closer you see Fair is a liberal website and Accuracy in Media is a conservative website.Just read the sites to see the proof. Liberals are so blinded by their hate of Fox News, they can't see anything else. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 1:19:33 PM | show profile Frank you forget Theres at least 2 people posting under the name crimedog.One doesn't acknowledge what the other one post. What sources are liberals allowed to use in your grand factual vision of How The World Really Is? --chucho You can get your info anywhere you want.Just stop bitching about FoxNews being the worst of everything that is news. Fox News has never faked a news story.The NYTimes,LATimes,BBC, CBS,ABC,NBC,and CNN can't say that. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see FNC leans right and give people on the right a voice that they've never had in the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that CNN, MSNBC , BBC, and the NYTimes leans to the left. Why are liberals so scare of FNC ???? Less than 2 million watch Fox News daily. Why all the hate Fox websites?????? Why the billions spend to take Fox out??? |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 1:30:33 PM | show profile Olby - crimedog doesn't have to post under any other name than what you see. I'm not Olby/OneTwo Three/BigWhi - just crimedog. There's only one me! There's a half dozen you and Frank! What you need to do is step back from all of your pointless posts and be objective and wallow in the facts for a change. Separte your mind from FOX news for just a moment and understand this - decisions are made by the frontline people who own and operate a business. FOX is there to serve Murdock and the Republican party therefore the news is slanted and always bias. You can't read between the sentences and decipher bias and misinformantion. These are real decisions made by higher ups to render you and Frank brain dead puppets willing to spread disinformation. So be your lot in life! |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 2:21:24 PM | show profile did you forget jazzreport crimedog?? |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 2:24:19 PM | show profile "Before the Internet you'd likely me at a Klan rally." --crimedog |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 2:26:06 PM | show profile "Separte" more typos from crimedog/jazzreport |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 5:24:09 PM | show profile Frank, you and your parrot have a golden opportunity to answer to the facts that were presented earlier. No one's going to clean your cage but you. |
| chucho | Posted – 12/30/2007 4:46:45 AM | show profile Of course all of this is getting OT. We should be going back to addressing CMPA and using it as a case study for wehy you can't trust this source. #1.) The objectors stated that the CEO is a paid Fox News consultant. If I cited a study that said Fox News is a right wing propaganda channel, and that study was by a reporter at Nation magazine, you'd have a hissy fit about it. Double standard? OF COURSE! We liberals can't object to any of the sources the conservative elites toss out. But as soon as liberals mention something that was re-posted on The Hufgfington Post: it's all part of the grand liberal conspiracy. That's total bullshit. #2.) Objector cites a list of donors to source. The only reply was to say "do you beleive everything you read online"? That response is implying that the list of donors to the group isn't true. Typiucal right-wing tactic: dismiss any evidence of bias as false without actually even verifying whether its tru or false. #3.) Then to cover up and obfuscate the debate further: raply with a barrage of non-sequitors and asinine responses like "liberals just hate Bush" or "stops hating Fox News and I'll stop obfuscating the argument with statements like 'stop hating Fox News'". These are the kind of things that have resulted in, for example, basically only two people engaging the token right wingers of this board in conversation. You guys are just like those characters in Tom Tomorrow who simply refuse to acknowlege any fault or mistakes or errors. You're just like the president: admitting that you aren't fucking right %100 of the time is a sign of weakness. It's kind of pathetic, actually. When I'm corrected I have acknowledged it. You guy NEVER do that because you're always right. I'm through with this thread. Your guys are either beyond redemption or just pretending to be in an attempt at sad humor. Now go back to your warm, fuzzy sphere and have a nice day. . . you at the 24% of the rest of America that thinks like you. As you said: only a few million people watch FNS and the smoking chimpanzee/sick children stories, so what are we afraid of? Nothing, actually. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/30/2007 9:27:49 AM | show profile You can go back to hiding under your desk thinking Bush,Evil Christians and Fox News are out to get you. |
