Then why, when tested do Fox News watchers get it wrong? The only explanation is they do in fact bias the news, so much so their listeners are current event idiots.

I think it's incredibly dangerous to believe your news-source of choice is unbiased. It's also IMO sort of intellectually lazy to believe one side of the story...

If you're at all interested, the PEW study on this stuff from earlier this year is an interesting read:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/coverage_candidates_media_sector_and_cable_outlet

You can snip interesting sound bites all day from it, but to me the most interesting thing is how CNN and print media roughly DOUBLED on neutral/balanced stories vs. 4 years ago. Fox and MSNBC instead increased their bias vs. 4 years ago.

In the face of that study, and your general sense of the modern media environment, I'm not sure how can you reasonably assert there's not significant bias in Fox's news coverage? I certainly wouldn't assert that about MSNBC (which I've probably spent a collective 2 hours watching in my life, so I admit I'm under-informed on)

Fox News explains why average Americans vote against the own economic well being.
Back in the 50's Radio Free Europe was a conduit for money to fight Communist propaganda, America now seems a lot more tolerate of that sort of behavior.

When you average in Fox to find the "center", virtually everything is going to be left of center.

Fox is not even in the ball park, or out in the parking lot.

It's on fuckin' Pluto.

Fish on...

Todd

Hank,

The groseclose study is interesting -- IMO a bit indirect in methods (sampling which think tanks are referenced by outlets) vs the PEW study (which is pretty direct -- evaluating pos/negative coverage of GOP/Dem candidates)

And just from a gut-check standpoint, the PEW study -- which has MSNBC and FOX at the extremes, passes the sniff test. Did you see where Groseclose's analysis puts the Wall Street Journal? I read the Journal and it's not suffering from liberal bias. Kind of undermines Groseclose if you ask me.

But I'll ask again, after reading BOTH of these studies, do you still believe your statement "Opinions/bias aren't reflected in the news programs on Fox. "?

We need to revoke his visa.

Wonder if Piers could make the same argument for whaling and tribal netting?

Try tellin that to IR. He thinks that if you own a firearm you should be able to own an atomic bomb....after the requisite backround checks I'm sure.

And only for sporting and useful purposes....

Absolutely Hank. Even IR knows that the typical soldier (worldwide) is issued an atomic bomb and that he is required to qualify on the atomic range.

"atomic range?"

NIMBY!

Hank and RvW. I'll try this again... Even though I'm sure YOU both actually understand what I was saying and are just willfully distorting it, I'll repeat the original text (a self C&P!) so you can read it again. Maybe it'll make more sense on second reading. Before you start, be sure you understand what an "analogy" is--because this is one: