About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Kurtz suggests Fox News is balanced, WaPo editorial page is liberal

January 25, 2010 12:49 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Howard Kurtz suggests Fox's "news programming" is balanced and the Washington Post's editorial page is liberal:

Knoxville, Tenn.: Why do so many media outlets, when mentioning "Fox News", say "which some say has conservative views"? This seems to be the equivalent of saying "The Washington Post, which some say is a newspaper..."

Why is the rest of the press corp afraid to call a spade a spade, particularly when (as in this case) it is so virulently blatant?

Howard Kurtz: Because some say a distinction must be made between Fox's opinion shows (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and its news programming. Just as you have to make a distinction between The Post's news pages and its left-leaning editorial page.

This reveals more about Kurtz's own leanings than those of Fox News and the Washington Post's editorial pages.

First, no such distinction "must be made" between Fox's opinion shows and its news programming other opinion shows: 

Fox's news programs echo its "opinion" shows: Smears, doctored videos, GOP talking points

30 reasons why Fox News is not legit

Media differentiate Beck's "opinions" from Wallace's "news," but record shows Wallace repeatedly echoes Beck

Stewart annihilates Fox News' purported opinion-news division: "It's a perpetual revulsion machine"

And there's plenty more where that came from.

As for the Washington Post: Does this sound like a "left-leaning editorial page"?

Powell's U.N. address occurred on February 5, 2003. A look at the editorials and columns that appeared in the next day's edition of The Washington Post makes clear how quickly the media ran to Powell's side.

The Post itself led things off with an editorial headlined -- what else? -- "Irrefutable" that declared, "AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. ... Mr. Powell's evidence ... was overwhelming."

The Post's columnists took it from there. Four Washington Post columnists wrote on February 6 about Powell's presentation the day before. All four were positively glowing...

More examples of the Post's editorial and op-ed pages not leaning to the left:

Charles Murray & the Washington Post

Forbes, please define "liberal," cont'd

Fred Hiatt's health care narrow-mindedness

A new test for Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post

Is Charles Lane (and Fox News) advocating a wage cut for millions of Americans?

WaPo's Charles Lane undermines his own pro-Lieberman rant

Richard Cohen, the Washington Post's pro-torture "liberal."

Why is the Post letting AHIP's Ignagni deceive its readers?

Then there's this: "On Social Security: The Washington Post Gets It." That's a column praising the Post's editorials defending George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security. The author?  Jack Kemp. The column appears on the web site of Freedom Works, a right wing group led by former House GOP leader Dick Armey.

"Left-leaning": yeah, right. 

Tags: Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, Fred Hiatt

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DellDolly (January 25, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
      8 3
      A significant distinction between FoxNews and the Washington Post is that FoxNews, on both their news and their opinion shows, often abuses the truth. They push inaccurate information that they failed to factcheck first. They crop comments which leads to a distortion of what was actually said and meant. They allow others to spew falsehoods and don't call them to account for those falsehoods. They omit relevant information, denying their viewers an accurate picture of events. And they do all of the above on a regular basis on both opinion shows and news shows. Opinions should still be based upon factual information.

      The Washington Post doesn't have the same track record. They do make mistakes, and they do fail to provide the full backstory at times, but not in the partisan ways that FoxNews does it and not nearly as often as FoxNews does it!

      It's not the same, Mr Kurtz.

      But it is yet another example of false equivalency!!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rkcomments (January 25, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
        2 1
        Kurtz is comparing Fox News with Washington Post. LOL!!!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Martha (January 25, 2010 6:35 pm ET)
          1 1
          He should be WORKING there.............CNN has become more like FOX than I would ever have believed...........
          Report Abuse
      • Author by retiredinsf (January 25, 2010 9:34 pm ET)
          5
        DD on FoxNews "abusing the truth": "And they do all of the above on a regular basis on both opinion shows and news shows."

        How 'bout you give all of us a few examples of FoxNews abusing the truth DD?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by urlnts (January 25, 2010 9:48 pm ET)
             
          http://foxnewsboycott.com/tag/lies/
          http://www.newshounds.us/

          take your pick
          Report Abuse
        • Author by rms (January 26, 2010 8:55 am ET)
          1  
          When you get a chance, log into a site called "Media Matters" and just start reading.

          You will likely find more than enough examples to satisfy you.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ProgLib (January 26, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
             
          You should probably change your name to lazyinsf if you can't even peruse the very site that you're on to see all of these examples of Fox News abusing the truth. Don't expect other people to do your work for you, especially when you are more than capable to do it yourself.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dandelion (January 25, 2010 10:17 pm ET)
        2  
        Indeed. Kurtz pretending that Fox's newscasts aren't just as tilted as its opinion shows is stunning in its intellectual dishonesty. Did he not read about them lifting RNC talking points, typo and all? Did he not see the footage of the "news producers" trying to gin up tea party protests for the cameras? Has he not noticed that Republican politicians involved in scandal routinely get a "D" after their names in the chyrons?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bewildered (January 25, 2010 11:35 pm ET)
        1  
        I think all need to stop calling them Fox News for which they don't deserve the title "NEWS".

        Can we from now on just call them 'Fox'?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by riverdog (January 26, 2010 7:38 pm ET)
           
        washington post is INCREDIBLY liberal, so what. if any of you don't think so than well i guess you can't read.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by spooky3 (January 26, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
             
          So there, MMFA. Craigetc. showed you with his overwhelming evidence that none of your evidence matters.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 25, 2010 1:00 pm ET)
      6 1
      [http://blog.mrfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/laughing-jesus.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NothingButTheTruth (January 25, 2010 1:17 pm ET)
      8 1
      I'm from D.C. and read the Post everyday (save Saturdays). All you have to do is read the comments in the Editorial section, and you can see that Conservatives have a large voice there..

      I don't think there's a valid comparison btw FoxNews and any other Media entity. I've never seen/read/heard any organization distorting facts to the extent that they do. I'm amazed at how they'll even distort facts that you easily Google to disprove..

      I have no clue how they can have such a strong following.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (January 25, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
        7  
        Here's a hint...

        [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0115710ff2b2970c-pi]
        Report Abuse
      • Author by prpltoupee3273 (January 25, 2010 1:47 pm ET)
        9  
        I read the Post each day as well. The Post does endorse Democratic candidates more often than not. However the Post also has columns by George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, Bill Kristol, and several other conservatives. Considering that Fred Hiatt is hawkish, if anything the Post editorial page is considerably right-leaning. But even if we accept the premise that the Post is left-leaning, I wonder who the left-wing commentators on Fox are that balance their right-wing coverage as George Will or Krauthammer balance the supposed left-leaning tendencies of the Post? Until Fox News offers regular commentary from, say, Bill Moyers and Naomi Klein, it is not plausible that Fox News is as "fair and balanced" as the Post.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (January 25, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
        3  
        They have a strong following because they dish information like baby's pablum. There is a willing, fearful minority who wants every word to be in lockstep with their beliefs. Rush, Fox, The Repubs know this, they simply research and keep giving these lost souls their pablum.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fabucat58 (January 25, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
      4  
      I hope that Michael Gerson, Kathleen Parker and Charles Krauthammer give Kurtz a wedgie for implying that they are "left-leaning," because they write for the WaPo editorial page!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by urlnts (January 25, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
         
      All of these supposed left writers are scared to death , the right has the big bucks and they are taking over all forms of the media,they will sell out for a job at Fox"news" in a minute!Just watch Imus now ,the libs he has on are now afraid to cross Fox and are reluctant to defend Obama or lib causes in any significant way,it was much different when he was on MSNBC and they were doing better!This recent ruling by the Supreme Court will also be a boon to the rightwingers,libs are going to have a tough time in the near future,this is really a damn sin and bad news for America!The Fascist Right Goosesteps on,but remember this Fox"news"'s Fear and Unbalanced Teabaggers ...
      we shall fight on the beaches,
      we shall fight on the landing grounds,
      we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
      we shall fight in the hills;
      we shall never surrender!!!
      Seriously Libs you are working for humanity and progress , don't ever give up!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (January 26, 2010 12:59 am ET)
      1 5
      Here is another view of Fox's balanced reporting, from the Miami Herald.

      If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.

      And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly


      http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2010/01/msnbc-to-massachusetts-drop-dead.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 26, 2010 1:42 am ET)
        2 1
        You're linking to this tool Garvin again? Like he's a credible source?

        The TV critic's blog is NOT the Miami Herald, first off. Secondly, this guy is looney and as rightwing as someone can be - he's so far right, he's basically a Libertarian!

        What a tool you are.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (January 26, 2010 5:40 am ET)
          1 1
          FL is a tool and not even a good one. Using Garvin as a source praising Faux is almost as good as her/his using the phony Paris Business Review.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by riverdog (January 26, 2010 7:34 pm ET)
             
          well said FL. and to you dd, libertarians are not to right of republicans. sounds like this garvin dude tells the truth, at least on the brown election. olbermann acted like a spoined brat.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by spooky3 (January 26, 2010 11:31 pm ET)
          1  
          I'm so glad to see that Fred Garvin was able to find gainful employment after he retired from male prostitution.

          http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=23497314
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Media Mumblings (January 26, 2010 10:56 am ET)
        3
      MMFA seems to be suggesting that a person can't be left if they bought an administration's line about WMD's. Absurd. How many Democratic presidents have taken us to war without good cause? We didn't have to enter WWI, but Mr. Wilson (Mr. Progressive) was hell-bent on taking us to war. Was it necessary for Truman to fight the Korean War? That war was started without Congressional authorization too. What about the Vietnam war that Mr. Johnson took us into? The argument is absurd on the face of it.

      MMFA is also making the spurious claim that because the Post sometimes has op-eds by those who are conservative or classically liberal (read:libertarian) that they can't be to the left the vast majority of the time. That's rich! By this standard, FoxNews can't be to the right because they sometimes have on liberal guests. Geraldo, a liberal, has his own show on that network after all. Mr. Kurtz did make one glaring error however; he suggested that the news section of the post is without bias. Puh-leeeze! The bias lies in what is reported or focused on and what is ignored or given scant attention to. And the Post's opinion pages skew overwhelmingly to the left. The Post is a carbon-copy of the New York Times. Both of them should have the motto: All the news that fits, we print.
      Report Abuse