An example of Fox News' Biased coverage

So I'm in the D.C. Airport, waiting for my flight home on JetBlue, and I'm strolling down the terminal and what do I see? An entire booth for "Fox News" selling magazines, candy bars, and books. Oh, and with about six different flat panel TVs shouting today's coverage at you.

Among today's top stories, a new "Fox News Poll" that says 33% of those surveyed think the media is too easy on Kerry and 42% think the media is too tough on Bush. [Of course, if it were limited to FoxNews coverage, you'd probably see dramatically different numbers in the opposite direction.]

But let's just look at the numbers they've given us. 33% think the media is too easy on Kerry. That means 66% (or 2/3rds) think the media is fair or too tough on Kerry, right? Isn't that the real story? I mean, 2/3rds is the percentage of Congress it takes to override a Presidential Veto for god sakes. Winning an election with 66% of the vote is a landslide. Yet Fox switches the numbers so that they can run the tagline "too easy on Kerry" across the bottom of your screen every twelve seconds. This is marketing, not media. And it's certainly not objective news reporting.

Same goes for being too tough on Bush. 42% think yes, but 58% think no. That means a clear majority of Americans think the media is doing a damn fine job of putting GW in the hotseat, or better yet, should turn up the heat even higher. That's the story, folks. GW deserves the heat he's getting, says America. Fox may wish to spin a different message to its viewers but the numbers it uses betray its agenda. I mean, would Fox have run the headline "33% think war is wrong" on the day we invaded Iraq? I think not.

Update:Rather than force everyone to read through the comments and trackbacks, I thought I'd clarify something up top here. I'm not saying Fox is lying about the stats or that the stats that they ran aren't relevant. What I'm saying is that majorities matter in polls. If 51%+ had said the media was too tough on Bush, then I couldn't complain if Fox had run that headline because at least then it stood for what "most Americans" thought collectively and could arguably be a concensus. Here, though, none of the polls revealed a majority. Therefore, the polls are inconclusive at best about what American really thinks overall and at worst, the headlines obscure the majority's feelings by focusing on the plurality. To me, a plurality means we don't have a strong opinion as a nation. Like if 45% will vote for Bush and 46% will vote for Kerry. What this tells me is that neither has the true majority. So when I saw numbers as low as 33%, it just struck me how silly it seemed that Fox ran the statement "too easy on Kerry" as a tagline when such a number was so inconclusive. To me it would be like running "10% willing to vote for Mickey Mouse" and somehow thinking that was politically significant.

Comments

[dreww]

33% think the media is too easy on Kerry. That means 66% (or 2/3rds) think the media is fair or too tough on Kerry, right?

well, no, not really. you can't say that without knowing how the question was posed, and how the available answers were phrased.

the question could've easily been 'the media is too easy on kerry': agree, disagree for example.

answers that were disagree, or even strongly disagree, do not necessarily imply those respondents think the media is too hard on kerry.

[Alazka]

It could be argued that there's not much point in presenting polling data to the public, given that so few people have the basic numeracy to interpret it. The actual question asked is so seldom reported verbatim, and without knowing what respondents were responding to, it's wide open for anyone's propaganda use.

As for your closing comment, I recall that on the day in October '02 when DC police estimated 150,000 people marched preemptively to stop the war, area Fox news gave no mention of the event (with its many prominent speakers) at all, but did spend several minutes covering - I kid you not - a practice session for a young girls' little league soccer team. Not an actual GAME, mind you, but practice.

When we were marching that day we didn't kid ourselves that anyone on Capitol Hill was going to pay us any serious attention, but we wanted to at least send a message to thoughtful people worldwide that there really WAS dissent on the issue, and they weren't necessarily alone for having doubts about the war. Unfortunately we were counting on the media to notice 150,000 people marching in the streets of the capitol. They sent their cameras, but didn't run any of the coverage; we were only able to communicate our message to CSPAN viewers. (All both of them.)

[Heidegger]

We should all remember.
According to statistics, 100% of people fill out surveys. Also FoxNews, in grand media bias tradition, fail to specify the manner in which the information was garnered. It could be anything, from a survey of Bush's Cabinet to an anonymous internet poll, although with FoxNews I would be hard put defining a limit to their fact manipulation. At a guess I would say those numbers originate amongst people who write in to FoxNews or are on one of their mailing lists, in other words, people who are probably already dependant on the network for their news and opinions.
But then again, don't listen to me. I am clearly biased.

[thom]

In Farenheit 911, MM notes that the only reporter saying Bush won FL the night of the election was Bush's first cousin... a Fox News reporter. Also note, that Bill O'Reilly is fighting to block NPR's Fresh Air from rights to redistribute an interview that he abruptly left when he had no rebuke to (IIRC) a Washing Post article about his misleading tactics. Google these topics! Just seems that more than ever... its not Republicans vs. Democrats, its those who believe Bush, and those that don't.

[MJ]

I'm 1% sure Fox News is fair and balanced.

[ryan]

As Steve Gigl says, I think you've missed some key bits of information. Notably, that there is a 'no opinion' response to each of the questions, and you didn't take that into account, so the poll data isn't as clear-cut as you claim. However, there is still a problem with the way Fox News presents it. Here's what I posted on Steve's blog:

I the real point is more that in Fox News' presentation of the poll results, they compared 'too easy on Kerry' to 'too tough on Bush', which is a little apple-orangey, and probably meant to toy with the average viewer's feelings on the matter.

If they had just presented the 'too tough' data as is, it would have shown pretty clearly that more people think the media is tougher on Bush than on Kerry (46% to 24%), which would suit their goals just fine. However, it wouldn't have had the same key words: 'too easy on Kerry' and 'too tough on Bush'.

Fox News has long sold itself as a counterweight to the alleged 'liberal media', so they often choose to apply their own direction of spin to anything to make it play out in Bush's favour. In this case, the headline was meant to make the viewer feel some sympathy for Bush, and I think to the casual observer it would accomplish just that.

If they had merely chosen to run the headline "Latest Poll: Media Tougher on Bush than on Kerry," it would have probably done the same thing without needing to twist the words.

Unfortunately for Fox News, though, the more of these games they play, the more it demonstrates their bias to those of us who actually pay attention, reducing their credibility as a news source. Bias is opinion; news is supposed to be fact.

[Jason]

Ok, I admit it, I didn't have time to look at the actual polling info. So I went to Steve's site and looked at it:

14. Over the last few months, would you say reports in the news media have been too easy or too tough on President George Bush?

All Dem Rep Ind
1. Too easy 32 56 8 25
2. Too tough 46 24 77 40
3. (Neither/ 14 14 10 21
Even handed)
4. (Not sure) 8 6 5 14

15. Over the last few months, would you say reports in the news media have been too easy or too tough on Senator John Kerry?

All Dem Rep Ind
1. Too easy 33 22 51 28
2. Too tough 24 36 15 15
3. (Neither/ 24 28 17 28
Even handed)
4. (Not sure) 19 14 17 29

So as far as Bush, 46% say too tough and 44% say either too easy or even-handed. Seems like a dead heat to me. And Kerry's numbers are still very biased. 33% say "too easy" but 48% say "too tough" or "fair." So the numbers still show that more Americans think the media is fair or too right-biased against Kerry than think its left-biased.

[Heather Anne]

I am NOT a fan of Bush at all, and I certainly cannot stand Fox News, but I was able to find this at FoxNews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

(search for media on that page if you don't want to read all the other trash there)

The public sees some differences in recent media coverage of the two major candidates, with almost twice as many thinking coverage of Bush has been "too tough" as think so about the coverage of Kerry. Nearly half of Americans (46 percent) think recent news reports have been "too tough" on the president, while 32 percent say "too easy," and 14 percent say coverage has been even-handed.

A 33 percent plurality sees the media coverage of Kerry over the last few months as too easy, while 24 percent say too tough, and 24 percent say news about the Democratic candidate has been balanced. As on other measures, it is important to note that many Americans are still somewhat unfamiliar with Kerry and that can be seen in these results as well, as one in five are unable to form an opinion.

[ben skott]

How is this a lie? If it was a lie, then you would not have been able to get the information you wanted from it. It may be a misleading use of statistics, but any halfway intelligent person can subtract all by themselves. Telling the truthful results of a poll cannot, by definition, be called a lie. And that's part of the problem that people like me have with people like you. Fox spun, yes, but they were honest. Then you come along and call them liars, despite the fact that you use their statistics as truth. So who's the liar?

[Jason]

Ok. First, I didn't call anyone a "liar." I think Fox spun its numbers in a biased way. So far, no one has disputed that. My point is that it's marketing by Fox to support Bush and attack Kerry. It's not journalism. I'm not saying the numbers are wrong; I'm saying that Fox is misusing the numbers to push their political agenda.

Sure, I have a political agenda too. But if you look at the numbers, they support my agenda more than Fox's. 33% is a low number. It's less than half. The fact that a higher percentage of people collectively thought that the media is either too tough or fair is also a fact. So what I'm saying is that the story just as easily could have been that most people don't perceive the media as being too easy on Kerry yet Fox spun it the other way because they don't like that message.

Again, the key issue not not the actual numbers but what the headline for the story is. That's what I'm complaining about.

[Cypherpunk]

Jason, you are spinning just as much as Fox. Let's look at the numbers:

Too easy; Fair; Too tough

Bush: 32; 14; 46
Kerry: 33; 24; 24

You're grouping the middle column with the side you support in order to make it appear that you have a stronger case. You could just as easily group them the other way and draw a very different conclusion. Only 32% of Americans think Bush's coverage is too easy and would like to see him put in the "hot seat" as you say; 60% are satisfied with the current coverage or think it is too tough, and would not want to see it tougher. This kind of grouping is fundamentally manipulative as it encourages us to think of people in the middle as leaning towards the side they have been grouped with.

[David]

Guess you're a lawgeek cause you have a sketchy grasp of statistics. Stop pontificating for a second and really look at the raw data on Fox. What the poll really says is that the same group of people, asked about the media's treatment of the two candidates in separate questions, said that the media's treatment of Bush was too tough by an almost two-to-one margin over those who said the same thing about its treatment of Kerry. And only half as many said that treatment of Bush was even-handed. That adds up to a broad perception of media bias...

The real story here is that a tiny minority, 14%, think that the media is even-handed on Bush -- which means in essence that the public sees the press as either ineffective or politicized (or both).

That's a pretty ugly crisis of confidence, not in Bush (or Kerry) but in the press...

[Jason]

Okay, maybe this is why I got a B minus in stats in college. :) But here's what I guess I'm trying to say:

If the poll said 2% thought the media was too hard on Bush and 1% thought the media was too hard on Kerry, you could still make the headline "America thinks media twice as hard on Bush as Kerry." That headline would, of course, be technically correct, but IMO extremely misleading.

The reason it's misleading is because even if 42% is more than 24%, it's still less than 50%. To me, polls are most useful to show what a majority thinks, not what a minority thinks. Here, at best, Fox could say that a majority of Americans don't feel the media is either too hard or too easy on either candidate because the poll didn't register over 50% in either category. Sure, I put the "even handed" ones together for my analysis, but it was to make the point that Fox's headlines were opposite of the majority of responses.

But you're right. I'm biased. However, I'm not trying to be a major news network that claims to be fair and balanced in its cover either. If Fox will agree to stop spinning the facts, I'll agree to the same. :)

[Pauly D]

Damn good points.

[What Bullshit From the Left]

People will see what they want to see. Do I expect a Lib to watch Fox? No, and I sure as hell won't watch CNN. Where does that leave us as a country? On a very dangerous cliff...