About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Somebody's still actually claiming that Fox News is "fair and balanced"?

November 18, 2009 9:55 am ET by Eric Boehlert

That phrase makes me nostalgic for 2002 or 2003, because, let's face it, that's probably the last time people actually had that debate about Fox News. Clearly the question on the table today isn't whether Fox News is "fair and balanced." (Almost nobody thinks it is.) It's whether Fox News still even resembles a legitimate news organization. (Hint: It does not.)

But that doesn't stop Robert Lichter from the Center for Media and Public Affairs, who argues in Forbes that Fox News is really, really fair and balanced, specifically when it comes to the channel's coverage of Obama. Not surprisingly there are all sorts of problems with Lichter's pitch. The first rather obvious hurdle is that Lichter spends a lot of time dissecting Fox News' 2008 treatment of Obama. Lichter claims Fox News is fair and balanced today based on how it covered Obama 12 months ago.

I don't mean to be a stickler here, but the latest debate sparked by the White House is that in 2009 Fox News no longer functions as a legitimate news organization. And that in 2009 Fox News has basically cut the chord with traditional journalism. So I'm just not sure about the usefulnesses of Lichter's commentary since he spends a lot of it looking back on 2008.

That's actually only the first glaring problem in Lichter's piece. The second? To prove Fox News was "fair and balanced" to Obama in 2008, Lichter notes the results of an on-going Center for Media and Public Affairs study which monitors political news coverage on TV. As part of the study, CMPA monitors the  first 30 minutes of Fox News' nightly Special Report. And that's it. Yet from that tiny, almost laughably small 30-minute daily sample, Lichter draws sweeping conclusions about whether a 24-hour news channel is "fair and balanced"? That's almost too silly for words. Lichter makes conclusions about Fox News while ignoring more than 90 percent  of its programming day?

More? Sadly, there is. In his Forbes piece, Lichter actually concedes that even judging Fox News from just that 30- minute chunk of Special Report last year, the channel delivered more negative coverage of the Democratic candidate than did the nightly newscasts for ABC, CBS, and NBC. In fact, on Fox News last year, 64 percent of Special Report's evaluations of Obama were unfavorable. But somehow Fox News was "fair and balanced" in 2008?

More? Yep. Lichter eventually addresses how "fair and balanced" Fox News has treated Obama in 2009, at least according to CMPA. The conclusion? [Emphasis added]

It turns out that Fox's coverage of President Obama has been even more negative than its coverage of candidate Obama: From Inauguration Day to Oct. 10, only 27% of Special Report's comments on the president were favorable

I'm not making this up. Lichter claims Fox News has been fair to Obama, yet concedes that on one of Fox News' few  remaining 'straight' news program, the commentary has been overwhelmingly negative toward the president this year, just as it was toward Obama in 2008.  

Safe to say, Lichter's attempt to exonerate Fox News is lacking. But hey, at least the guys at Newsbusters like it.

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mk3872 (November 18, 2009 10:05 am ET)
      3  
      Isn't is obligatory for EVERYONE in the media to treat Fox with kid gloves? Because they all feel that one day everyone in the media will work for a Murdoch company ...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (November 18, 2009 10:06 am ET)
      1 1
      Fox News "The Home of Mis-information"
      A place where Fair & Balanced long ago took a Vacation.
      I can close my eyes & still see Judge Sonia Sotomayor next to a vid of Hispanics on the Border being Arrested.
      Fox News, Where the Truth is Taboo & the Facts are never Tested.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (November 18, 2009 10:47 am ET)
      1  
      What a waste of articulation. It's like Lichter is in a hole somewhere, not knowing what is going on. I swear people are paid under the table to write this glob so Newsbusters, Drudge can all dance on their own graves.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jediknight65 (November 18, 2009 11:37 am ET)
      1  
      the msm is afraid that they will get called biased if they dont follow fixed noise's lead.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by political_left-religious_right (November 18, 2009 11:51 am ET)
         
      Hey, Eric, I don't know if you realize it, but Todd Blumer at NewsBusters actually pays you quite a compliment. In his fawning article about Lichter's nuttiness, he says

      Using a methodology that would be difficult to refute, Lichter's work...


      However, as would appear obvious to any sentient being, you did refute it entirely!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by viciousblade (November 20, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
         
      I note that in your article that you fail to mention that the figures from this study were taken from actual newscasts rather than programming such as O'Reilly which is clearly opinionated. You also fail to address that while Fox News did indeed have far more negative coverage of candidate Obama than any of the other major networks, the spread between positive and negative coverage compared with candidate McCain was roughly equal. That is certainly not the case with the others who appeared keen to report negative stories about McCain while predominantly only reporting positively for Obama. A balanced media works both ways Eric, not just the way that your ideology deviates!

      While the Fox News Network certainly has its problems, I find the one-sided vitriol devoted towards it on this site "Media Matters" disingenuous when the other major networks do an equally terrible job in the other direction. It's why I and many others in this evolving world are turning off our TVs and finding other sources for news.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ProgLib (November 21, 2009 4:00 am ET)
         
      aside from the idiotic article by lichter, and newsbusters' drooling over it, this comment posting got me angry the most, emphasis added:

      It's an amazing thing that somebody thought that a study needed to be done on this subject. Just the ratings should have been enough to tell a 12 year old who's fair and who's not. The American people are not complete idiots, except those that watch Chris Mathews, Rachel, and that Sportscaster jerk. It may take the people a little time, but they do eventually get it. They know when news is being slanted or outright Obamacast. Someone could have saved a lot of money on this particular study. It's similar to "follow the money", cept this would be called "follow the ratings".


      wow, how stupid and ignorant can someone be? we have all talked about the real effect and meaning of ratings, and this moron affirms the typical wingnut stupidity. its pathetic. someone who thinks that there are no stupid americans out there (let alone the wingnuts who watch fox news) must be living in complete dementia. who would be stupid enough to that think people who have an agenda can tell when news is being slanted? if you love right wing talking points and listening to limbaugh, hannity and beck, of course, youre going to love fox news. and since they are so prone to it, how would they find it biased? those are the people that would find someone like shepard smith and the few fox news liberals biased because they dont agree with anything they say.

      i have a question for people like this... what if fox news' ratings go down? they are going to go insane and probably check into a mental hospital because their propaganda outlet isnt super popular anymore. thats all wingnuts care about... being in the spotlight and being the most popular. its like being in high school again when girls would be competing with the cheerleaders and guys competing with the jocks.
      Report Abuse