Comments on: Study: Fox Is the Most Fair and Balanced Thus Far in Prez Campaign http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/ The Business End of the Blogosphere Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:06:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: GWenker http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119459 GWenker Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:15:18 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119459 PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him. "They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative." PLAISTOW, N.H. — Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network “is scared” of him.
“They are scared of me and don’t want my message to get out, but it will,” Paul said in an interview at a diner here. “They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative.”

]]> By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119454 TBlumer Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:20:31 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119454 CMPA is nonpartisan, leans right philosophically, is not unbiased, but uses fair and objective methods to evaluate the broadcasts. They're a lot like me in how I look at things. :--> SourceWatch looking for neocons under their beds is as bad as John Birchers were looking for Commies under beds. CMPA is nonpartisan, leans right philosophically, is not unbiased, but uses fair and objective methods to evaluate the broadcasts.

They’re a lot like me in how I look at things. :–>

SourceWatch looking for neocons under their beds is as bad as John Birchers were looking for Commies under beds.

]]> By: Eric http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119452 Eric Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:09:32 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119452 strike that. bogeymen i do fear. especially on par 3s. strike that. bogeymen i do fear. especially on par 3s.

]]> By: Eric http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119451 Eric Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:08:15 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119451 bogeymen don't scare me. it's those boogeymen i fear. but listen, you either have to admit CMPA is conservative or be considered part of the drivey-by blogosphere with absolutely zero journalistic credibility. whichever is fine with me. do you dispute any of the facts sourcewatch highlights? like near 90% of CMPA funding coming from 3 far right sources? "out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles: * John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century * Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation * Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute" you actually think a group that attacked PBS, attacked Fahrenheit 9/11, and supported the "Reagan miniseries" can be considered unbiased non-partisans? legally they might get by with the non-partisan bit, but unbiased no way. would you call AEI an unbiased non-partisan think tank? you don't have to be an investigative journalist to figure this stuff out. it's easy. maybe in the interest of journalistic integrity (of which i know "NewsBusters.org" is highly concerned) you should change your lead-in to "A leading nonpartisan, conservative leaning media watchdog...". i'm sure any responsible old school dead tree media journalist would approach it this way. i love that you think the methodology of using "trained coders [who] tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates" is infallible. hilarity. trained by who? CMPA? the right-wing watchdog whose funders also pump big dollars into AEI? LOL. it's not hard to understand why dems might have more positive mentions than negative. everyone has known for some time (even you) that the rep candidates blow as compared to the dems. this is politics, not rocket science. as for portraying CMPA as this unbiased media watchdog, you are wrong and the case is closed. no further discussion is necessary at all. thank you and good day sir. bogeymen don’t scare me. it’s those boogeymen i fear.

but listen, you either have to admit CMPA is conservative or be considered part of the drivey-by blogosphere with absolutely zero journalistic credibility. whichever is fine with me.

do you dispute any of the facts sourcewatch highlights? like near 90% of CMPA funding coming from 3 far right sources?

“out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

* John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
* Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
* Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute”

you actually think a group that attacked PBS, attacked Fahrenheit 9/11, and supported the “Reagan miniseries” can be considered unbiased non-partisans? legally they might get by with the non-partisan bit, but unbiased no way. would you call AEI an unbiased non-partisan think tank? you don’t have to be an investigative journalist to figure this stuff out. it’s easy.

maybe in the interest of journalistic integrity (of which i know “NewsBusters.org” is highly concerned) you should change your lead-in to “A leading nonpartisan, conservative leaning media watchdog…”. i’m sure any responsible old school dead tree media journalist would approach it this way.

i love that you think the methodology of using “trained coders [who] tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates” is infallible. hilarity. trained by who? CMPA? the right-wing watchdog whose funders also pump big dollars into AEI? LOL.

it’s not hard to understand why dems might have more positive mentions than negative. everyone has known for some time (even you) that the rep candidates blow as compared to the dems. this is politics, not rocket science.

as for portraying CMPA as this unbiased media watchdog, you are wrong and the case is closed. no further discussion is necessary at all. thank you and good day sir.

]]> By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119433 TBlumer Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:19:54 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119433 #1, the methodology leaves little room for injection of judgment, left or right. SourceWatch is paranoid. If the left is so convinced that there's bias here, they could always employee the same methodology. My guess: too much work, too sure there would be no difference, ending the debate once and for all. Vastly preferable to have a bogeyman to beat on. #1, the methodology leaves little room for injection of judgment, left or right. SourceWatch is paranoid.

If the left is so convinced that there’s bias here, they could always employee the same methodology. My guess: too much work, too sure there would be no difference, ending the debate once and for all. Vastly preferable to have a bogeyman to beat on.

]]> By: Eric http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119432 Eric Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:14:08 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/27/study-fox-is-the-most-fair-and-balanced-thus-far-in-prez-campaign/#comment-119432 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs nonpartisan? maybe. unbiased? surely not. you link to their about page. how cute. you can do better than that, Tom. i've got no problem with a conservative media watchdog. but call it that. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

nonpartisan? maybe. unbiased? surely not. you link to their about page. how cute. you can do better than that, Tom. i’ve got no problem with a conservative media watchdog. but call it that.

]]>