Fox News: Fair And Balanced? A report suggests yes

[OnePimpTiger]

Fox News: Fair And Balanced?

The CMPA [Center for Media and Public Affairs] study compares ABC, CBS ( CBS - news - people ) and NBC evening news shows and the first half hour of Fox News Channel's Special Report, which most closely resembles its broadcast news counterparts. (CNN and MSNBC have no comparable flagship evening news show; more on Fox's polarizing talk shows momentarily.)

So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It's because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar--within a few percentage points--at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates' prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)

Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.

Of course, all this is old news. White House staffers went after Fox because of what they perceived as the Murdoch News Network's trashing of the new Democratic administration. So what has Fox done to Obama lately? To find out, I consulted CMPA's ongoing study of the president's television news coverage, which is being conducted by scholars at George Mason and Chapman universities.

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. That sounds like proof positive of Fox's negative intentions. But if Fox hasn't lost its anti-Obama edge, it has certainly lost its distinctiveness. During the same period only 35% of the evaluations on ABC, CBS, and NBC were positive. So from the administration's point of view, Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals.

Moreover, distressing as it may seem to a president used to unusually friendly coverage, this negativity is surprisingly normal. CMPA's earlier studies found that the broadcast networks gave almost identically negative coverage to George W. Bush (37% positive), Bill Clinton (34% positive) and Ronald Reagan (37% positive) during their first seven months in office.

[gatorboymike]

The only "balance" you'll find on that steaming pile of ideological wretchedness and contemptible mendacities is balance between the ultra right wing and the ultra-ultra right wing.

[GrimUSMC]

The only "balance" you'll find on that steaming pile of ideological wretchedness and contemptible mendacities is balance between the ultra right wing and the ultra-ultra right wing.

I swear you just write things to start arguments. Did you even read what was written? Or did you just hit reply and start typing without reading? Sometimes reading and having an open mind is a good thing, you should try it.

[OnePimpTiger]

The only "balance" you'll find on that steaming pile of ideological wretchedness and contemptible mendacities is balance between the ultra right wing and the ultra-ultra right wing.

Of course, facts and statistics mean nothing, only Gatorboy's opinion. It's funny how facts and science are the only thing you respect in one argument, yet they mean absolutely nothing in the next. I think there's a word for that...

[gatorboymike]

I swear you just write things to start arguments. Did you even read what was written? Or did you just hit reply and start typing without reading? Sometimes reading and having an open mind is a good thing, you should try it.

Oh, that's what you say about everyone who disagrees with you.

And no, I have no interest in reading reactionary propaganda.

[ensbergcollector]

the center for media and public affairs is propaganda?

[gatorboymike]

Anything that's pro-Fox News is anti-truth.

[OnePimpTiger]

Anything that's pro-Fox News is anti-truth.

So science is anti-truth...interesting.

[gatorboymike]

So science is anti-truth...interesting.

Ppbbphph...when you people say "science" you're talking about the nonsense that tries to shove Biblical creationism into public science classes, makes apologetic arguments supporting irresponsible, wasteful, mass-suffering-and-death-causing businesses, and rigs automatic voting machines so that the Republican candidates always win.

Your "science" does not necessarily have any relation to truth.

[duane1969]

Anything that's pro-Fox News is anti-truth.

Then Obama must love them because his entire campaign and presidency has been one big "anti-truth" so he should fit right in.