Another University study finds Fox News fair compared to liberally biased MSM

Previously, a Harvard study revealed that most of the mainstream media, including both TV news and NPR, were very biased in favor of liberal Presidential candidates, while Fox News (and MSNBC) came out more balanced.

Now, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University has released a study comparing the Hume Report's news segment with the other MSM TV news programs, and CONFIRMS that Fox News is more balanced and fair than the other MSM news outlets.

Newsbusters has this analysis:

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

Liberals, of course, don't accept the data, but I note that the liberal Huffington Post can do no more than question the sources of funding for the CMPA, presumably because they are unable to mount any real case against the methodology of the study. 

"When the data against you is good, resort to ad hominems" - seems like the MO of liberals these days.

Comments

[Sue]

Hi, Im from Australia.
Quite frankly anyone who thinks that Fox so called "news" is balanced would not know their butt from a hole in the ground. Seriously

[Cineaste]

Sue, you have to remember, they are Republicans. They really don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. Also, as an American, I apologize to you for our President. It's embarrassing.

[seeker]

You both prove my point ably - like true knee-jerk liberals who can't stand it when decent studies offend their biases, you obeyed well the dictum I provided:

"When the data against you is good, resort to ad hominems"

What's really scary is that, when balanced coverage is provided (roughly 50/50), liberals are so used to biased coverage that balanced coverage looks biased to them. Sad.

But also, this comparison was done on NEWS, not commentary, so maybe that's why you are so confused.

[Cineaste]

I think Sue hit the nail on the head.

[Louis]

I watch and enjoy Brit Hume's hour daily because I like to get all viewpoints. It is a fact, however, that Fox news does have a conservative viewpoint over all (and this from watching it for years). There's nothing wrong with that, I think, as CNN has a liberal bias.

One criticism I do have of Fox is that it's kind of tabloid in its choice of stories - there's no story of a missing blond woman that they won't follow obsessively.

[seeker]

Louis,

Interesting that you watch Hume - I don't have time for too much news, and limit myself to NPR (radio) and a daily dose of O'Reilly (and the occasional Anderson Cooper).

While their commentary is conservative, this report was saying that their NEWS reporting was more balanced. I'm sure that's where the confusion comes in.

Fox may be kind of tabloid about their stories, but one thing I like is that they focus on things that I am more interested in - I am always amazed that their content seems to cover things that the others don't even seem to mention.

LOL! You are right about the blonde women. Have you noticed that most of the women on O'Reilly are blondes? Hmmm. I smell a conspiracy.

[Benjamin9]

everyone seems to be confused here ... you see Fox is moderate in its reporting, and the KoolAid you have been fed over time, stating that the MSM is moderate, you have swallowed and accepted. Cronkite ... Dan ... Katie and all of the modern day cable doofi pretending they are impartial moderates when nothing could be farther from the truth.

"LOL! You are right about the blonde women. Have you noticed that most of the women on O'Reilly are blondes? Hmmm. I smell a conspiracy." -------

ah, but what a scent !

[keith johnson]

Hi ben:

Here's irrefutable evidence that Fox is biased, or at least was in 2003:

A study released October 2003 showed that people who got their news primarily from Fox news were 4 times as likely as those who got their news from NPR to have one of these major misconceptions about the Iraq War:

they believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been found.

that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.

that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq.

This strongly indicates that Fox's biased presentation gave them those false views.

Seeker has posted a couple of studies that supposedly show that the MSM presents liberals in a more positive light than they do conservatives, but those studies do not explain how they measured the positiveness or negativeness of a story. For example, a news story that reported the brute fact that Bush's approval rating was very low would presumably be a negative story about a conservative, but reporting such hardly counts as bias. A news story that said--also a brute fact--that polls for Presidency 2008 had a generic Democrat leading by double digits over a generic Republican would also be liberal positive and conservative-negative but also would not be an example of bias. The problem with the kinds of studies Seeker cited is that they depend on subjectively deciding how positive or negative a story is. The study I cited describes objective facts.

your friend
keith

[seeker]

Keith - unfortunately, your claims above show correlation only, they do NOT prove that Fox is biased. You are measuring a possible effect, but not directly measuring the actual content of Fox.

The two studies I mentioned, from two well-established Universities, including Harvard, actually measured content.

Ben and I are right on this one (pun intended) - you are so used to the liberal monopoly on news, that when a balanced presentation appears, and they give fair time to opposing conservative views, you think they are being biased. It's a sickness, having your "norm" so far to the left.

[Brian]

Keith,

Lets also mention that Iraq and al Qaede did have links (however minor), weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq (however limited), and Bush built the third largest coalition in world history. So, technically, those aren't false beliefs. The questions would have to go deeper to discover if they had false beliefs about the extent of the relationship and numbers of weapons. I would say that if you believe the first two are false, you are being misled by the MSM.

[Benjamin9]

All I know for sure is this, I stopped watching MSM news in 1994 after being blatantly lied to by CBS(not the first,not the last)I turned to radio to satisfy my information Jones. In 1999 or so, I found Fox news and I have never looked back. The MSM of the now, Cnn, ad nauseum, etc., is wayyyy slanted left. I do not find FOX slanted left but very moderate. I am slanted pretty rightward and FOX and I do not agree at times. Also, their talking head crews are from various political leanings, and, as seeker again pointed out, the flow of news has been poisoned for so long FOX seems, are you ready ... one of this sites fav adjectives ... extreme...(lol)..........

[Benjamin9]

"I do not find FOX slanted left but very moderate." ------->

So solly, i meant right, but both are true. :)