FOX coverage on Iraq

[Alin]

War takes up less time on Fox News

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Mon Jun 11, 9:52 AM ET

On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.

Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.

That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.

The independent think tank's report freshens a debate over whether ideology drives news agendas, and it comes at a delicate time for Fox. Top Democratic presidential candidates have refused to appear at debates sponsored by Fox. Liberals find attacking Fox is a way to fire up their base.

"It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn't fit their preconceived story lines."

Fox wouldn't respond to repeated requests to make an executive available to talk about its war coverage.

So how to explain the divergent priorities? Different opinions on what is newsworthy? A business decision?

A mere coincidence?

Fox News Channel viewers argue that their favorite network is simply the most fair. Fox has long objected to suggestions that its newscasts go through a conservative filter. Surveys have shown its audience is dominated by Republicans.

There are no similar differences in priorities among the broadcast evening-news programs, where Iraq was the top story between January and the end of March. NBC's "Nightly News" spent 269 minutes on Iraq, ABC had 251 and CBS 238, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall.

Another story that has reflected poorly on the Bush administration, the controversy over U.S. attorney firings, also received more attention on MSNBC (8 percent of the newshole) and CNN (4 percent) than on Fox (2 percent), the Project for Excellence in Journalism found.

Tim Graham of the conservative Media Research Center, said Fox has always claimed to report from an American perspective and to not follow the pack. While Graham said he may have questions about the PEJ's methodology, he doesn't dispute the results.

His group published its own study last year about the content of coverage. Fox didn't have its head in the sand; there were more negative stories about what was happening in Iraq than positive. But his group's view was that Fox was more balanced while CNN and MSNBC were relentlessly pessimistic. Between May 15 and July 21 of last year, Fox aired nearly twice as many stories about successes in Iraq as CNN and MSNBC combined, he said.

Most coverage of Iraq focuses on what gets blown up, he said.

"The problem we have with the media elite is that they clearly see Fox as pandering to an audience and they don't see CNN as pandering to an audience," Graham said. "That's where I think the double standard sets in."

While polls say its size is diminishing, there's clearly an audience that resists the general tenor of war coverage. GOP presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani was applauded during last week's debate when he wondered aloud what would happen if the American war effort succeeds over the next few months. "Are we going to report that with the same amount of attention that we would report the negative news?" he said.

Klein disputed the idea that CNN doesn't give a complete picture of what is happening in Iraq.

"Certain folks don't want to see any bad news," he said. "It's our job to report all of the news."

The project's findings surprised MSNBC chief executive Dan Abrams, who has been pushing his network to concentrate on politics and inside-the-Beltway issues lately.

"I'm not going to get on a high horse and judge our competition based on the numbers," he said. "We are looking for the right balance."

Fox's business interests may depend on less negative news about Iraq.

If Fox's audience is dominated by Republicans who are disgusted about hearing bad news on Iraq, it would stand to reason that you'd want to feed them less of it. Bill O'Reilly touched upon that idea on the air one night last December, telling viewers that the lowest-rated segment of his show the previous night was when Iraq was discussed. Ratings jumped at talk about Britney Spears, he said.

The danger is whether those concerns eat away at journalistic credibility.

They're a news network, said CNN's Klein, "so it is surprising that they're not covering the biggest story in the country and the world."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism steered clear of questions about what its findings proved. "We just wanted to tell people that it does make a difference where you go for the news," said the group's Mark Jurkowitz.

So with less on-air attention being paid to Iraq during the first few months of the year, what filled the void for Fox? PEJ's report said the network gave the death of Anna Nicole Smith significantly more air time than its rivals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_fox_s_war
___


I'm not sure what to make of this. What is your opinion?

[vinny_121_ND]

I can understand. The war is unpopular for Americans. Why would they want to watch something that they simply don't want to hear about. They'll just change the channel everytime it comes back up.

[AlterMega]

Perhaps CNN could catch up to FOX in viewers if they follow suit.People are tired of hearing the same news report everyday with a different number of fatalities.CNN barely focuses on domestic issues anymore.Its Iraq and Bush The Nazi,all day every day.It's come to the point where FOX is no longer a credible source for liberals-Its dismissed as propaganda because it wont suit their agenda.

[INAT]

Well media in general after Vietnam stopped being real journalism where you challenge your source and investigate the facts and instead you just become a repeater of what the government says this was most evident during the Bosnian war and the Pentagon becomes the main and only source.Fox news is propaganda anyone who watches even for a few minutes can see.Media manipulation is a huge problem in this new world.

[TheSteve]

Perhaps CNN could catch up to FOX in viewers if they follow suit.People are tired of hearing the same news report everyday with a different number of fatalities.CNN barely focuses on domestic issues anymore.Its Iraq and Bush The Nazi,all day every day.It's come to the point where FOX is no longer a credible source for liberals-Its dismissed as propaganda because it wont suit their agenda.

They don't talk a lot about domestic issues because Americans are dying in another country. The war in Iraq is the SINGLE most important issue right now. The amount of resources and money being poured into that mess over there really impedes what we can do here at home. A lot of things can not get done until the war is settled.

And who cares if people are tired of hearing it, they need to damn well hear it. News networks should never change their programing to suit their viewers, tell them how it is.

3,498

[AlterMega]

They don't talk a lot about domestic issues because Americans are dying in another country.
It'd be nice to learn a little more about the country they are dieing for

The war in Iraq is the SINGLE most important issue right now.
True but thats your opinion
Depends what priorities you have.
Some on the left think Global Warming is more important than the War on Terror

The amount of resources and money being poured into that mess over there really impedes what we can do here at home.
wouldn't want to waste money on the "SINGLE most Important Issue"

A lot of things can not get done until the war is settled.
like?

And who cares if people are tired of hearing it, they need to damn well hear it.
CNN should care if people think this is an issue,but i guess they wouldn't be broadcasting video of insurgents sniping our troops if they cared.

News networks should never change their programing to suit their viewers, tell them how it is.
I take it you don't watch CNN.
Its no less politically influenced than FOX.

3,498


1412345125

[AlterMega]

Well media in general after Vietnam stopped being real journalism where you challenge your source and investigate the facts and instead you just become a repeater of what the government says this was most evident during the Bosnian war and the Pentagon becomes the main and only source.Fox news is propaganda anyone who watches even for a few minutes can see.Media manipulation is a huge problem in this new world.

what about news in general,do you define as propaganda?
CNN and FOX are the exact same thing-Political outlets
They both have an agenda and neither are un-bias.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

what about news in general,do you define as propaganda?
CNN and FOX are the exact same thing-Political outlets
They both have an agenda and neither are un-bias.

Exactly. These are simply editorial decisions that are made based on the particular biases of the news director. There's no unbiased overlord that determines exactly what's the correct amount of coverage of any particular issue, and that CNN adheres to those guidelines. It's precisely as valid to accuse CNN of deliberately focusing on the negative aspects of the war. Why, somebody at Fox could almost make the claim that their coverage was more, oh, I dunno, more "fair" or maybe more "balanced". p-)



"It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president.


Apparently Mr. Klein doesn't think we have the intellectual horsepower to see the obverse of his statement? Pretty typical of CNN, and a principle reason why Fox is absolutely stomping them into the dirt in terms of ratings. Why anybody would go to CNN for a supposedly unbiased assessment of Fox is really beyond me.

[Jobu]

Isn't CNN the company that covered up many of Saddam's crimes in order to be allowed to stay in Baghdad?

[Chulo]

dont forget that CNN calls the president "Mr.Bush" as much as they say "the President" and when the Dems won the congress one of their main reporters said "we won"

[Hollis]

Isn't CNN the company that covered up many of Saddam's crimes in order to be allowed to stay in Baghdad?

CNN is well noted for pandering a "leftist" sort of political bias, They are quick to also point out how evil Israel is at being occupiers of the poor oppressed Palestinians. Some times Al Jazeera and CNN seems to be on the same wavelength.

[usbabmc]

They don't talk a lot about domestic issues because Americans are dying in another country.

Wrong. CNN and MSNBC don't talk about domestic issues because they don't want say ANYTHING positive about the country during Bush Admin. Why report falling unemployment and rising GDP if it could possibly change the mind of people they work so hard to align against the Bush Admin and Republicans in general.

If FOX is so politically aligned with a certain party and the others aren't then why did CNN & MSNBC virtually ignore the indictment of Dem. Congressman Jefferson last week?

Virtually all news casts in this country, and I suspect the world, are partisan crap.

[spade216]

the only real source for true journalism is the internet.

theres a good book called Bias that talks about the death of television/print news reporting. As a pretty strong American Liberal, i consider CNN just as bad as FOX when it comes to the aired content being nothing more than ratings boosters.

thats why if i do watch news on tv, its on PBS :]

[Hollis]

the only real source for true journalism is the internet.

theres a good book called Bias that talks about the death of television/print news reporting. As a pretty strong American Liberal, i consider CNN just as bad as FOX when it comes to the aired content being nothing more than ratings boosters.

thats why if i do watch news on tv, its on PBS :]

Spade, I think anyone with integrity regardless of political view really does not care for yellow journalism. IMHO, the worse part of partisan politics is when one starts believing their own lies. It serves no one interest and leads to a down hill slide.

[Dasein]

When journalism ceases to be biased I will be worried. However, media bias is as old as media itself.

[spade216]

Spade, I think anyone with integrity regardless of political view really does not care for yellow journalism. IMHO, the worse part of partisan politics is when one starts believing their own lies. It serves no one interest and leads to a down hill slide.


i suppose you're right on the money. and to stay on topic ill say again, that though im no fan of FOX news, they are no worse than CNN or MSNBC....but thats not saying much on the current state of mass media.

[INAT]

what about news in general,do you define as propaganda?
CNN and FOX are the exact same thing-Political outlets
They both have an agenda and neither are un-bias.


Well I am talking about all journalism.They do not question sources anymore but repeat info without accurate fact checking.And I am talking in general terms.Propaganda shapes people to think in a certain fashion and news SHOULD be informative not entertainment.The Iraq war coverage was ran like a movie script.

[Con-man]

When journalism ceases to be biased I will be worried. However, media bias is as old as media itself.

I agree, unbias is as real as a unicorn, study history and you'll find this out.

[Jobu]

I can't say I've ever agreed with Dan Rather much but he hit the nail on the head yesterday in his interview with David Asman on FOX. News is now entertainment.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I don't know about anybody else, but I found it encouraging that the Democrats refused to participate in a debate hosted by Foxnews. They shouldn't be required to deal with questions that make them uncomfortable or force them to state unpopular positions. That's only fitting, since as President, they'll only be required to deal with nations friendly to them.

[ElHombre]

I cannot help but recall the study which gauged knowledge of (then) current events by the viewers of the various news agencies. FOX viewers were shown to be the least knowlegable about events. By a huge margin.

Most of the other news agencies are guilty of sheer laziness. They often repeat pol statements without bothering to check whether or not they are factually correct. Iraq being the most glaring example.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I cannot help but recall the study which gauged knowledge of (then) current events by the viewers of the various news agencies. FOX viewers were shown to be the least knowlegable about events.

Ah yes, only people living in houses with wheels and who wear wife-beaters watch Fox. Now, is that because they're genetically inferior, because Fox makes up fake news, or because they allowed just having Fox on while they were smokin' the meth to count as "watching news"?

[ElHombre]

Ah yes, only people living in houses with wheels and who wear wife-beaters watch Fox. Now, is that because they're genetically inferior, because Fox makes up fake news, or because they allowed just having Fox on while they were smokin' the meth to count as "watching news"?

I haven't the faintest idea of who watches FOX, nor do I care how they live their lives. All I can say is: they're often factually wrong about events.

If not in outright denial.

[California Joe]

Ah yes, only people living in houses with wheels and who wear wife-beaters watch Fox. Now, is that because they're genetically inferior, because Fox makes up fake news, or because they allowed just having Fox on while they were smokin' the meth to count as "watching news"?

No it's because they watch a channel that has a freakish, mild Downs syndrome named David Assman on it as an anchor.

[WARPIG]

FOX isn't exactly a beacon of light when it comes to accurate and competant journalism. But, I don't get the impression that they are being steered as much as the competition. Fair and balanced? Not really. But, if we have to choose among the channels.. FOX gives me less nausea than the others. Bottom line.. I've always said.. if your window to the world is only as big as your LCD tv.. then you deserve the ignorance you live in.

[Con-man]

Bottom line.. I've always said.. if your window to the world is only as big as your LCD tv.. then you deserve the ignorance you live in.

Can I use that line?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

No it's because they watch a channel that has a freakish, mild Downs syndrome named David Assman on it as an anchor.

I try to watch a mix of all the networks, but I guess I haven't seen this guy. I don't view Fox as "fair and balanced" any more than the others are. However IMHO - Fox itself - the one source on the right provides balance to the multitude of outlets on the left.

An interesting aside, featuring Fox news (who apparently asks all sorts of people the "wrong" questions) and a pampered celebrity - who's used to softball questions just like the Democrat candidates who won't answer Fox's questions ---



Angelina Jolie's true colors came out Wednesday as she promoted a film about freedom of the press and then tried to censor all her interviews.
Jolie is touting press freedom these days, playing the widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in a new movie called "A Mighty Heart."

But Jolie turns out to be a mighty hypocrite when it comes to her own freedom of the press. Her lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere.

Ironically, Wednesday night's premiere of the excellent Michael Winterbottom-directed film was meant to support an organization called Reporters Without Borders. Jolie, however, did everything she could to clamp down on the press and control it.

Reporters from most major media outlets balked Wednesday when they were presented with an agreement drawn up by Jolie's Hollywood lawyer Robert Offer. The contract closely dictated the terms of all interviews.
Reporters were asked to agree to "not ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships. In the event Interviewer does ask Ms. Jolie any questions regarding her personal relationships, Ms. Jolie will have the right to immediately terminate the interview and leave."

The agreement also required that "the interview may only be used to promote the Picture. In no event may Interviewer or Media Outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story. ... The interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie."

If that wasn't enough, Jolie also requires that if any of these things happen, "the tape of the interview will not be released to Interviewer." Such a violation, the signatory thus agrees, would "cause Jolie irreparable harm" and make it possible for her to sue the interviewer and seek a restraining order.

I am told that USA Today and the Associated Press were among those that canceled interviews, and eventually Jolie scotched all print interviews when she heard the reaction.

"I wouldn't sign it," a reporter for a major outlet said. "Who does she think she is?"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282173,00.html


At least Jolie is good lookin' so I'm distracted from her douchebaggery.

[Teme]

How Our Media Choices Reinforce What We Believe

...
Or take another example -- the belief that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were working together before the Sept. 11 attack and Iraq was involved in the attack.

These perceptions have been discounted by many sources: the CIA (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html), the 9/11 Commission (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html) and declassified Defense Department documents (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html) to name three. Yet according to a poll taken in March 2006 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, 49 percent of Americans still believed (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar06/USIraq_Mar06_rpt.pdf) that Saddam's Iraq was involved in the attacks or gave substantial support to al-Qaida.

And the media connection? In a study in late 2003, the Maryland program found that media choices directly affected the way people viewed (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1009/dailyUpdate.html) three myths about the Iraq war, including "There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists."

Eighty percent of Fox News viewers were likely to hold one of the three incorrect beliefs identified in the study. Seventy-one percent of those who relied on CBS for news held a false impression, as did 61 percent of ABC's audience and 55 percent of NBC viewers. Fifty-five percent of CNN viewers and 47 percent of Americans who rely on the print media as their primary source of information also held at least one misperception. Twenty-three percent of the NPR/PBS audience held one of the three incorrect beliefs.

The report attributed the results (http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20438) to several factors. For instance, supporters of the war in Iraq were more likely to hold one of the misperceptions. So it would appear that many war supporters turned to Fox News, which had the highest percentage of viewers with misperceptions, to find support for their assumptions about Saddam and al-Qaida.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/05/how_our_media_choices_reinforc_1.html


Thank God for BBC News and News hour in PBS. The other pseudo-news-entertainment gives me nausea. News as news is supposed to tell you how things are, not how things should be. "Debates" and personal opinions of bigots is entertainment.

[JKD]

Fair and balanced FNC on Iraq? I guess we could just let the head honcho speak for himself.
http://www.youtube.com/v/JF9HpuZm6-g

I used to watch Fox almost exclusively among the major news netorks for years, going all the way back to the late 90's and I still tune in from time to time. I have no doubt that any news media run by human beings will have it's share of bias but Fox doesn't even try to be subtle about it.

There's nothing at all wrong with being a conservative news network. What I find funny is that they, and most of their die hard viewers, deny that it is though.

All major American news sources pretty much went along with the invasion though. At least initially. Shame they weren't asking tough questions sooner. Just caught up in that post 9/11 frame of mind most of us were all in at the time. This is a damn good show that talks about that:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
It's also on youtube. Here's part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQ1L0EuNoQ&mode=related&search=

[Teme]

...more about the study...



Study: People's views of Iraq conflict affected by their news source

...

The study looked at three propositions (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1003iraq-misconceptions03.html), which to date – according to government reports and accepted public surveys – are false:

US forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.
People in foreign countries generally either backed the US-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it....

In total, 45 percent of Fox viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of print readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did.

Interestingly, the study found that these misperceptions are not the result of a lack of attention to current events. The more people watched commercial TV, the more likely they were to hold a misperceptions (only CNN reversed this trend). Only those who read print more often were likely to have "fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention." The Sun reports that Fox News declined to be interviewed for their story. (It should also be noted that very few American media outlets mentioned in the study reported on its findings.) NPR spokeswoman Laura Gross told the Sun, "It proves that what we're doing is great journalism. We're telling the truth and we let our audience decide."

The study also revealed some political dimensions to people's beliefs. Republicans who followed the news closely were more likely to hold misperceptions, while Democrats who didn't follow the news were more likely to hold one of the three statements to be true. While 50 percent of Republicans who listen to NPR/PBS believed one of the statements, few, if any Democrats did (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/09_fox.html).

...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1009/dailyUpdate.html

[WARPIG]

...more about the study...

It's funny how propaganda machines call their creative research "studies." Much like Michael Moore and Al Gore make documentaries and Pro Wrestling is a "sport." I mean, who simply does a "study" about FOX viewers unless they have some biased agenda?

As poor of an example of quality journalism as FOX news may be.. it's a bit telling the way the rest of mainstream media seems to target FOX news and it's viewers.

[Teme]

It's funny how propaganda machines call their creative research "studies." Much like Michael Moore and Al Gore make documentaries and Pro Wrestling is a "sport." I mean, who simply does a "study" about FOX viewers unless they have some biased agenda?

As poor of an example of quality journalism as FOX news may be.. it's a bit telling the way the rest of mainstream media seems to target FOX news and it's viewers.

The study was conducted by Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland (PIPA). It was not a study about Fox viewers. It was about how news networks effect opinions.

Those damn liberal university hippiesp-)

[ElHombre]

As poor of an example of quality journalism as FOX news may be.. it's a bit telling the way the rest of mainstream media seems to target FOX news and it's viewers.

FOX gets its facts frequently wrong, and always on the side of the Republicans. With those facts in hand, how can FOX not expect to be brought up in reports about media bias?

[9mmRifle]

Wrong. CNN and MSNBC don't talk about domestic issues because they don't want say ANYTHING positive about the country during Bush Admin. Why report falling unemployment and rising GDP if it could possibly change the mind of people they work so hard to align against the Bush Admin and Republicans in general.

You must find it hard to get around with your head in the sand,
in case you hadn't noticed the economy only went through a small period of growth mostly because it's been down in the dumps for these past years, and when you hit rock bottom the only way is either stay on the ground or to climb back onto your feet.

Some will say the economy went into a slump largely due to the 911 attacks, or they find a way to balme the whole thing on Clinton/Kerry....but that still doesn't explain the huge tax cuts billgates/oprahwinfrey got nor does it explain the radical outsourcing to India/China nor does it explain the huge fiasco from local officals and the Whitehouse admin during the costly Katrina.

The Fox network is known for it's bias and roots for Foxnews lie with Murdoch and Roger Ailes, a strategist for Nixon and the elder George Bush. Iraq might get better in the future but in the mean time it's going to cost us economically and a lot of troops are in serious need of medical care. China is now keeping the dollar alive by funding US debts, Geroge Bush-Jnr has also run up record US deficits and gasoline prices don't seem to be getting any better.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5795/gaspricesjg6.jpg