Conservative-Funded Study: Fox News Gives Most Balanced Coverage

A study released this month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University found that Fox News Channel's evening coverage was more "balanced" than that of the broadcast networks. However, the objectivity of the CMPA, which bills itself as a nonpartisan media watchdog group, is questionable, as the Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch found that "nearly all its funding comes from conservative foundations."

The conservative-funded study, which also claimed that TV election news has been most critical of Hillary Clinton and friendliest to Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, found the following on the balance of Fox's coverage:

Who's Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel's coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly - 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates - 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative - 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

To download a PDF of the report, click here.

Comments

[Forest]

Is this a preemptive April Fool's Day joke?

[imsosure]

You get what you pay for, right?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[realpolitic]

When Fox reports on global warming they will undoubtedly air the other side. The fact that global warming is caused by man is a conclusion reached by 70-80% of scientists which is a near universal consensus in scientific circles and this concensus grows stronger from year to passing year. Yet Fox would probably air the so-called "controversy" giving equal representation to "both sides" of the "make believe" debate. Is this practice fair and balanced? Is repeatedly attacking the press for broadcasting the violence in Iraq "fair" or "balanced." Fox is agenda driven. Its agenda is steer debate and discussion to the fair right and intimidate administration critics.

[realpolitic]

Fox News is "fair and balanced" to those on the fair right. All other points of view are secondary or tertiary.

Besides who wants "balance" in a news broadcast? Give me the facts and I will provide my own balance. In other words, I'll draw my own conclusions. If someone says the earth is round, I do not need another arguing its flat. Tell the facts and get out of the way. Most importantly, do not casually mix facts and opinion and make them eqivalent as Fox attempts to do.

[realpolitic]

O'Reilly is about as nutty right-wing as one can get. Yet he claims to be an independent. Somehow his Talking Points segment is always blasting "looney left groups" and he sees "anarchy" everywhere. He has the spirit of a true authoritarian. When the violence erupted in Iraq he wanted a strongman to replace Saddam. Last night, he called for strong man rule in Pakistan until things calm down. He lays claims to some progressive views because, for instance, he does not think capital punishment is a tough enough punishment. He would rather see convicted felons do hard labor their entire lives. He is a farce. Why doesn't he just admit he is a militia-leading lunatic who in his spare time is preparing for the United Nations to invade America? Fox News is a farce. Listening to Fox for any length of time would cause rapid disengagement of any critical thinking ability and mind rust.

[bar1ed]

he he he he he !!!!!!

[SmellyOne]

Oops.

One less knee-jerk response for the HuffBots.

[dax5]

is this a joke? Fox News making positive comments on Dems? and bad ones on Reps? (or equal with both???) What???
Fox News without a right-wing agenda?

Have the people who made these points ever watched Fox News? I have. It is a joke. Not remotely fair.

LMAO

Murdoch has come right out and said his media empire is not as important as spreading his political ideology!

[SpookyTooth]

sure - and next we'll get Barbara Bush to give an objective review of her son's performance. How stupid and desperate can someone get to think this mean anything.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I'm laughing so hard, I'm peeing my pants.

Just how many chromosome­-challenge­d people do you think there are out there?

[leftLibertarian]

The only Dude I enjoy on Fox is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.

He has a great new book out called "A Nation of Sheep."

http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Sheep-Andrew-P-Napolitano/dp/1595550976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198884766&sr=1-1

[el35]

I don't hear conservatives complaining about any of Faux News reporting. The silence is deafening and that says it all.

[TRichards]

What's next? My guess is that we'll have a headline about Karl Rove concluding that George W. Bush has supplanted Lincoln as our most important and statesman-like President -- a conclusion that Rove reached, we'll be told, only after considerable soul searching.

[bigdaddyvike]

"On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly - 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates - 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties."

Somebody obviously dosed George Mason U's water supply. (electric Kool-Aid, per chance?) This belongs in the "Press Releases of the Retarded" round file.

[StillAmused]

The "study" was for the benefit of those delusional Fox addicts who were beginning to see a little light creeping in under their blindfolds and were getting unsettled.

There, there, cretins... everything's alright again.