Fox News Channel is the "News of Record"

[Pangloss]

Okay, well all of those things are the case with Fox News.

 

Those are interesting points but they seem to point back to personal opinion. BTW, Fox News is already cited in scholarly, even peer-reviewed publications. Hell, I've seen the Wikipedia cited in peer-reviewed publications. Sure you can refine that further but I think the search for objective units of measure is ultimately a wild goose chase.

 

At any rate, what you and Cap'n still seem to be saying is that we should all agree that Fox News is not "of record", but you can't say why in any manner that eliminates other outlets from the same judgment.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The editorial policies are probably the sticking point. I don't know how CNN, Fox, and the rest handle it, but I'm reasonably certain that if you're a presenter or host, you don't have editorial freedom to say whatever you want regardless of what the head honchos think. Newspapers like Le Monde give tenure to their journalists to prevent them from being fired over matters of opinion. (Le Monde is the French newspaper of record.)

[Pangloss]

Well that's something that's been changing in recent years, possibly due to FNC's influence, but clearly following a trend that has been in the works for a long time. As we recently discussed, CNN presents Anderson Cooper's show as "news", which in one sense it is (the sense that the entire network falls under the News division of the company, I suppose). But it's pretty obviously a commentary show, and it is at times outrageously inflammatory.

 

Every outlet has problems in this area. Nobody gets off the hook on this one, not even Le Monde, which has been accused many times of mixing its news reporting with political preferences.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well that's something that's been changing in recent years, possibly due to FNC's influence, but clearly following a trend that has been in the works for a long time. As we recently discussed, CNN presents Anderson Cooper's show as "news", which in one sense it is (the sense that the entire network falls under the News division of the company, I suppose). But it's pretty obviously a commentary show, and it is at times outrageously inflammatory.

 

Every outlet has problems in this area. Nobody gets off the hook on this one, not even Le Monde, which has been accused many times of mixing its news reporting with political preferences.

 

You've missed my point. It's not how you mix news and editorials. It's how you separate the people who write the news (and publish the opinions) from the people who write their paychecks. Le Monde grants tenure so journalists can be free to pursue any story, or write any editorial, without fear of being fired for having the wrong opinion or troubling the wrong people. Television networks can hardly afford to do so when they're at the mercy of audience ratings and advertisers. Does Fox News have a policy to let presenters and journalists be isolated from management?

[Pangloss]

I don't think you've established that a separation of that nature helps. If that policy doesn't stop Le Monde or any other organization from violating that policy on a regular basis then what difference does a stated policy make? Even if Fox News Channel has such a policy, its detractors will just accuse it of ignoring it. But more to the point, a stated policy hasn't stopped the New York Times or the Washington Post from showing at least confirmation bias, as their own ombudsmen have indicated on numerous occasions.

 

Also, I don't think freedom from fear of being fired is any great boon here, and strikes me as more of an ideological choice than a protection of good journalism. How do they fire the ones that don't follow the rules of good journalism, or for that matter just plain suck? Tenure is vastly overrated, and a long-standing weakness in reasoning by the science community. (And in rapid decline.)

 

That having been said, I'm sure they have a policy, and it might be useful to take a look at it. I would imagine that, as discussed in the OP, they largely copied a policy from another major outlet, because they're attempting to generate as much credibility as possible, for what little that may be worth.

 

This well-sourced bit from the Wikipedia article on Fox News controversies is interesting:

 

A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September 2004 found that Fox News was second to CBS as the most politically biased network in the public view. 37% of respondents thought CBS, in the wake of the memogate scandal, was trying to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox's goal was to "help elect Bush."[32] However, a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling in January 2010 found Fox News to be the only US television news network to receive a positive rating by the public for trustworthiness.[33]

 

I've seen other polls that show public confidence in media personalities to be somewhere around the level of defense lawyers and used car salesmen. People are pissed about bias in the media, and it should come as no surprise at all that an outlet that shoves the bias meter the opposite direction is seen by some as the only available option for telling these jokers and pinheads in the media what they really think.

 

Because (IMO) even after almost a decade and a half of FNC being on the air, and a steep, rapid decline in their revenues, they're still not listening.

 

BTW, this Wikipedia article has some good background on the history of efforts to quantify and objectively assess media bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think you've established that a separation of that nature helps. If that policy doesn't stop Le Monde or any other organization from violating that policy on a regular basis then what difference does a stated policy make? Even if Fox News Channel has such a policy, its detractors will just accuse it of ignoring it. But more to the point, a stated policy hasn't stopped the New York Times or the Washington Post from showing at least confirmation bias, as their own ombudsmen have indicated on numerous occasions.

 

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with editorial freedom. And it doesn't matter if it "helps," or what exactly it helps to achieve; editorial separation is one of the criteria for a news source "of record" as listed in Wikipedia. By definition, editorial separation "helps" a news source be one of record.

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, well all of those things are the case with Fox News.

 

Those are interesting points but they seem to point back to personal opinion. BTW, Fox News is already cited in scholarly, even peer-reviewed publications. Hell, I've seen the Wikipedia cited in peer-reviewed publications. Sure you can refine that further but I think the search for objective units of measure is ultimately a wild goose chase.

 

I already did define it further: these are not yes/no questions. It is obvious that "yes" is the answer to all those questions for just about any news show; the real question is the proportion. For example, if a news agency were to achieve the unattainable 100% on the first of these measures, there would be no question as to its reliability. Achieving 50% would make it worthless, even if you could honestly answer "yes" to the question.

 

At any rate, what you and Cap'n still seem to be saying is that we should all agree that Fox News is not "of record", but you can't say why in any manner that eliminates other outlets from the same judgment.

 

I seriously doubt that any TV news could make the cut. On TV there are many important aspects of journalism that are extremely impractical, and even more so if they are supposed to keep up the ratings. I'd honestly be surprised to see any TV news whose primary purpose is to provide unbiased, unsensationalized news.

[Sisyphus]

The phrase, "skin of his teeth" is completely subjective, and to some maybe 75-21 is a close margin.

 

Hypothetically some, yes, but nobody in reality. News sources with an agenda can get away with all sorts of things by not technically saying anything that is objectively false, even if what is said is obviously misleading.

 

I personally rely on Fox for most of my news, and find it accurate, and comprehensive. That being said I would have to agree with your points Pangloss and say Fox is the News of Record.

 

Against what are you judging its accuracy and comprehensiveness?

 

BTW, I might think that FOX is the worst of the bunch, but I think pretty much all TV news is terrible.

 

And no, none of this has any bearing on whether FOX has become the "news of record," which is something I'm still pondering.

[ParanoiA]

You've missed my point. It's not how you mix news and editorials. It's how you separate the people who write the news (and publish the opinions) from the people who write their paychecks. Le Monde grants tenure so journalists can be free to pursue any story, or write any editorial, without fear of being fired for having the wrong opinion or troubling the wrong people. Television networks can hardly afford to do so when they're at the mercy of audience ratings and advertisers. Does Fox News have a policy to let presenters and journalists be isolated from management?

 

Well I do get your point, but I think you're putting a bit much stock into policy. Does stated policy matter over substative results? I don't know their policy, but I do know that Fox news went out of its way to marginalize Ron Paul (Libertarian-Republican) during the presidential primaries, using the same subtle tactics we've accused of the liberal press - without a doubt an agenda driven method to protect the establishment from they perceive as weirdos and quacks. Yet, John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck are all libertarian commentary "weirdos and quacks" on Fox's network.

 

They don't have much in common at all with the religio-conservative bias of the network, and when they make little promo appearances on the staple conservative shows on Fox, they're generally bickering and disagreeing with each other. I'll never forget one of the first exchanges between O'reilly and Stossel over drug legalization.

 

So, they do appear to offer counter opinions. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with policies that insulate news folk from management, but I'd think that the Glenn Beck controversies, losing sponsors and so forth would give us a clue. It doesn't appear management cares what they say.

 

Maybe, yet again, folks are missing the distinction because they're still looking for the liberal side, as if there's only 2. I don't see much liberalism on Fox, but I also don't see exclusive conservatism either.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Right. Their policy isn't the only thing that matters. One of the other criteria Mr Skeptic quoted was "Does Fox publish a trustworthy description of events?" Once we've freed them from corporate bias through policy, do we see that what they say has happened is reasonably accurate?

 

Of course, the Glenn Beck controversies are an interesting subject. Fox may be using them as a ploy to get more viewers -- "everyone loves a scandal!" -- or they might just not care. I dunno.

[Pangloss]

This has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with editorial freedom.

 

But as you indicated, editorial freedom is not the only factor, so editorial freedom alone won't tell us whether we can eliminate Fox News Channel. I don't think you can say, for example, that all boxes have to be checked, including editorial freedom, and any missing checkboxs eliminates a news outlet. There's too much gray area here.

 

I agree with you (and said earlier) that bias does not determine legitimacy or "of record" status. What I'm saying is that the prevalence of bias across the board, in spite of journalistic practices sanctioning it, tells us that nobody's perfect. And because nobody's perfect we need a relative measurement in order to determine legitimacy and "of record" status. We have to compare the outlets in a quantifiable manner, on a scale, and determine which one -- statistically -- has the least amount of disqualifying factors.

 

 

I seriously doubt that any TV news could make the cut.

 

Yes, if we eliminate popularity as a qualifying factor (which I agree with) then this is probably the case. But I think it's tricky specifying exactly why TV news doesn't make the cut. Here's an example of why:

 

 

I'd honestly be surprised to see any TV news whose primary purpose is to provide unbiased, unsensationalized news.

 

I'd honestly be surprised to see any news -- TV or otherwise -- whose primary purpose is to provide unbiased, unsensationalized news.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, if we eliminate popularity as a qualifying factor (which I agree with) then this is probably the case. But I think it's tricky specifying exactly why TV news doesn't make the cut. Here's an example of why:

 

Because they, more than ever, replace importance and fact-checking with speed and sensationalism. There is no printing time to be waited for, to allow for fact-checking. The media makes emotional appeal and sensationalization much easier than it is to do in print. And, of course, the camera crews and TV timeslot cost more, so less money to spend on journalists.

 

I'd honestly be surprised to see any news -- TV or otherwise -- whose primary purpose is to provide unbiased, unsensationalized news.

 

True enough, and I won't pretend it was any different earlier on. However, some do hold up that pretense so much better than others Still, I think there really are a few who are interested in unbiased and unsensationalized news, especially now with the internet available, but they never will become popular since we humans so like to have our beliefs confirmed.

[DJBruce]

Against what are you judging its accuracy and comprehensiveness?

 

My judgment is based on my personal experience, I will admit I have no proof of this statement and did not intend to imply as such. However as for my experience I do not notice major and numerous errors in their reports, and most of the small things are corrected quickly, and they generally cover most if not all the topics that I might be interested in hearing.

[Pangloss]

The White House Correspondents Association has moved Fox News Channel's White House Correspondent up to the front row, dealing with the vacancy left by the abrupt and controversial departure of Helen Thomas in early June. The Associated Press was given her seat, which is viewed as the most important seat in the room, and FNC was promoted from the 2nd row to the first row.

 

This is a minor thing in terms of getting questions answered (it's my understanding that the first three rows are the critical ones, and FNC generally gets its questions answered already), but the importance was raised a notch after a number of liberal/progressive activist groups opposed the move last week, including MoveOn.org and a number of blogs. I think this is a further sign that FNC is acknowledged by the industry, however grudgingly, as a legitimate news outlet.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/01/white.house.press.seat/

[jackson33]

I think this is a further sign that FNC is acknowledged by the industry, however grudgingly, as a legitimate news outlet. [/Quote]

 

Agree, but don't think it's "grudgingly". Fox probably donates more than any other Network to the cost of getting WH news or frankly any news and the others benefit from their work. I'd call it an honorary award, for a job well done...