Archive for the ‘the media’ Category

Thanks for our friends at UPWORTHY for this…

speech-6effe40de36f0f142913f85e3638d867

conservative media bias

Posted: September 9, 2013 in the media

 

 

 

 

 

images-223

Conservative media-bias      (click here)

Syria and the anti-Obama reflex     (click here)

Conservative media praise of anti-abortion takes its toll       (click here)

Fighting back against the conservative media        (click here)

photo

 photo liberal_media_zps197d95d2.jpg
Conservatives still think there’s a liberal media bias.
x

While I, too, as a liberal, am frustrated with the media, I’d like to go on record and state that the media isn’t focusing on issues I care about. They seem to be far more focused on entertainment and making money.

Don’t believe me?
s

If you know anyone who still believes in a “liberal media,” here are 12 things everyone would know if there really were a “liberal media.”

 photo outsourcing_zps2cf6f1b0.jpg1. Where the jobs went.Outsourcing (or offshoring) is a bigger contributor to unemployment in the U.S. than laziness.

Since 2000, U.S. multinationals have cut 2.9 million jobs here while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, as multinational corporations account for only about 20 percent of the labor force.

When was the last time you saw a front-page headline about outsourcing?

2. Upward wealth redistribution and/or inequality.

In 2010, 20 percent of the people held approximately 88 percent of the net worth in the U.S. The top 1 percent alone held 35 percent of all net worth.

The bottom 80 percent of people held only 12 percent of net worth in 2010. In 1983, the bottom 80 percent held 18 percent of net worth.

 photo ownership_occupy_poster_zps7879609f.jpgThese statistics are not Democratic or Republican. They are widely available to reporters. Why aren’t they discussed in the “liberal” media?

3. ALEC.

If there was a corporate organization that drafted laws and then passed them on to legislators to implement, wouldn’t you think the “liberal” media would report on them?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is such an organization. Need legislation drafted? No need to go through a lobbyist to reach state legislatures anymore. Just contact ALEC. Among other things, ALEC is responsible for:

  • Stand Your Ground laws
  • Voter ID laws
  • Right to Work laws
  • Privatizing schools
  • Health savings account bills which benefit health care companies
  • Tobacco industry legislation

Many legislators don’t even change the proposals handed to them by this group of corporations. They simply take the corporate bills and bring them to the legislative floor.

This is the primary reason for so much similar bad legislation in different states.

They’re meeting in Chicago this weekend. Maybe the “liberal media” will send some reporters.

4. The number of people in prison. 

Which country in the world has the most people in prison?

You might think it would be China, with over a billion people and a restrictive government, or former Soviets still imprisoned in Russia.

 photo incarcerated_americans_zpsb7c891bd.jpgWrong. The United States has the most people in prison, by far, of any country in the world. With five percent of the world’s population, we have 25% of the world’s prisoners – 2.3 million criminals. China, with a population four times our size, is second with 1.6 million people in prison.

In 1972, 350,000 Americans were in imprisoned. In 2010, this number had grown to 2.3 million. Yet from 1988 – 2008, crime rates have declined by 25 percent.

Isn’t anyone in the liberal media interested in why so many people are in prison when crime has dropped?

In 2009, non-Hispanic blacks, while only 13.6 percent of the population, accounted for 39.4 percent of the total prison and jail population.

In 2011, according to FBI statistics, whites accounted for 69.2 percent of arrests.

Numbers like these suggest a racial bias in our justice system.

To me, this is a much bigger story than any single incident like Travyon Martin. Or, at the very least, why didn’t the “liberal media” ever mention this while covering the Martin story?

5.  Our planet is burning up

Click HERE and HERE

6. U.S. health care costs are the highest in the world.

The expenditure per person in the U.S. is $8,233. Norway is second with $5,388.
Total amount of GDP spent on health care is also the highest of any country in the world at 17.6 percent. The next closest country is the Netherlands, at 12 percent.

As a liberal, I’d like to ask why the market isn’t bringing down costs. I’d think a “liberal” media might too.

7. Gerrymandering.

When was the last time you saw a front page headline about gerrymandering?

Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when national congressional districts were redrawn in order to fix them so Republicans would win a majority of districts.

The Redistricting Majority Project was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes.

 photo 5459fab1-8d5b-44e5-a728-b31ed72bf00d_zps9a434c5a.jpg

In Congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans yet Republicans won control of the House 234 seats to 201 seats.

How is this possible?

By pumping $30 million into state races to win the legislatures, Republicans redrew state maps in states such as Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Ohio to place all of the Democrats into just a few districts.
In this manner, Democrats win heavily in a couple districts and lose the rest.

In North Carolina, the statewide vote was 51 percent Democrat and 49 percent Republican yet 9 Republicans won and only 4 Democrats.

Where is your coverage of this vote stealing, “liberal media?” You’re willing to cover voter ID laws; why can’t you cover real vote stealing?

8. The number of bills blocked by Republicans in Congress.

The filibuster has been used a record number of time since Obama was elected President. From 2008-2012, 375 bills weren’t even allowed to come to a vote in the Senate because Republicans threatened the filibuster.

In 2013, during the first six months, Congress has only passed 15 bills that were signed into law. This is eight fewer than in the first six months of 2012 and 19 fewer than 2011.

Also, until the Senate recently threatened to reform the filibuster, the GOP had succeeded in holding up 79 of President Obama’s picks to the U.S. Circuit Court and Courts of Appeal. They’re blocking these appointments regardless of qualification.

Where’s the coverage? Where are the reporters asking why nothing is getting done?

* crickets *

9. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision

In a 2011 Hart poll, only 22 percent of those polled had actually heard of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision before taking the survey.

If 77 percent believe that corporations have more control over our political process than people, why isn’t the liberal media talking more about the Citizens United decision?

10. The GOP racist strategy

The Southern Strategy is a strategy for gaining political power by exploiting the greatest number of ethnic prejudices. Kevin Philips, Republican and Nixon campaign strategist, speaking about this strategy in a 1970 interview with the New York Times:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

7B889eff7f-911e-41ae-a5a8-41f243594This strategy has been used since President Johnson and Democrats in Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to build the Republican party. Examples of this strategy were evident as recently as 2008 and 2012 as Republicans took up their assault on Medicaid, Social Security, labor unions, and Obamacare – programs which, though they benefit more white seniors, retirees, women, and children, have been sold to many Americans as handouts to lazy, undeserving blacks and minorities.

Yet you never hear the “liberal media” (at least since the 1970 NY Times) talking about the use of this strategy. At least not like this:

“P (President) emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.” – H.R. Haldeman’s diary, President Richard Nixon’s White House Chief of Staff

11. Tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy. A progressive tax program is designed to tax people very little as they are starting out and progressively increase their rates as they do better.

Republican plans seem designed to do exactly the opposite: shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and onto working people.

Take the repeal of the estate tax. In Ohio this was recently repealed by Republicans. The benefit is only realized by people with estates larger than $338,000 (as the first $338k was exempt) and realized most by people with even wealthier estates.

This also explains why Republicans want to shift the system from income taxes to consumption taxes. Consumption taxes are paid most by those at the bottom as basic consumption remains the same regardless of income.

It also explains why capital gain taxes are so low. Income through capital gains is only taxed at 20 percent (increased from 15 percent in 2012) instead of at the rate of other income (closer to 35 percent).

It also explains why Republicans were so willing to let the payroll tax cut expire. The payroll tax cut benefited people who were getting paid, not those issuing the paychecks. How much fight did you see to save this tax cut?

While tax cuts are sold to us as benefiting everyone, they really benefit a select few at the very top.

If everyone knew who tax cuts really benefit, would so many people vote for them?

12. Media consolidation

Six corporations – Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, Comcast, and CBS –control roughly 90 percent of the media in the U.S.

These companies are in business to make a profit.

This is why you’ll find plenty of advertisements in the media. Entertainment? Check. Sports? Definitely. Weather? Yep.

You’ll also find plenty of “if it bleeds, it leads” stories designed to hook you in. Vendors, witnesses recall Venice hit-and-run horror. Fort Hood trial turns bizarre as shooter grills witnesses.

There’s also plenty of political bickering: Democrats said this, Republicans said that. We let you decide (but we never weigh in with any facts or fact-checking).

What won’t you hear? You won’t hear the “liberal media” discuss the corporate media.

What to make of this

If the media were “liberal,” it would serve the public interest and shine a light on issues like the ones above.

More people would also have a better understanding of global warming, peak oil, population growth, political lobbying, government’s role in a functioning economy, how much we spend on the military, and countless other issues.

What you’re more likely to see in the media, however, are stories designed to get you to buy their paper, or watch their show, or listen to their radio station. If it bleeds, it leads. This is why the media is concerned with scandal, celebrities, gossip, and fear.

If anything, our news consists of paid advertisements and outlets too scared of offending anyone to publish much of substance. Investigative journalism is also expensive; entertainment is cheap.

The way this corporate media behaves may not be surprising. I apologize if you feel any of this is beating you over the head.

This Buzzfeed-style list wasn’t intended to introduce this idea as new (others have done a much better job), but rather to highlight the sheer absurdity of a “liberal media” for an audience who may not see it.

One way to approach the topic is to simply ask: If we have a “liberal media,” where are the liberal stories?

 

 

Related Articles

images-123You’ve got to see this Jon Steward segment!   Fox news rabidly defends the constitution – except for amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6….etc.

Click HERE

 

In the ongoing GOP Civil War (the hilarious spectacle of the Tea Partiers vs. The GOP Establishment) David Freedlander at the Daily Beast has a story, “Why Tea Partiers Are Boycotting Fox News,” that will warm the cockles of the hearts of non-Conservatives everywhere:

First it was the ‘left’ turn after the election, then Benghazi coverup accusations. Activists have a list of demands for the conservative network, which some say is ‘not as fair and balanced as we thought.’

That is what a number of Tea Party activists are saying and they are organizing a boycott to protest the conservative station’s coverage, especially what they view as the network’s relative silence in investigating the attacks on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Particularly after the election, Fox keeps turning to the left,” said Stan Hjerlied, 75, of Fort Collins, Colo., and a participant in the boycott. He pointed to an interview Fox News CEO Roger Ailes gave after the election in which he said that the Republican Party and Fox News need to modernize, especially around immigration. “So we are really losing our only conservative network.”

The three-day boycott lasted Thursday morning through Sunday morning, and is the second time this group of activists have gone Fox-free in an effort to steer the coverage. Organizers say a two-day boycott earlier this month knocked 20 percent off of the network’s regular viewership. (A Daily Beast analysis of the same data showed that the boycott had little effect.)

A spokeswoman for Fox News did not respond to a request for comment.

A leader of the boycott, Kathy Amidon, of Nashville, declined an interview, instead directing The Daily Beast to a website, Benghazi-Truth. The website, a single-page, 23,000-word manifesto complete with multicolored fonts, supposedly incriminating videos of Fox News’s complicity in a coverup, and communist propaganda photographs, is kept by someone who identifies himself online as ‘Proe Graphique,’ and who other members of boycott described as someone who works ‘in New York media.’

By way of explanation, the website reports:

People ask why not all mainstream media? Why just Boycott FOX? The answer, again, is that FOX needs the Tea Party/conservatives more than the conservatives need FOX after FOX turned left, basically selling out the people who made FOX successful in an attempt to earn an extra buck. FOX is extremely vulnerable to these boycotts while the rest of the MSM doesn’t need us at all, to speak of.

Organizers then encourage would-be Fox News viewers to wait until the One America network, which is supposed to launch this summer as an alternative to Fox, goes on the air.

The night of the first boycott, Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted a segment to the attacks called ‘Six Months of Deceit.’ Organizers didn’t watch it—since they were boycotting the network—and said that it was too little, too late, anyway.

“We have seen FOX suddenly get very loud about Benghazi after the 1st boycott, but conservatives are conservative because they are not stupid,” the website reads. “We recognize, easily, loud noise which is low on substance. In other words, by whining loudly about Benghazi without the kind of hard-hitting investigative reporting that brought down Nixon over Watergate, what we are seeing from FOX IMO is smoke and mirrors; a trick, to fool us into dutifully genuflecting at their [sic] alter of their arrogant hosts who throw us crumbs with one hand while insulting us with the other. If we want FOX to get serious, we’re going to have to keep hitting them hard. And that is just exactly what we’re going to do.”

Going without the conservative movement’s house organ, however, has proven to be no easy task for true believers.

“I am having withdrawal. I do like Fox News,” said Kevin Avard, a former state lawmaker in New Hampshire who is participating in the boycott. “I have been going to CNN, and to Headline News just to get some kind of fix. I usually probably only watch them once or twice a year.”

“I used to have it on all day long, and I probably watched maybe six hours last week,” he said. “The more I looked at it, I have come to the conclusion that Fox is not as fair and balanced as I thought. They shade the truth also.Donnie Farner, 48, works as a chimney sweep in central Pennsylvania and runs a website, Proud Conservative, which sells right-leaning memorabilia like ‘Liberals Are Friggin Idiots’ T-shirts and bumper stickers which read ‘Ten Out of Ten Terrorists Recommend Voting Democrat.’  He says staying away from Fox News, and in particular its website, is harder than he realized.

It is honestly because Fox is everywhere. If you are on Twitter, you click on a link, chances are it might go through Mediaite or Drudge, but it ends up at Fox because Fox originated the story.

He quickly clicks away, instead relying on Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze to stay informed.

The more I research into Fox—I was like holy cow! Maybe they are just trying to snatch our pockets. Maybe they are just talking the talk, because it sure doesn’t look like they are walking the walk.

Among the demands the protesters have is that Fox News ‘be the right-wing CBS News: to break stories, to break information, and to do what news organizations have always done with such stories: break politicians,’ that the network have at least one segment on Benghazi every night on two of its prime-time shows; that Fox similarly devote investigative resources to discovering the truth of Obama’s birth certificate; and that the network cease striving to be ‘fair and balanced.’

“’We need Fox to turn right,’ said Hjerlied. ‘We think this is a coverup and Fox is aiding and abetting it. This is the way Hitler started taking over Germany, by managing and manipulating the news media.‘”

 

Richmond Ramsey is a conservative, and an executive who lives and works in Blue America.

images-62Conor Friedersdorf remembers what a pain it was to live with a liberal roommate who watched Keith Olbermann every night, and would subsequently sulk around in a pissed-off mood. Friedersdorf too got a negative contact buzz from the show. He writes: “It seems to me that Olbermann’s show often brought out the worst impulses in people: petulance, self-righteousness, and blind anger at ‘the other side.’”

Sounds familiar to me, though from the other side. Except in my case, it’s not my liberal roommate. It’s my conservative parents – and maybe yours too.

Over the past couple of years, I’ve been keeping track of a trend among friends around my age (late thirties to mid-forties). Eight of us (so far) share something in common besides our conservatism: a deep frustration over how our parents have become impossible to take on the subject of politics. Without fail, it turns out that our folks have all been sitting at home watching Fox News Channel all day – especially Glenn Beck’s program.

Used to be I would call my mom and get updated on news from the neighborhood, her garden, the grandchildren, hometown gossip, and so forth. I’ve always been interested in politics, but never had the occasion to talk about them with her. She just doesn’t care.

Or didn’t. I don’t know when it happened, exactly, but she began peppering our conversation with red-hot remarks about President Obama. I would try to engage her, but unless I shared her particular judgment, and her outrage, she apparently thought that I was a dupe or a RINO. Finally I asked my father privately why Mom, who as far as I know never before had a political thought, was so worked up about Obama all the time.

“She’s been like that ever since she started watching Glenn Beck,” Dad said.

A few months later, she roped him into watching Beck, which had the same effect. Even thoughimages-63 we’re all conservatives, I found myself having to steer our phone conversations away from politics and current events. It wasn’t that I disagreed with thei
r opinions – though I often did – but rather that I found the vehemence with which they expressed those opinions to be so off-putting.

Then I flew out for a visit, and observed that their television was on all day long, even if no one was watching it. What channel was playing? Fox. Spending a few days in the company of the channel – especially Glenn Beck — it all became clear to me. If Fox was the window through which I saw the wider world, for hours every day, I’d be perpetually pissed off too.

Back home, I mentioned to a friend over beers how much Fox my mom and dad watched, and how angry they now were about politics.

“Yours too?!” he said. “I’ve noticed the same thing with mine. They weren’t always like this, but since they retired, they’ve gotten into Fox, and you can’t even talk to them anymore without hearing them read the riot act about Obama.”

I started to wonder how common this Fox Geezer Syndrome was. I began to poll conservative friends of my generation who had right-wing parents. At least eight different people – not an Obama voter among them, and one of them actually a George W. Bush political appointee in Washington – told me that yes, they had observed a correlation between the fevered emotionalism of their elderly parents’ politics, and increased exposure to Fox News.

images-64After the Tucson shootings, Fox chief Roger Ailes said he had told his crew to “tone it down.” I’m skeptical, but I hope he succeeds. One of the great advantages of a conservative disposition is a suspicion of emotions, and emotionalism. The dumbest decisions I’ve ever made, about politics and everything else, were executed while I was worked up about something, and trusted my emotional response. Passion is inevitable – we are only human, after all – and can be constructive when properly channeled. But passion is the enemy of clear thought and, when given free reign, is the prerequisite for mob rule.

Unbridled anger at the deserving enemies is a danger to the civil order, and ultimately to ourselves. Remember Thomas More’s warning to the hotheaded William Roper in A Man For All Seasons, when Roper accused More of going easy on a scoundrel who hadn’t (yet) broken the law. Roper charged More with wanting to give the Devil the benefit of the law.

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s!” More responded. “And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”

More adds that he would give the Devil the benefit of the law “for my own safety’s sake.” There’s a profound conservative truth in this, a warning that even passion for righteousness can be turned to evil, precisely because it is passion.

The popularity of vigorous rage merchants like Beck and Olbermann are not a sign of our political culture’s vitality, but rather its decadence. We live in a time and place that puts high value on emotion, and that views emotions as self-validating. To feel something is thought by many to be sufficient evidence of its truthfulness, or at least its authenticity. This is a mark of the barbarian. I understand why post-Sixties liberals make the mistake of believing that nonsense. But conservatives?

I love my own Fox Geezers, who are big-hearted, salt-of-the-earth folks when they’re not talking about politics. But they are living proof that growing older doesn’t always mean growing wiser. 

This past November we witnessed something truly remarkable, something quite new in modern politics. Despite dozens of polls, carefully calculated predictions, and just plain math, the results of this election were a complete shock to the GOP establishment, including people who should have known better – conservative pollsters, commentators, and the campaign itself. As the race was called for Obama, and as both the senate and the house lost republican seats, we witnessed Karl Rove sputter and bellow in his shock and saw slack-jawed disbelief on FOX News anchors’ faces. We read about the scramble to take Romney’s victory web site down, which an over-confident staffer had made live a few hours too early. We learned that Romney considered it unnecessary to prepare a concession speech. For months, GOP strategists, conservative journalists, big money donors and most of my Republican friends had been confidently claiming a big win for the GOP, despite all of the well-publicized, mainstream, non-partisan polls, surveys and analysis to the contrary. (I won a wager and got a wonderful 2009 Malbec from my very intelligent, well-read conservative friend who, in line with Fox News and most conservatives, was confident that Romney was going to win in a landslide.)

Why were conservatives shocked on election night? It’s not as if the facts weren’t out there for all to read. Virtually all of the non-right leaning pollsters, pundits and politicians, mostly using math and common sense interpretations of data, predicted a win for Obama. Nate Silvers, in his New York Times 538 Blog, led the pack, correctly calling 50 out of 50 states, but was by no means the only voice of reason in the media. Why were all these really smart people so wrong?

I think the answer lies in a dangerous combination of two uniquely conservative dynamics: The GOP’s tendency to deny facts, and the closed information loop they’re stuck in.

THE DENIAL OF FACTS
Despite all the math and data available to them in the months leading up to the election, republican experts continued to peddle their religion on Fox News and in other conservative venues, confidently explaining to their followers that all the exit polls were just plain wrong. And conservatives, as a general rule, refused to consider facts that contradicted what they wanted to believe.

Consider the following confidently stated predictions from people who should have known better:

  • Fox news commentator Dick Morris: Romney 325 electoral votes, Obama 213
  • Conservative commentator George F. Will: Romney 321, Obama 217
  • Conservative journalist Michael Barone: Romney 315, Obama 223
  • Conservative activist Dean Chambers, who runs the website UnSkewed Polls, where he recalibrates polls to offset what he believes are misjudgments about sampling: Romney 311, Obama 227
  • Republican strategist and former Bush adviser Karl Rove: Romney 279, Obama 259
  • And many more!

In his best-selling book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science – and Reality, Chris Mooney makes the well-researched case that conservatives, by nature and brain chemistry, have more of a tendency than others to believe things that are contrary to proven fact. (To my conservative friends: I know that is a terrible thing to say, and I apologize to you. I believe that most of you are very smart, reasonable, thoughtful people. I’m not going to summarize the book here…but I encourage you to read it.)

Many studies indicate that people with a conservative ideology, more so than moderates or liberals, tend to hold to their own ideology despite facts (not just opinions or arguments) to the contrary. And, counter-intuitively, the more educated a conservative is, the less likely that person is to consider or even expose themselves to views that oppose their closely held ideologies and beliefs, while the more educated a liberal or moderate is, the more likely that person is to consider views opposed to their closely held beliefs.

And so we end up with some very smart, very educated people who, statistically, more often than liberals deny facts in the face of evidence and science and math.

As Rachel Maddow put it the day after the election:

  • President Obama really was born in Hawaii
  • The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make-up a fake unemployment rate last month.
  • The Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.
  • The polls were not skewed to over-sample Democrats (and Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad. He was doing math.)
  • Climate change is real.
  • Rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes.
  • Evolution really is a thing.
  • No one is taking away anyone’s guns.
  • Taxes haven’t gone up.
  • Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.
  • The moon landing was real.
  • FEMA isn’t building concentration camps.
  • UN election observers aren’t taking over Texas.
  • Moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry are not the same thing as communism.


THE CLOSED LOOP
A study by the Program on International Attitudes (PIPA) reported that viewers of Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three purported misperceptions:

  • 67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.”
  • 33% of Fox viewers believed that “The U.S. found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.”
  • 35% of Fox viewers believed that “the majority of people in the world favor the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq.”

In general, PIPA concluded that viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed on specific issues when compared to viewers of comparable media, that this likelihood increased proportionally to the frequency of viewing Fox News and that these findings showed statistical significance.

Other study results:

  • A 2010 Stanford University survey found that more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming and with less trust in scientists in general.
  • A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers.
  • A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believe incorrect rumors than those with “low reliance” on Fox News.
  • Content analysis shows that the ratio of conservative to liberal guests on Fox News over a 9-month study period was 50:8
  • The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68% of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27% and CNN at 4%. The content analysis portion of their 2005 report also concluded that “Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated, expressing conservative ideology on the air.” (So much for their motto: Fair and Balanced.)


fauxnews_450And two more – to me, the epitome of both fact denial and the closed loop:

  • In 2011, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that Fox News viewers were less well informed than people who did not watch any news at all.
  • Several studies (sourced in Mooney’s book) indicate that the majority of people who watch Fox News “believe that they are better informed than the average person” and that “there is no need for them to gain different perspectives by viewing or listening to other news sources.”