8 ms·

Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Car

Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.

tw04 5y ago
I won't say Fox is the only one guilty of it, but they intentionally mix what would best be described as "opinion pieces" with "real news" and don't really make any effort to draw a clear line between the two. The end result is as disastrous as one would expect when taking someone's personal opinion and selling it as a factual source of news.
tptacek 5y ago
We don't even have to litigate whether Fox News airtime is distinctively malignant if we just acknowledge that all 24/7 cable news channels are bad. They kind of have to be, just by the nature of how they compete and what they have to work with in both audiences and source material. Just don't get your news from the TV.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  And they're all funded by ads. Between the need to access government figures for interview, and their funding sources, how could you ever expect straight forward reporting? If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product.
  - teddyh 5y ago
    > If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product. Even if you are paying, you can still be the product, as long as media can make even more money out of it. I mean, why wouldn’t they? More money is more money.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  A fair point, but I don't think the concession is worth what you get out of it. A citizen whose sole news source is Fox is considerably less informed than a viewer who might watch exclusively CNN (or possibly even nothing at all, see [1]) Fox News really is worse, and while there may be lessons learned there which can be applied to the other outlets, such as insisting on clearer labeling of opinion content vs reporting, I think it's an all-lives-matter-style distraction to throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done and they're all equally bad because it's a problem inherent in the medium. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-make...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - chevill 5y ago
    While I can technically see that some news organizations are worse than others, my issue is that they are all so bad that they are actively doing significant damage to the world and most of the time they are doing it consciously and intentionally, so I don't really get much utility trying to distinguish them from one another. And yet while they are all genuinely terrible due to trying to remain profitable AND trying to advance their personal political agendas, people are always trying to use the excuse that "its better than X" to justify supporting them. My solution would be to ignore the news completely, but that solution isn't effective because I know multiple people that insist on ranting about everything they see/hear from the media on a daily basis. IMO the media is very important for civilization, but somehow we have accepted that deceit, manipulation, and failure are the golden standard.
- cpach 5y ago
  In Sweden we have public service TV channels, but even in that context I think your advice holds up – not a good source for news. Too stressed, too shallow reporting.
Moodles 5y ago
I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)
- boredprograming 5y ago
  Fox news personalities frequently allow Trump and his allies airtime where they lie about losing the election to Biden. I don't know how you get any less truthful than that
  - Moodles 5y ago
    They allow the previous president airtime!? Quick, someone call the cops.
    - boredprograming 5y ago
      When he does nothing but lie about election fraud on their airwaves? Pretty normal for a news company
      - Moodles 5y ago
        We should refund the police, and then call them! What are you arguing about? 1. Someone mentions Fox being bad for bias in story selection. 2. I ask: why are we singling out Fox specifically? Others do it too? 3. You say: "They give Trump airtime!" Ok? That is a difference I guess? Not got much to do with what we're talking about though?
        boredprograming 5y ago
        It's an example of how Fox is less honest than other news companies, exactly what you asked for. They let people on air spout obvious lies all the time. Find a mainstream channel that does the same. I'll wait
throwawayboise 5y ago
I mean, the same is true about CNN's opinion pieces, or MSNBC's, etc, they are just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now!.
  - Moodles 5y ago
    Find one positive article from MSNBC or CNN about Trump during his presidency?
    - adzm 5y ago
      There are many. httpss://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/donald-trump-economy-trade-gdp-growth-credit/index.html
      - Moodles 5y ago
        Did you read that article? I mean, even that article has the multiple bitchy comments thrown in. I would quote, but honestly it would be every other paragraph. But yes, the headline is generally positive I guess. Now, could we find a similar article for Biden in Fox over the next 4 years? I would guess probably. Anyways it's kind of pointless to argue what the "opposite" of Fox is as it's really ill-defined. i think it's fair to say CNN and Fox are similar to being opposites. Ok, I'm going to do it: > Presidents usually get too much blame when the economy is doing badly, since downturns are often caused by outside shocks or cyclical factors, but that also gives them a chance to crow when things are going full steam ahead. Trump is not the kind of person to pass that up. > The strong growth number gives the White House a significant boost after days of grim headlines, and its failure to move on from the President’s humiliating summit performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks ago. > It also offers some personal respite for Trump, given that he must feel that legal walls are closing around him, following news that one of his most important confidants, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating his former lawyer Michael Cohen. > The New York Times reported on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining Trump’s tweets, potentially to see whether they can help him build a case that the President acted with malicious intent when he sacked former FBI Director James Comey. > Trump is forever trying to change the subject. With the current state of the economy, he may have some ammunition. > Often, the President’s hyperbolic assessment of his own performance is at odds with the facts > but he [Trump] often has only himself to blame for it getting overlooked, given the daily political turmoil he creates. > Trump’s end zone dance might come across as a little premature. It just goes on and on. I'm practically quoting the whole article. Just the language alone: "humiliating", "walls closing in", etc. Then they quote one poll, presumably the one what makes him look as bad as possible. It's just ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this article is "positive" for Trump. The headline is relatively positive (though even then I can feel CNN begrudgingly wrote some credit).
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
Am I the only one who feels Tucker Carlson is so popular because he (a lot like Donald Trump) was willing to challenge the false idols of the Republican establishment (e.g. we need to be at war in Afghanistan/Iraq, the free market isn't always the best especially if it leads to outsourcing and offshoring, etc.) Might just be me. I dislike 90% of fox news but I listen to Carlson sometimes and never find him to be horrible or BS-y (admittedly I don't listen in all the time so I may be missing some stuff)
- cwkoss 5y ago
  I pretty much only see clips of Tucker Carlson that are posted by liberals or leftists to point at and generate outrage. To me, he seems like a whiner who disingenuously argues against things in a way to bolster conservative talking points. But, I expect the majority of this is selection bias, and only the 'worst' clips are making it into my filter bubble.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Fear-mongering sells. He's good at it. So is Rachael Maddow and just about everyone they put in front of the camera to "inform" you.
- anonfornoreason 5y ago
  I've seen a few clips, they have been pretty bad but with kernel of truths that make it hard to make substantive arguments against whatever he is ranting on. I personally think he's a big stain on news media, even while agreeing with a few points here/there there. For what it's worth, I've only watched in order to try and understand other people's viewpoints. More specifically, I think he's terrible because he has mastered the ability to tease out the base instincts of people with his messaging, which makes it hard to either agree or disagree with his statements with logic. He can point to some kernels of truth, and you are left with people saying things like "that's just dogwhistling" when attacking his viewpoints. In other words, he riles up, doesn't cause people to think critically, and overall lowers the level of discourse out there.
rayiner 5y ago
Does anyone watch TV anymore? I read Fox News online, which is fine, but I don’t think I’ve ever tuned into shows. My parents have CNN on a loop, and even my dad (a die-hard Carter fan) calls it “DNC talking points.”
- AlexCoventry 5y ago
  I think a lot of voters are older, and still inclined to get their news from TV. https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/study-fox-news-is-no-1-news-source-for-trump-voters-233773 https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/study-fox-ne...
  - hanselot 5y ago
    Some so old they may no longer be alive even? "Election fraud is incredibly rare" - this phrase will be etched in the history books, similarly to "it's just a flu" The left will never live this down.
mariodiana 5y ago
I've heard people characterize cable news as kayfabe—the handbook for professional wrestling. Cable news is entertainment, and the same way the WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE, we have to hope one day CNN and Fox News (along with MSNBC, etc.) will change their monikers.
- echelon 5y ago
  > WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE There was no pressuring over intent. The World Wildlife Fund owned the rights to WWF and sued. https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife
  - mariodiana 5y ago
    I'm aware of that, but I don't think that changes things much. They chose to call it "entertainment," when they could have called it any number of things. But at the time they had been under increasing criticism of the matches being fixed, etc.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Nope, not even close. Even if we are pretend that all wrestling fans were completely unaware that the WWF was scripted, that ended in Montreal in 1997 when Vince McMahon forced the belt off of Brett Hart. He didn't change the name of the company until 2002. Even before that, Vince declared it was all a work because he was tired of being under the thumb of various athletic and boxing commissions. His people did steroids and he wasn't going to stop them.
    - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
      WWF officially broke kayfabe 1989 way before the name change because they didn't want to spend the money necessary for live sporting events. Before that pro wrestling was regulated just like boxing or MMA, with state commissioners and taxes and medical requirements.
- 5y ago
cwkoss 5y ago
Isn't the exact same thing true of CNN and MSNBC, but just in the other direction?
- tomrod 5y ago
  I see more pushback, but also find CBS and ABC to be relatively objective. This mapping has proven useful https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    That seems like a preposterous claim. Those are classic regime television stations. And I find this diagram biased. Also, "middle" or centrist is not the same as objective. The path of least extreme disagreement is not the same as the truth (ask a Christian: he'll tell you that Jesus is the truth and that the world hates Jesus). Besides, the middle of what? The neoliberal paradigm? The current spread on offer?
- holler 5y ago
  CNN has gone so far downhill imo due to this. In the past five years I've seen a shrinking gap between news and opinion, where articles w/o the label are very clearly editorialized. It lowers the quality of the product and at least for me, I no longer read it as much. That said, journalists are just humans so it's a difficult problem, especially in the heightened political climate we've had.
- astrange 5y ago
  What "the" other direction? There isn't a single dimension here.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    Fair point - these dichotomies are often false or manufactured. However I believe that, to a much greater extent than citizen support for particular political issues, media bias tends to polarize along party-line dimensions because of overlapping power structures.
fitzie 5y ago
people can hate on tucker all day long, as they attacked rush and oreilly before him, but tucker brings up issues that resonate in red america. he does a pretty fair job, which is evidenced by how trivial the criticism against him is. if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets to see how they frame the discussion. I'm always amazed at how people on the left don't really see what the right is going on about.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets I've been scolded for using Breitbart or Tucker Carlson as a barometer for right-wing positions because they're claimed to be extreme, or 'alt-right', and not reflective of how real conservatives think or feel.
  - esyir 5y ago
    They're, from my perspective, further in to the right than the average repub. Huffpo is sorta where I would put them, if you want a left analogue.

tw04 5y ago

I won't say Fox is the only one guilty of it, but they intentionally mix what would best be described as "opinion pieces" with "real news" and don't really make any effort to draw a clear line between the two. The end result is as disastrous as one would expect when taking someone's personal opinion and selling it as a factual source of news.

tptacek 5y ago

We don't even have to litigate whether Fox News airtime is distinctively malignant if we just acknowledge that all 24/7 cable news channels are bad. They kind of have to be, just by the nature of how they compete and what they have to work with in both audiences and source material. Just don't get your news from the TV.

reedjosh 5y ago
And they're all funded by ads. Between the need to access government figures for interview, and their funding sources, how could you ever expect straight forward reporting? If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product.
- teddyh 5y ago
  > If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product. Even if you are paying, you can still be the product, as long as media can make even more money out of it. I mean, why wouldn’t they? More money is more money.
mikepurvis 5y ago
A fair point, but I don't think the concession is worth what you get out of it. A citizen whose sole news source is Fox is considerably less informed than a viewer who might watch exclusively CNN (or possibly even nothing at all, see [1]) Fox News really is worse, and while there may be lessons learned there which can be applied to the other outlets, such as insisting on clearer labeling of opinion content vs reporting, I think it's an all-lives-matter-style distraction to throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done and they're all equally bad because it's a problem inherent in the medium. [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-make...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chevill 5y ago
  While I can technically see that some news organizations are worse than others, my issue is that they are all so bad that they are actively doing significant damage to the world and most of the time they are doing it consciously and intentionally, so I don't really get much utility trying to distinguish them from one another. And yet while they are all genuinely terrible due to trying to remain profitable AND trying to advance their personal political agendas, people are always trying to use the excuse that "its better than X" to justify supporting them. My solution would be to ignore the news completely, but that solution isn't effective because I know multiple people that insist on ranting about everything they see/hear from the media on a daily basis. IMO the media is very important for civilization, but somehow we have accepted that deceit, manipulation, and failure are the golden standard.
cpach 5y ago
In Sweden we have public service TV channels, but even in that context I think your advice holds up – not a good source for news. Too stressed, too shallow reporting.

Moodles 5y ago

I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)

boredprograming 5y ago
Fox news personalities frequently allow Trump and his allies airtime where they lie about losing the election to Biden. I don't know how you get any less truthful than that
- Moodles 5y ago
  They allow the previous president airtime!? Quick, someone call the cops.
  - boredprograming 5y ago
    When he does nothing but lie about election fraud on their airwaves? Pretty normal for a news company
    - Moodles 5y ago
      We should refund the police, and then call them! What are you arguing about? 1. Someone mentions Fox being bad for bias in story selection. 2. I ask: why are we singling out Fox specifically? Others do it too? 3. You say: "They give Trump airtime!" Ok? That is a difference I guess? Not got much to do with what we're talking about though?
      - boredprograming 5y ago
        It's an example of how Fox is less honest than other news companies, exactly what you asked for. They let people on air spout obvious lies all the time. Find a mainstream channel that does the same. I'll wait

throwawayboise 5y ago

I mean, the same is true about CNN's opinion pieces, or MSNBC's, etc, they are just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

pmoriarty 5y ago
CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now!.
- Moodles 5y ago
  Find one positive article from MSNBC or CNN about Trump during his presidency?
  - adzm 5y ago
    There are many. httpss://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/donald-trump-economy-trade-gdp-growth-credit/index.html
    - Moodles 5y ago
      Did you read that article? I mean, even that article has the multiple bitchy comments thrown in. I would quote, but honestly it would be every other paragraph. But yes, the headline is generally positive I guess. Now, could we find a similar article for Biden in Fox over the next 4 years? I would guess probably. Anyways it's kind of pointless to argue what the "opposite" of Fox is as it's really ill-defined. i think it's fair to say CNN and Fox are similar to being opposites. Ok, I'm going to do it: > Presidents usually get too much blame when the economy is doing badly, since downturns are often caused by outside shocks or cyclical factors, but that also gives them a chance to crow when things are going full steam ahead. Trump is not the kind of person to pass that up. > The strong growth number gives the White House a significant boost after days of grim headlines, and its failure to move on from the President’s humiliating summit performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks ago. > It also offers some personal respite for Trump, given that he must feel that legal walls are closing around him, following news that one of his most important confidants, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating his former lawyer Michael Cohen. > The New York Times reported on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining Trump’s tweets, potentially to see whether they can help him build a case that the President acted with malicious intent when he sacked former FBI Director James Comey. > Trump is forever trying to change the subject. With the current state of the economy, he may have some ammunition. > Often, the President’s hyperbolic assessment of his own performance is at odds with the facts > but he [Trump] often has only himself to blame for it getting overlooked, given the daily political turmoil he creates. > Trump’s end zone dance might come across as a little premature. It just goes on and on. I'm practically quoting the whole article. Just the language alone: "humiliating", "walls closing in", etc. Then they quote one poll, presumably the one what makes him look as bad as possible. It's just ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this article is "positive" for Trump. The headline is relatively positive (though even then I can feel CNN begrudgingly wrote some credit).

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

Am I the only one who feels Tucker Carlson is so popular because he (a lot like Donald Trump) was willing to challenge the false idols of the Republican establishment (e.g. we need to be at war in Afghanistan/Iraq, the free market isn't always the best especially if it leads to outsourcing and offshoring, etc.) Might just be me. I dislike 90% of fox news but I listen to Carlson sometimes and never find him to be horrible or BS-y (admittedly I don't listen in all the time so I may be missing some stuff)

cwkoss 5y ago
I pretty much only see clips of Tucker Carlson that are posted by liberals or leftists to point at and generate outrage. To me, he seems like a whiner who disingenuously argues against things in a way to bolster conservative talking points. But, I expect the majority of this is selection bias, and only the 'worst' clips are making it into my filter bubble.
Clubber 5y ago
Fear-mongering sells. He's good at it. So is Rachael Maddow and just about everyone they put in front of the camera to "inform" you.
anonfornoreason 5y ago
I've seen a few clips, they have been pretty bad but with kernel of truths that make it hard to make substantive arguments against whatever he is ranting on. I personally think he's a big stain on news media, even while agreeing with a few points here/there there. For what it's worth, I've only watched in order to try and understand other people's viewpoints. More specifically, I think he's terrible because he has mastered the ability to tease out the base instincts of people with his messaging, which makes it hard to either agree or disagree with his statements with logic. He can point to some kernels of truth, and you are left with people saying things like "that's just dogwhistling" when attacking his viewpoints. In other words, he riles up, doesn't cause people to think critically, and overall lowers the level of discourse out there.

rayiner 5y ago

Does anyone watch TV anymore? I read Fox News online, which is fine, but I don’t think I’ve ever tuned into shows. My parents have CNN on a loop, and even my dad (a die-hard Carter fan) calls it “DNC talking points.”

AlexCoventry 5y ago
I think a lot of voters are older, and still inclined to get their news from TV. https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/study-fox-news-is-no-1-news-source-for-trump-voters-233773 https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/01/study-fox-ne...
- hanselot 5y ago
  Some so old they may no longer be alive even? "Election fraud is incredibly rare" - this phrase will be etched in the history books, similarly to "it's just a flu" The left will never live this down.

mariodiana 5y ago

I've heard people characterize cable news as kayfabe—the handbook for professional wrestling. Cable news is entertainment, and the same way the WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE, we have to hope one day CNN and Fox News (along with MSNBC, etc.) will change their monikers.

echelon 5y ago
> WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE There was no pressuring over intent. The World Wildlife Fund owned the rights to WWF and sued. https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife
- mariodiana 5y ago
  I'm aware of that, but I don't think that changes things much. They chose to call it "entertainment," when they could have called it any number of things. But at the time they had been under increasing criticism of the matches being fixed, etc.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Nope, not even close. Even if we are pretend that all wrestling fans were completely unaware that the WWF was scripted, that ended in Montreal in 1997 when Vince McMahon forced the belt off of Brett Hart. He didn't change the name of the company until 2002. Even before that, Vince declared it was all a work because he was tired of being under the thumb of various athletic and boxing commissions. His people did steroids and he wasn't going to stop them.
  - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
    WWF officially broke kayfabe 1989 way before the name change because they didn't want to spend the money necessary for live sporting events. Before that pro wrestling was regulated just like boxing or MMA, with state commissioners and taxes and medical requirements.
5y ago

cwkoss 5y ago

Isn't the exact same thing true of CNN and MSNBC, but just in the other direction?

tomrod 5y ago
I see more pushback, but also find CBS and ABC to be relatively objective. This mapping has proven useful https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
- bobthechef 5y ago
  That seems like a preposterous claim. Those are classic regime television stations. And I find this diagram biased. Also, "middle" or centrist is not the same as objective. The path of least extreme disagreement is not the same as the truth (ask a Christian: he'll tell you that Jesus is the truth and that the world hates Jesus). Besides, the middle of what? The neoliberal paradigm? The current spread on offer?
holler 5y ago
CNN has gone so far downhill imo due to this. In the past five years I've seen a shrinking gap between news and opinion, where articles w/o the label are very clearly editorialized. It lowers the quality of the product and at least for me, I no longer read it as much. That said, journalists are just humans so it's a difficult problem, especially in the heightened political climate we've had.
astrange 5y ago
What "the" other direction? There isn't a single dimension here.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Fair point - these dichotomies are often false or manufactured. However I believe that, to a much greater extent than citizen support for particular political issues, media bias tends to polarize along party-line dimensions because of overlapping power structures.

fitzie 5y ago

people can hate on tucker all day long, as they attacked rush and oreilly before him, but tucker brings up issues that resonate in red america. he does a pretty fair job, which is evidenced by how trivial the criticism against him is. if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets to see how they frame the discussion. I'm always amazed at how people on the left don't really see what the right is going on about.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets I've been scolded for using Breitbart or Tucker Carlson as a barometer for right-wing positions because they're claimed to be extreme, or 'alt-right', and not reflective of how real conservatives think or feel.
- esyir 5y ago
  They're, from my perspective, further in to the right than the average repub. Huffpo is sorta where I would put them, if you want a left analogue.