• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is FOXNEWS fair and balanced?

Is FOXNEWS fair and balanced?

  • Yes, they present both sides of issue

    Votes: 20 26.7%
  • No, they definatly slant toward conservative news

    Votes: 50 66.7%
  • I don't watch FOXNEWS

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • They used to be very conservative, now they are fair and balanced.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • Total voters


Benevolent Dictator
DP Veteran
May 19, 2004
Reaction score
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Is FOXNEWS fair and balanced?

What do you think?
I don't think FOX is fair or balanced. They are blatantly slanted to the right. On the other hand, I can't think of any cable news network that does not display a bias. Can anybody else? Really?
This is a joke right? Fox News fair and balanced? If Fox tilts any more to the right the earth is going to swing off it's axis and spin into the abyss. All the network news out there has some tilt, one way or another, but the fact that Fox even has the gall to call themselves a news network shows just how far out of the realm of reality they actually are.
They have Geraldo. He's insane...ly liberal. They have Juan Williams on all the time. And I know he's not a liberal's favorite liberal, but they have the honest Alan Colmes. Then there's a couple of regulars on Fox News Watch on the discussion panel whose names I can't remember.

I will admit that I LOVE FoxNews and they definitely make me happy.

But the beautiful thing is that I am not sure whether it's because they are slanted to the right, or just not horribly slanted to the left like everyone else!

Ha! I get giddy just thinking about it!
WKL815 said:
I will admit that I LOVE FoxNews and they definitely make me happy.

But the beautiful thing is that I am not sure whether it's because they are slanted to the right, or just not horribly slanted to the left like everyone else!

Ha! I get giddy just thinking about it!
Look, as long as you realize that what you're watching is in no way a news program it's not a problem. It becomes a problem when their veiwers believe that they are in fact watching a news program.
I know! Maybe we should have them all put "Warning!!!Opinion follows." before their "stories" or "reports" or "headlines". CBS 60 minutes can just put it as a scroll during their show.

I watched my local news here in Seattle for a moment last night and the lady talking head was reporting "Fallujah is now 100% in American control". You should have seen the look on her face as she reported that. It was like she was reporting someone defecated on her latte cup with a "see what the world has come to?" expression on her face.

Then they showed a video of the marines in Fallujah killing a sniper and made sure to report that there would be an investigation as to whether that incident was a war crime or not.

I pause now to reflect on the various expletives I would direct at those..."broadcasting editors".
I like FOXNEWS and watch it almost exclusively. *suprize eh?*

Anway, what I enjoy IS the commentary. The end of the newshour they have a "My word" or something of the ilk. Many times I do not agree with it. But, it is nice to know thier opinion.

During the news, I believe they really do try to be "fair and balanced". Last year, was a different story - they were blantantly biased conservative.

When they make a mistake, they do not try to cover it up. Such as when Cavuto gave the Bush campaign $1000. Not only did O'Rielly report it, but it was on the FOX news magazine. That next monday he gave his appology. It seems as though they watch each other and call them out when needed.
I'll say it again- I have no problem with people who enjoy watching Fox News Channel. So long as they realize what they're watching is not a news program. Watch because you like what they say, fine. Watch because you agree with their opinions, great. But don't watch it thinking they're reporting "Fair and Balanced" news.

Here's a couple examples of how Fox put the spin in the "no spin" zone.

This one I call "I'm not a liberal but I play one on Fox":

The Fox cable network takes the concept of the lopsided debate to an extreme, with ravenous right-wingers devouring timid moderates and calling them liberals. The debate show Hannity & Colmes is the model: Conservative host Hannity plays God-zilla to liberal host Colmes' Bambi (Extra!, 11-12/03). And the conservative and (more or less) liberal guests appearing on the show generally follow suit.

After Al Gore's speech in June faulting the Bush administration for the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, a fuming Hannity framed a segment on Gore thusly: "Has the vanquished vice president lost all control?" In a discussion more about Gore's speaking style than his substance, right-wing guest Ann Coulter took up Hannity's theme, calling Gore "crazy" and "nuts." Happily for his conservative opponents, Colmes' tepid defense of Gore kept the focus on the question of the former vice president's sanity: "I still don't think he's nuts. I think he's fired up. I think he's angry." While the left guest, Democratic strategist Marianne Marsh, began by mildly defending Gore's speech, she quickly joined in the criticism of his performance: "I wouldn't give him big style points. . . . I don't agree with his style." When Coulter sarcastically suggested Hannity & Colmes should play Gore's speech repeatedly and "let Marianne come on and say how reasonable he is," Marsh snapped, "I did not use the word reasonable." Such was the "left" defense of a liberal speech by Al Gore on Fox's Hannity & Colmes.

Then there's this:One of Fox's leading tepid liberals is attorney Susan Estrich. A Democrat, Estrich penned a USA Today column during the Clinton era (6/22/95) headlined "Let Clinton Be the Centrist Clinton." More recently, she cheered the campaign of California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, accepting a job working on his transition team when he won. Estrich has faced conservatives including Republican strategist Chris Horner (Hannity & Colmes, 5/14/04), former Sen. Al D'Amato (Hannity & Colmes, 4/13/04) and Bush advisor Charlie Black (Big Story, 1/24/04)

She frequently appears on Fox's Hannity & Colmes. Hannity, whose typical treatment of progressives is famously nasty, more than once has called her his "favorite liberal," as in this show-closing lovefest (5/23/04):
Hannity: Susan, it's always a pleasure.

Estrich: Always a pleasure, Sean.

Hannity: My favorite liberal, Susan.
Estrich: My favorite conservative, Sean.

Unsurprisingly, Estrich fills in for "left" host Alan Colmes when he takes time off.
Last edited:
Now let's take a look at why all those Fox viewers, when polled, had the strange idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "connections." I call this "slight of truth."

The Bush administration's long-running attempts to link Iraq and Al Qaeda were dealt a serious blow when the September 11 commission's June 16 interim report indicated that there did not appear to be a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks.

But if you were watching the Fox News Channel, you saw something very different, as the conservative cable network eagerly defended the Bush administration and criticized the rest of the media for mishandling the story.

On Fox's Special Report newscast (6/16/04), anchor Brit Hume charged that the media were mischaracterizing the report: "The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11 commission report by saying the document bluntly contradicts the Bush administration by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks." Hume maintained that the AP story was inaccurate: "In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists."

In fact, it's Hume that is misrepresenting the AP story-- quoting from the story's lead, but then changing its meaning through an inaccurate paraphrase. The story actually begins: "Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."

Hume changed the allegation, from Hussein having ties with Al Qaeda to his having ties to the September 11 attacks, in order to knock it down, claiming that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to September 11. But that is not accurate either: Bush's letter to Congress formally announcing the commencement of hostilities against Iraq (3/18/03) explained that the use of force would be directed against "terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln (5/1/03), Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq had "removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

And during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press (9/14/03), when Vice President Dick Cheney was asked if he was "surprised" that so many Americans connected Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, Cheney responded:

"No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.... You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW [biological weapons and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks.

But Fox kept advancing the notion that the commission's report actually backed up what the Bush administration has been saying. Hume explained that Bush has long denied a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, while maintaining that "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties." This is, according to Hume, "an assertion the commission's report actually supports."

The report indicates several meetings between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden, who was attempting to set up training camps in Iraq and procure weapons. The Iraqis apparently "did not respond" to those requests. This is a far cry from what most people would call a "tie" or a "connection."

And Cheney and Bush have long argued that Iraq/Al Qaeda "connections" included weapons training and other "high-level contacts"; Bush has said directly (11/7/02) that Husssein "is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda."

The commission's report does not support those allegations. The report also indicated that the supposed meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague probably never happened. That meeting has been cited by Bush officials, most notably Cheney, as evidence connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda and specifically to the 9/11 plot.

Fox reported on the report's implicit contradictions of administration claims as if they were an invention of the media. On Hume's Special Report show (6/16/04), the anchor got the ball rolling: "There were a lot of media reports today that said that major, new cold water had been tossed on the administration claims about Iraq and Al Qaeda. What about it?"

Pundit Jeff Birnbaum of the Washington Post answered: "Well, I don't think that that's true.... The Bush administration did not claim that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. That was not the claim. That was not the claim. What, in fact, the staff report indicates is that there was considerable interaction between bin Laden and Iraq. It may not have produced all that much, but it was clear that they're fellow travelers."

NPR correspondent Mara Liasson continued: "I agree with Jeff. I mean, the fact that the administration's arguments for going against Iraq was not because it caused 9/11. Now, it's true that a lot of Americans did conflate the two and did think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it." (In fact, a poll found that Fox viewers were the most likely news consumers to believe this unsubstantiated claim--PIPA, 10/2/03.)

On June 17's Special Report, guest anchor Jim Angle claimed, "The 9/11 commission staff concluded there was no collaboration between the two to attack the U.S. But critics suggested that meant no ties at all." The commission actually said that there was no "collaborative relationship" at all, not just on the question of attacking the United States.

When the White House struck back at the media over its coverage of the report, some at Fox seemed enthusiastic. "The Bush administration strikes back against the deceptive media," cheered Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, before playing a clip of Cheney appearing on CNBC (6/17/04) characterizing a New York Times headline as "outrageous."

O'Reilly did not air another portion of Cheney's interview in which he lied about a previous statement he had made. When host Gloria Borger mentioned that Cheney had previously described the meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence as "pretty well confirmed," Cheney interrupted: "No, I never said that... Absoutely not." But he had said just that, on NBC's Meet the Press (12/9/01): ''That's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.''

But for O'Reilly, it was other media that were deceptive: "Cheney has a right to be angry, and so does every American who wants a truthful media," he explained. "Anti-Bush zealots are hurting the fight against terror by misleading Americans about what's actually happening. That puts all of our lives in danger." It's not surprising that the Bush administration would try to parse the meaning of words like "link" or "tie" in order to spin the commission report in its favor. But journalists should challenge official spin, not promote it.
That bring's up Mr. Bill O'Reilly. His records speaks for itself. Said he won Peabody "awards." He didn't. Then said he never said it. He did, on his own show (May 19, 2000.) Turns out a show he was on, Inside Edition, won a Polk award for work done after he left the show. He claims to be a registered independant. He's not, he's registered as a republican. Claim's he grew up in Levittown. He didn't, he grew up in Westbury. When confronted he stated he grew up in the "Westbury section of Levittown." There is no Westbury section of Levittown. Why anyone would believe anything this man says at this point is beyond me.

So, watch Fox all you want. Enjoy it. Embrace it. Love it. Just don't believe it.



  • Ice Ages Coal Caves.jpg
    Ice Ages Coal Caves.jpg
    73.6 KB · Views: 442
Post source please. :)

This is a very interesting report.

In fact, it's Hume that is misrepresenting the AP story-- quoting from the story's lead, but then changing its meaning through an inaccurate paraphrase. The story actually begins: "Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."

Hume changed the allegation, from Hussein having ties with Al Qaeda to his having ties to the September 11 attacks, in order to knock it down, claiming that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to September 11.

I remember this! I told my wife (after I paused it - thanks to TIVO) that the AP said Al Qaeda not 911. At the time, I was in an email debate about this very subject.

As I mentioned in another thread - I try to read News Hounds occationally. Sometimes there are instances like this cited. When they rant on OPINIONS that annoys me. Other than that, it's a handy site. Unfortunatly, there is not a site for CBS, NBC, or ABC.
I got most of that from the fair.org web site. Though most of it can be found elsewhere as well. Most of what I pasted was written by Steve Rendall. When I first read Rendall's piece some time ago I made an attempt to verify what I could. I couldn't find any blantly misleading info. But that's not to say it's not in there, just that I couldn't find it.

I stand by my statement that most of what "we" comsume is "spin." How do we get through the spin? I have no idea.
Was not questioning the validity. Just want to give copyright/credit where it's due. :)
I should have made an effort to credit the source, sorry. When I first went to post my reply it was too large and I had to break it into several (three) seperate replies and got side tracked. I had intended to mention most of it came from fair.org.

The comments regarding O'Reilly's repeated lying comes from so many sources I didn't even try to credit any one. But Fair.org could point you to a number of links that would verify those lies as well a number of other now famous O'Reilly lies.

BTW- I love TIVO or the Dish Network version of it, Dish Player. What a great invention! Watching a football game and want a replay? No problem. Phone rings and you missed the punchline from your favorite sitcom. No problem. Can't stay up and catch Leno? No problem. I just wish they'd make it so you could watch one channel while recording another. Maybe you can with Tivo?
I have a research paper that I get to start work on in class (in a few minutes) - I think I will do something along the line of "Is FOXNEWS biased?".
Last edited:
Following up.. I get to prove that "FOXNEWS is without question biased" - damnit.

Was hoping she would accept my initial research idea that it was balanced.

Pacridge, any help for links would be appreciated.
Well there's always the the film "Outfoxed" by Greenwald. It's got good info in it but it's produced by someone with definiate left wing agenda. That doesn't mean the info in it isn't accurate, just appears to carry less weight. You can always look to any of the following media watchdog groups, some even slam the left along with the right:





Awesome, thanks!
When complete - I will post my paper on site.

I have until Dec 3
Now exactly what are the parameters of this paper again? Are you attempting to prove or disprove Fox's honesty? I only ask because one seems like mission impossible and the others a slam dunk. :rofl
I have to prove without question that FOXNEWS is indeed biased conservatively. Unfortunatly, I can only use 1 internet source, the others have to be from the college database. That is the kicker.

I wonder if my teach is a liberal - I so wanted to prove that they are balanced as compaired to other networks. Harder paper to do, but if written correctly would be a good read.
What other networks are they more balanced than?
That was going to be the point of the research - to find out.
Ah, can't say I can think of any off the top of my head. They are preeeetty biased.
Should be an interesting read, Vauge. I agree that the commentary is biased. I watch because I happen to be biased the same way. I don't think the actual news items in between the commentary are biased, but if they are, then what's so wrong with one network being slanted so in an attempt to balance the obvious left leaning NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN. Hmmm one network leaning Right, four networks leaning Left. That's balance.
Fox News is useful in that it does not repeat what the other cable news does, exclusively. They do seem to tout what the New York Times does, and do sometimes take them to task.For example Bill O'Reilly showed open distain for the amount of coverage given Abu Ghraib. My prediction is Hilary will use Fox to her advantage,unlike John Kerry.:rolleyes:
Top Bottom