Sean Hannity, a FOX “news” journalist, reporting the news without bias (fair/balanced), elects to refer to President Obama as the “Anointed One”. Once more Sean has “hannitized” the news.
How can a FOX anchor be BOTH “fair and balanced”, and impartial/without bias, and make a remark, in PRINT, of this sort? Seems UNETHICAL and MALICIOUS to me.
… In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation.
There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
- most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
- most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
- the economy is getting worse (26 points)
- most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
- the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
- their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
- the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
- when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
- and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it—though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
It’s a disturbing trend. The growth in Fox News’ popularity has coincided with rising distrust of the rest of the media, which the right tends to dismiss as “liberal” and view with reflexive suspicion. That, coupled with Fox’s commitment to producing distorted, right-wing journalism, has essentially created a competing media culture in which counter-factual information with palate-pleasing right-wing spin is considered “the news.” What the UMD studies show is the necessary result of a news organization putting ideology over accuracy. It’s not news, and it’s not healthy for a functioning democracy.
Is there really any wondering why a thoughtful liberal sees neocon nutjobs from Eric Cantor to the nutjob mob in the Republican ‘Fox News’ debate audience as racist, mean spirited, greedy, and dangerously misinformed?
I’m thinking the explanation is that the Wall Street Journal leans right while the New York Times leans left
but please note that the Times reported the Obamas’ effective tax rate on their adjusted gross income ($789,674), which works out to 20.5% — while the Wall Street Journal I guess used their unadjusted gross income ($845,000) to get an effective tax rate of 19%.
Which puts it closer to the Romneys’ effective tax rate of 14% on their 2010 income.
Clever Wall Street Journal-ers, thinking we wouldn’t notice.
…and it only reaffirmed my belief that Fox News is probably one of the most divisive, polarizing, biased, hateful, and incendiary TV outlets (that falsely, hilariously calls itself “news” and “fair and balanced”) that’s EVER existed.
The blatant propaganda, lies, extreme distortions, omissions,…