Fox News: Stewart Says Politifact Says Fox Lies

It includes 2009's "lie of the year" (death panels) and 2010's "lie of the year" (government takeover of healthcare).

From Jon Stewart Trumpets False Fox News Statements Fact-Checked by Politifact (Video) by Katla Mcglynn, June 22, 2011 at The Huffington Post.

Fox News: Fox's Media Bias and Climate Change

Now, a new study from Media Matters (h/t Kate Sheppard) provides some numbers about the kind of biased coverage that produces [misinformed viewers].

Media Matters didn't look directly at scientific statements—instead they looked at the number of guests, across TV news, who were either for or against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

Drilling down on Fox in particular:

81% of Fox guests and 83% of Fox Business guests opposed [greenhouse gas] regulation. Fox News hosted 52 guests who criticized the EPA's decision to regulate greenhouse gases. In that same period they featured only 10 supporters and two guests who took a neutral stance. Fox Business hosted opponents 65 times, compared to seven appearances by supporters. MSNBC hosted four times more supporters of EPA's action than opponents, but had far fewer guests commenting on the issue than did Fox.

For more, see Fox's Media Bias and Climate Change by Chris Mooney, June 7, 2011 at The Intersection.

Fox News: The Fox News "Effect": A Few References

Clearly, there's much concern about Fox coverage. But many critics of the network seem unaware of what may be their best argument: the existence of several public opinion studies showing a correlation between watching Fox and being misinformed about one or more public policy issues.

These studies tend to take the same basic form. First, they survey Americans to determine their views about some matter of controversy. Inevitably, some significant percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the core facts of the issue--but not just that. The surveys also find that those who watch Fox, or watch it frequently, are more likely to be misinformed.

Here are five such studies—and note that this list may be incomplete. This is just what I've come across so far:

1. Iraq War ....
2. Global Warming ....
3. Health Care ....
4. Ground Zero Mosque ....
5. 2010 Election ....

For details about the studies, see The Fox News "Effect": A Few References by Chris Mooney's, May 18, 2011 at DeSmogBlog.com.

Politics: Regular Viewers of Fox News More Likely to Be Misinformed

Last week, the Program on International Policy Attitudes released another, wider-ranging report on "Misinformation and the 2010 Election," which examined the accuracy of news consumers' views on tax policy, government bailouts, the economy, climate science, and President Obama's background. The findings were in line with the 2003 survey -- Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely" to be misinformed:

In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.

There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

• most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• the economy is getting worse (26 points)
• most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

For more, see UMD Report: Regular Viewers of Fox News More Likely to Be Misinformed by Simon Maloy, December 17, 2010 at MediaMatters.

Climate: Fox Boss Ordered Staff to Cast Doubt on Climate Science

In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."

This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email sent by Sammon to Fox journalists at the peak of the health care reform debate, ordering them to avoid using the term "public option" and instead use variations of "government option." That email echoed advice from a prominent Republican pollster on how to help turn public opinion against health care reform.

For much more, see Foxleaks: Fox Boss Ordered Staff to Cast Doubt on Climate Science by Ben Dimiero, December 15, 2010 at MediaMatters. Thank you, Andrew Sullivan.

Security: Another Take on North Korea

In this poll, the alternative actions which the Washington Post provided aren't even close to those of FoxNews at Security: Let's Have Another War?.

Earlier today, the United States condemned the North Korean artillery attack on the South Korean island of Yeongpyeong. Last week, the North Korean government told American experts that it would dismantle one of its nuclear weapons programs if the United States agreed to a pledge of "no hostile intent." In light of these recent events, weigh in on how the U.S. should proceed.

How should the United States engage with North Korea?
Bilateral talks directly with North Korea	21%
Multilateral talks led by China	39%
The U.S. should not engage with North Korea	40%
This is a non-scientific user poll.

From How Should the U.S. Engage with North Korea? by Ryan Kellett, November 28 at 6:30 at The Washington Post.

Security: Let's Have Another War?

Results of a reader poll as of November 25 at 9:30AM ...

President Obama described North Korea's attack Tuesday against a small South Korean island as a "provocative" show of force that "needs to be dealt with," but how? You decide.

YOU DECIDE What Is Best Response to N. Korea?
Send in the military. Such aggression can't be ignored.	46.3% (33,099 votes)
Engage in tough diplomacy with North Korea, with threat of military action.	25.54% (18,254 votes)
Get international community to condemn North Korea and impose sanctions.	13.48% (9,637 votes)
Go slow. North Korea is irrational, and we don't want escalation.	7.63% (5,455 votes)
Other (leave a comment)	4.96% (3,543 votes)
I don't know	2.1% (1,498 votes)

This is not a scientific poll.

From How Should North Korean Attack Be Dealt with? by You Decide, November 23, 2010 at FoxNews.com.

Diversion: NPR Fired Juan Williams

Mostly funny (plus a FOX commentator asking "is NPR an agent somehow of a jihadist inquisition") ...

From NPR Staffing Decision 2010, October 25, 2010, at The Daily Show.

Society: The Foxification of the Republican Party

For more, see The Foxification of the Republican Party by Kevin Drum, September 12, 2010, at Mother Jones.

Politics: Jon Stewart vs FOX, MSNBC, and CNN

Politics: Meg Whitman's Tale of Woe Is Bull

In a softball interview with Fox News sycophant host Neil Cavuto last May, Meg Whitman explained what it is about the sorry state of things that made her decide that she must “refuse to let California fail.”

Said eMeg: “The first thing we have to do is, we have to streamline government.” And to make it easier for business to grow? “Well, the first thing you do is, we have got to streamline regulation.

“The permitting process, the competing agencies that try to regulate — we built a building in Sunnyvale for PayPal, two-and-a-half years to break ground. We had to hire three consultants to navigate the labyrinth of California regulations.”

... we tried repeatedly to get clarification or comment about any of this from Sarah Pompei, Whitman's spokeswoman, and from eBay and PayPal. Despite many, many phone calls and emails, we got nothing.

... the folks at City Hall in Sunnyvale aren't too happy about Meg slandering their building-permit process. Especially since the PayPal expansion wasn't in Sunnyvale — it was in San Jose.

According to City of San Jose records, which Santa Clara County Supervisor David Cortese, formerly the vice-mayor of San Jose, got his hands on only after submitting a public records request, eBay submitted its preliminary review for a General Plan change (to alter the then-existing height-limitation in the North San Jose Industrial Redevelopment Area) on May 8, 2003.

eBay submitted its actual GP amendment change on June 2. A site development permit was submitted a month later, and environment impact review was circulated starting August 29 and by December 2, when the council considered GP amendments, eBay's development permit was approved.

For those who don't follow city planning, Cortese explains: “It's a huge deal to change the general plan. That's the blueprint for how the city is going to be built out over a 10 to 20 year horizon.” eBay's GP change sped through the process like grass through a goose.

Once the general plan had been changed, it was up to eBay (not the city or any state agency) to develop building plans for the project — adding to their existing facility to accommodate PayPal. eBay didn't submit building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical plans to San Jose until March 2006; fire and haz-mat plans came shortly thereafter. After the typical process of submissions, review, resubmissions and sign-offs, eBay's building permit was approved July 28, 2006 and the final fire approval was made August 21.

We don't know how many consultants eBay hired. Frankly, who cares? And yes, the general plan change was submitted in June 2003 and the building permit was issued in July 2006. That's not just two-and-a-half years — it's three years.

And excessive regulations (and Sunnyvale) had exactly nothing to do with any of it.

For more, see eMeg's Tale of Woe About Paypal Expansion Is Bull, September 8, 2010, at Calbuzz.

Politics: Fox vs Heston on the "Ground Zero Mosque"

This includes the last 24 hours of Fox saying how awful Islam is and includes Charleton Heston saying we shouldn't blame an entire group for the actions of a few believers.

From Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition by Jon Stewart, August 19, 2010, at The Daily Show.

Politics: Rush Limbaugh: Fox 'Caved' on Shirley Sherrod

Rush Limbaugh is blasting Fox News for its coverage of Shirley Sherrod, saying that one of the network's anchors “caved” by not showing the original misleading video fragment that led to the firing of Shirley Sherrod. [Emphasis added].

The video, posted and promoted by Andrew Breitbart as a display of racism, was a sensation in conservative corners of the internet, but Fox News host Shepard Smith explained Wednesday that his show had decided to not show the video.

“We on Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons,” Smith said. “Among them: We didn't know who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because the history of the videos on the site where it was posted. In short-we did not and do not trust the source.”

On his show Thursday, Limbaugh blasted Smith for not showing the video, suggesting that Smith only showed restraint because he didn't have the “guts” to show it.

“This regime is tribalizing this country,” he said. “They are dividing this country. It's not just enough to say that they are dividing us. They are tribalizing this country. We aren't Americans anymore. We're all members of different racial tribes, and we are to be pitted against each other: Black Americans, White Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans. We're all being divided up racially, by tribes.”

For more, see Rush Limbaugh: Fox 'Caved' on Shirley Sherrod by Andy Barr, July 23, 2010, at Politico.

Politics: Muslims in Space (and Here!)

Fox disagrees with Obama and Reagan again. It also says noone should live under laws based on a religion other than their own (except Christianity).

From July 7, 2010: Wish You Weren't Here by The Daily Show, July 7, 2010, at The Daily Show.

Politics: On Cable TV and Talk Radio, a Push Toward Polarization

From my view on the front lines, I have seen a rapid escalation of extreme dialogue -- sadly, something sure to guarantee high ratings.

Opinions from the middle are underrepresented, even shunned, in the modern debate. Consider: In May 2008, a few weeks after Pennsylvania's presidential primary, I was scheduled to appear on CNN's "Larry King Live." During the customary pre-interview with a program producer, I gave a summation of how I saw the presidential race. The producer was satisfied. At the conclusion of our chat, I asked how I would be identified.

"As a John McCain supporter," I was told.

"But I'm not sure I will vote for McCain," I responded.

Silence.

The producer asked whether CNN could identify me as a conservative. "Well, if someone who supports harsh interrogation, thinks we should be out of Iraq but in Pakistan, doesn't care much if two guys hook up, and believes we should legalize pot and prostitution is conservative, fine," I replied.

More silence.

Why not just introduce me as a radio host, columnist and author, I asked. I was told to await a call-back to see whether I was still needed. (Ultimately, I did appear on the program, under the heading of "talk-radio host, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News and Philadelphia Inquirer. He is a Republican.")

Another time, a Fox News producer invited me to appear on a program to discuss then-candidate Barack Obama. I was told they were "looking for someone who would say he's cocky and that his cockiness will hurt him, if not in the primary, definitely in the general election against McCain." I declined. A few hours later, the same producer made a new pitch: "What about a debate off the top of the show on whether or not Hillary is trustworthy? We have someone who says she is and we're looking for someone who says she isn't."

The message of both episodes is clear: There is no room for nuance. Either you offer a consistent (possibly artificial) ideological view or you often don't get a say.

For more, see On Cable TV and Talk Radio, a Push Toward Polarization by Michael Smerconish, June 11, 2010, at washingtonpost.com.

Politics: Tea Party Bears Beck's Imprint

More opinion due to the April 5-12 NYT/CBS poll ...

... tea-partiers are disproportionately attached to, and perhaps influenced by, FOX News. And they are particularly enamored of Glenn Beck.

See Tea Party Bears Beck's Imprint by Nate Silver, April 16, 2010 and Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated by Kate Zernike and Megan Thee-Brenan, April 14, 2010.

Politics: Stewart and Reagan vs Gingrich, Hannity, and Palin on the Nuclear Treaty

This clip has 4:00 of background information before getting to where Newt Gingrich and Fox misstate Obama's new nuclear polity, and starting at 5:20 Palin and Fox misstate Reagan's opinions. More interesting than funny.

For the full episode, see David Remnick - Full Episode by April 8, 2010.

Politics: How Balkanized Are We?

The fear:

The new media [the Internet] ... allow you to personalize your newspapers so you only see the stories that already interest you. You can visit only those Web sites that confirm your prejudices. Instead of a public square, we could end up with a collection of information cocoons.

Sunstein was particularly concerned about this because he has done very important work over the years about our cognitive biases. We like hearing evidence that confirms our suppositions. We filter out evidence that challenges them.

Moreover, we have a natural tilt toward polarized views. People are prone to gather in like-minded groups. Once in them, they drive each other to even greater extremes. In his recent book “Going to Extremes,” Sunstein shows that liberal judges get more liberal when they are on panels with other liberals. Conservative judges get more conservative.

Sunstein’s fear was that the Internet might lead to a more ghettoized, polarized and insular electorate. Those fears were supported by some other studies, and they certainly matched my own experience. Every day I seem to meet people who live in partisan ghettoes, ignorant about the other side. Yet new research complicates this picture.

The hope:

Yet new research complicates this picture.

...

According to the study, a person who visited only Fox News would have more overlap with conservatives than 99 percent of Internet news users. A person who only went to The Times’s site would have more liberal overlap than 95 percent of users.

But the core finding is that most Internet users do not stay within their communities. Most people spend a lot of time on a few giant sites with politically integrated audiences, like Yahoo News.

But even when they leave these integrated sites, they often go into areas where most visitors are not like themselves. People who spend a lot of time on Glenn Beck’s Web site are more likely to visit The New York Times’s Web site than average Internet users. People who spend time on the most liberal sites are more likely to go to foxnews.com than average Internet users. Even white supremacists and neo-Nazis travel far and wide across the Web.

See Riders on the Storm by David Brooks, April 19, 2010.