Fox News controversies

Fox News Channel, an American basic cable and satellite television channel, has been the subject of several controversies. This article recounts controversies and allegations relating to FOX News.

Contents

Fox News has been accused by academics, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups of having conservative bias in their news coverage [1] [Two] [Three] [Four] as well as perpetuating more general views of a conservative bias. [Five] Fox News has publicly denied such charges, [6] stating that the reporters in the newsroom provide separate, neutral reporting, while acknowledging their opinion programming is not intended to be neutral. [7]

At times, the accusations of bias have led to back and forward conflicts inbetween Fox commentators and political [8] [9] and media figures. [Ten] [11] For example, in two thousand nine the Fox News Channel engaged in a wordy conflict with the Obama administration. [8] [9]

Political figures Edit

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has referred to Fox News as a “right-wing propaganda machine,” [12] and several Democratic Party politicians have boycotted events hosted or sponsored by the network. [13] [14] In 2007, several major Democratic Party presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson) boycotted or dropped out of Fox News-sponsored or -hosted debates, [13] [15] forcing their cancellation. [ citation needed ]

Similar accusations have been levied against Fox News in response to its decision to exclude Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter from the January Five, 2008, Republican candidate debate. [16] In response, many individuals and organizations petitioned Fox News to reconsider its decision. When Fox refused to switch its position and continued to exclude Paul and Hunter, the Fresh Hampshire Republican Party officially announced it would withdraw as a Fox fucking partner in the forum. [17]

While the network has been criticized for its tendency to support the Republican Party and its interests, David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Thicket, has also said, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.” [Eighteen]

Media figures Edit

RT’s Larry King said in a January 17, 2007, interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, “They’re a Republican brand. They’re an extension of the Republican Party with some exceptions, [like] Greta Van Susteren. But I don’t begrudge them that. [Fox CEO] Roger Ailes is an old friend. They’ve been nice to me. They’ve said some very nice things about me. Not [Bill] O’Reilly, but I don’t witness him.” [Nineteen]

Writing for the Los Angeles Times, Republican and conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg indicated his belief that Fox News was rightward-leaning: “Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it’s worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloid-like network.” [Five]

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly stated in two thousand four in the context of the Iraq War that “Fox does tilt right”, but that the network does not “actively campaign or attempt to help Bush-Cheney.” [20] [21]

Media watchdogs Edit

Progressive media witness dog groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) [Trio] and Media Matters for America, [Four] have argued that Fox News reporting contains conservative editorializing within news stories. FAIR has asserted that the ratio of conservative to non-conservative guests on Fox shows strongly favors conservatives. In a probe of a 19-week period from January two thousand one to May two thousand one on Special Report with Brit Hume the ratio was 25:Three, and FAIR obtained similar data from other Fox shows. [22] [23] Accuracy in Media has claimed that there was a conflict of interest in Fox News’ co-sponsorship of the May 15, 2007, Republican presidential candidates debate, pointing out that candidate and former Fresh York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s law rigid had tackled copyright protection and legislation on the purchase of cable TV lineups for News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, and suggesting that Fox might be biased in favor of Giuliani’s candidacy for the Republican Party presidential nomination. [24]

Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch is the chairman and CEO of 21st Century Fox, the proprietor of Fox News Channel. He has been a subject of controversy and criticism as a result of his substantial influence in both the print and broadcast media. In the United States, he is the publisher of the Fresh York Post newspaper and the magazine The Weekly Standard. Accusations against him include the “dumbing down” of news and introducing “mindless vulgarity” in place of genuine journalism, and having his own outlets produce news that serve his own political and financial agendas. According to the Big black cock website: “To some he is little less than the demon incarnate, to others, the most progressive mover-and-shaker in the media business.” [25]

Then-presidential candidate George W. Thicket’s cousin, John Prescott Ellis, was Fox News’ projection team manager during the general election of 2000. After speaking numerous times on election night with his cousins George and Jeb, [26] Ellis, at Two:16 AM, reversed Fox News’ call for Florida as a state won by Al Gore. Critics allege this was a premature decision, given the impossibly razor-thin margin (officially five hundred thirty seven of Five.9 million votes [27] ), which created the “lasting impression that Pubic hair ‘won’ the White House – and all the legal wrangling down in Florida is just a case of Democratic ‘snippiness’.” [28] Others, such as researcher John Lott, have responded that, by this reasoning, Fox News and the other networks were even more premature in primarily calling the state for Gore, a call made while polls were still open, and which may have depressed voter turnout for Pubic hair, [29] actually affecting the election, whereas the call for Thicket later could not have, as the polls were closed by then. [ citation needed ]

On January 9, 2010, the son-in-law of Rupert Murdoch and the hubby of Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth, Matthew Freud, stated he and other members of the media mogul’s family are “ashamed and sickened” by the right leaning tendencies of Fox News in the opening salvo in a bid to displace Roger Ailes, the founder and CEO of Fox News. [30] In the previous Sunday Fresh York Times news story featuring a profile on Roger Ailes, Freud was quoted telling “I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’ horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalist standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to, what you heard was a declaration of war, There are, practically speaking, now two factions inwards of News Corp.: Ailes and Fox News, and the Murdoch children – with Rupert caught inbetween them.” Albeit Rupert Murdoch did not react to the remark directly, a spokesperson for News Corporation put a statement after a Financial Times inquiry claiming “Matthew Freud’s opinions are his own and in no way reflect the views of Rupert Murdoch, who is proud of Roger Ailes and Fox News.” [31] Tim Arango also claims in Murdoch’s two thousand eight biography that he voiced concerns privately to Ailes about his conduct claiming he was purportedly “embarrassed” by Fox News. Murdoch denied that claim. [32]

In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. [33] [34] [35] News Corporation’s political activity committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively. [36]

Polls and surveys Edit

A poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports during September two thousand four found that Fox News was seen as 2nd 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 attempting to help elect John Kerry, while 34% of respondents said they believed that Fox’s objective was to “help elect Pubic hair.” [37] However, a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling in January two thousand ten found Fox News to be the only US television news network to receive a positive rating by the public for trustworthiness with results strongly split depending on the political affiliation of the respondents [38] A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press demonstrated “a striking rise in the politicization of cable TV news audiences . This pattern is most apparent with the fast-growing Fox News Channel.” [39] Another Pew survey of news consumption found that Fox News has not suffered a decline in credibility with its audience, with one in four (25%) telling they believe all or most of what they see on Fox News Channel, virtually unchanged since Fox was very first tested in 2000. [40]

According to the results of a two thousand six examine by the Project for Excellence in Journalism a survey of five hundred forty seven journalists, found that Fox was most frequently cited by surveyed journalists as an outlet taking an ideological stance in its coverage, and most identified as advocating conservative political positions, [41] with 56% of national journalists citing Fox News as being especially conservative in its coverage of news. Additionally Fox was viewed as having the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. [42]

Studies and reports Edit

The “2011 State of the News Media” Report by the Pew Center on Excellence in Journalism found that in 2010, Fox News Channel had average daytime audience of 1.Two million and nighttime viewership of 1.1 million, higher than its cable competitors but down 11% and 9% respectively from 2009. Fox’s cumulative audience (unique viewers who observed at least sixty minutes in an average month) was 41.1 million, coming in 2nd to CNN with 41.7 million. For 2010, CNN’s digital network continued to lead Fox’s digital network online; CNN with 35.7 million unique visitors per month, compared to Fox’s 15.Five million. For the very first time Fox outspent its competitors, with a total news investment of $686 million. 72% of this investment went to program costs, reflecting their concentrate on high-profile hosts. They also enlargened their revenues 17% over two thousand nine to $1.Five billion, well ahead of second-place CNN at $1.Two billion. [43] [44]

Content analysis studies Edit

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in two thousand six demonstrated that sixty eight percent of Fox cable stories contained individual opinions, as compared to MSNBC at twenty seven percent and CNN at four percent. The “content analysis” portion of their two thousand five report also concluded that “Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air.” [45]

A two thousand six University of California, Berkeley investigate cited that there was a correlation inbetween the presence of the Fox News Channel in cable markets and increases in Republican votes in those markets. [46]

A two thousand ten investigate found that with respect to coverage of the Iraq War and the very first war in Afghanistan in two thousand five found that “Fox News was much more sympathetic to the [Pubic hair] administration than NBC.” [47]

Studies of reporting bias Edit

In a two thousand six academic content analysis of election news, Rasmussen Reports showcased that coverage at ABC, CBS, and NBC was more favorable toward Kerry than Pubic hair, while coverage at Fox News Channel were more favorable toward Pubic hair. [48]

In a two thousand ten investigate of the news coverage of the two thousand four political party conventions, Morris and Francia found that Fox news reporting was more negative toward the Democratic Convention and gave Republicans more chance to voice their message than the other networks. The probe also found that viewers who relied on Fox news coverage exhibited attitude switch toward both candidates, but particularly a lowering opinions toward John Kerry. In contrast the probe found that CNN’s coverage was more fair and balanced. [49]

A probe published in November two thousand five by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA, scoring political bias from twenty mainstream news reporting outlets, concluded that all “except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress.” In particular, Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume had an Americans for Democratic Act rating that was right of the political center. Groseclose’s model used the number of times a host cited a particular think tank on his or her program and compared it with the number of times a member of the U.S. Congress cited a think tank, correlating that with the politician’s Americans for Democratic Act rating. [50] [51]

Geoff Nunberg, a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and a National Public Radio commentator, criticized the methodology of the investigate and labeled its conclusions invalid. [52] He pointed to what he spotted as a Groseclose’s reliance on interpretations of facts and data that were taken from sources that were not, in his view, credible. Groseclose and Professor Jeff Milyo rebutted, telling Nunberg “shows a gross misunderstanding [of] our statistical method and the actual assumptions upon which it relies.” [53] Mark Liberman (a professor of Computer Science and the director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania), who helped post Groseclose and Milyo’s rebuttal, later posted how the statistical methods used to calculate this bias pose faults. [54] [55] Mark concluded “that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement — just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught figure of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored.” [54]

A December two thousand seven examine/examination by Robert Lichter of a self-described nonpartisan media watchdog group, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Fox News’s evaluations of all of the two thousand eight Democratic presidential candidates combined was 51% positive and 49% negative, while the network’s evaluations of the Republican presidential candidates 51% negative and 49% positive. The investigate, however, did find that Fox’s coverage was less negative toward Republican candidates than the coverage of broadcast networks. [56]

A investigate by Media Matters for America found that inbetween August one and October 1, 2013, on Fox News “Sixty-nine percent of guests and seventy five percent of mentions cast doubt on climate science,” compared to “[half] of those quoted in The Wall Street Journal. about twenty nine percent in The Los Angeles Times, about seventeen percent in the Washington Post and about twelve percent in Bloomberg News.” [57] [58] Fox News’ argument against criticism that it disproportionately represents the views of climate switch deniers was to itself deny the factual figures which indicate that 97% of climate science experts worldwide hold the consensus view of human-caused global heating. [59] A two thousand twelve report by the Union of Worried Scientists found that 93% of global heating coverage by Fox News was misleading. The report put the figure slightly lower—81 percent—for the Wall Street Journal. The misleading statements identified in the report included “. dismissals of human-caused climate switch, disparaging comments about individual scientists, rejections of climate science as a figure of skill, and cherry picking of data.” [60] [61]

Croft concluded that Fox News coverage glorified the Iraq War and its reporting framed the discussion in such a way as to drown out critics. [Two] He quotes Christiane Amanpour as stating that there was a culture of self-censorship created by “the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News“. [Two]

A May two thousand seventeen examine conducted by Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examined coverage of U.S. President Donald Trump’s very first one hundred days in office by several major mainstream media outlets including Fox. [62] It found that, altogether, Trump received 80% negative coverage from the media, and that he received the least negative coverage on Fox – 52% negative and 48% positive. [63]

Tests of skill of Fox viewers Edit

A probe by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs, as published in the Winter 03–04 issue of the Political Science Quarterly, [64] reported that poll-based findings [65] indicated that viewers of Fox News, the Fox Broadcasting Company and local Fox affiliates were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three misperceptions: [64]

• 67% of Fox viewers erroneously believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization” (compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).
• The erroneous belief that “The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq” was held by 33% of Fox viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS.
• 35% of Fox viewers erroneously believed that “the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war” with Iraq (compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS).

In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as “misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids” and called it a “hoax poll”. [66] Bill O’Reilly called the explore “absolute crap”. [67] Roger Ailes referred to the investigate as “an old thrust poll”. [68] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal ‘ s online editorial page, called the poll “unspoiled propaganda”. [Sixty-nine] PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that “The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive probe could undertake such broad research questions,” and stated “that the correlation inbetween viewing Fox News and holding misperceptions does not prove that Fox News’ presentation caused the misperceptions[,]” inferring that causality is not necessary to prove correlation. [70] [71]

PIPA also conducted a statistical probe on purported misinformation evidenced by registered voters before the two thousand ten election. According to the results of the probe, “. false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment. ” [72] but viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed on specific issues when compared to viewers of comparable media, [73] that this likelihood also enlargened proportionally to the frequency of viewing Fox News [73] and that these findings displayed statistical significance. [74] Media critic David Zurawik pointed to what he witnessed as weaknesses in the probe, such as that certain government agencies are defined as holding the “true” positions on issues and that the investigate didn’t differentiate inbetween the influences of FNC shows as opposed to political ads that aired within shows. [75]

A two thousand seven Pew Research Center poll of general political skill (“Who is the governor of your state?”, “Who is the President of Russia?”) indicated that Fox News Channel viewers scored 35% in the high-knowledge area, the same as the national average. This was not significantly different than local news, network news and morning news, and was slightly lower than CNN (41%). Viewers of The O’Reilly Factor (51%) scored in the high category along with Rush Limbaugh (50%), NPR (51%), major newspapers (54%), Newshour with Jim Lehrer (53%) The Daily Demonstrate (54%) and The Colbert Report (54%). [76]

A two thousand ten Stanford University survey found “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global heating, [and] with less trust in scientists”. [77] A two thousand eleven Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that Fox News viewers had a poorer understanding of the fresh laws and were more likely to believe in falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act such as cuts to Medicare benefits and the death panel myth. [78] A two thousand ten Ohio State University probe of public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”, officially named Park51, found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believe incorrect rumors than those with a “low reliance” on Fox News. [79]

In 2011, a examine by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that Fresh Jersey Fox News viewers were less well informed than people who did not see any news at all. The examine employed objective questions, such as whether Hosni Mubarak was still in power in Egypt. [80] [81] [82]

Daily memos Edit

Fox News Channel executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of the network’s daily reporting. The channel’s Vice President of News, John Moody, controls content by writing memos to the news department staff. In the documentary Outfoxed, former Fox News employees talk about the internal workings of the channel. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees how to treatment particular stories and on what stories to treatment. Critics of Fox News claim that the instructions on many of the memos indicate a conservative bias. The Washington Post quoted Larry Johnson, a former part-time Fox News commentator, describing the Moody memos as “talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray.” [83]

Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, “The roots of Fox News Channel’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be attempting to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.” [84] [85]

Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network’s on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq War, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner manhandle scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area. [86] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, “The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as ‘sharpshooters,’ not ‘snipers,’ which carries a negative connotation.” [ citation needed ]

Two days after the two thousand six election, The Huffington Post reported that its news department had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended the following: “… [L]et’s be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.” Within hours of the memo’s publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the two thousand six congressional election. [87] [88]

Bill Sammon e-mail Edit

In December 2010, Media Matters for America released a leaked October two thousand nine e-mail inbetween Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network’s senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News’ coverage of President Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase “public option” when discussing a key measure of President Obama’s reform bill, and instead use the terms “government option” or “government-run health insurance[,]” noting negative connotations; Sammon also suggested that the qualifier “so-called” be said before any decent mention of the public option. Another e-mail by Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente accepted Sammon’s conditions. Critics claimed that Sammon took advice from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared on Hannity shortly before the e-mail was written and made the same suggestions in identifying the public option. Critics also noticed that reporters and panelists on Special Report with Bret Baier used the term “public option” before the e-mail was sent, but used the term “government option” instantly afterwards. Sammon, in an interview with Howard Kurtz for The Daily Brute, defended the directive and denied he was attempting to skew Fox News’ coverage. [89]

Later that month, Media Matters released an e-mail by Sammon from December 2009, in which he pressured Fox News reporters to assert that “theories are based upon data that critics have called into question” in light of the Climategate controversy. [90] [91]

In August 2007, a fresh utility, WikiScanner, exposed that English Wikipedia articles relating to Fox News had been edited from IP addresses wielded by Fox News, [92] tho’ it was not possible to determine exactly who the editors were. The contraption showcased that the article for Shepard Smith was edited from Fox computers, removing mention of an arrest. [93]

Related movie: