Study: FOX most balanced on Presidential Candidates

[tuff bob]

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University ..... found that Fox News Channel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

[go_disc_golf]

Considering the absolutely terrible performance within the Pub party lately and based on the views of the general public all this proves is that Faux leans right.. In other words, no news here!

[Ignignokt]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University ..... found that Fox News Channel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

Who's to say that the events that occur in the world merit exactly 50/50 positive vs negative coverage? By this standard, "balanced" coverage of the Larry Craig scandal would have had 50% positive reporting. It's the same warped logic that leads morons on the main board to throw hissy fits when the "biased" refs don't call exactly the same number of fouls against each team during a game.

[Enrico Palazzo]

GMU is a known right-leaning university. One of their most prominent faculty members if Dr. Walter Williams, a primary guest host for Rush Limbaugh. This means little. Any study can be set up to come up with any result the researcher wants (or is paid to come to).

BTW, boob....
"The organization has long been controversial in some circles, because its founders also co-authored a widely debated survey that identified most major media journalists as politically liberal. Some liberal watchdog groups, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), have challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute from 1986 to 1988 and is currently a Fox News contributor. (Lichter, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University, has also been a faculty member at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Georgetown, George Washington and George Mason universities.)
Private foundation financial reports show that CMPA initially relied heavily on funding from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations. "

[chachi]

Most balanced my ass...

They are having a "round table forum" in New Hampshire on 1/6... It is co-sponsored by the NH GOP...

Guess who they did not invite? Ron Paul...

Funny, he polls 2x higher than Thompson in NH but they invited Fred.

... it is OK... we have other plans.

Fox is a ****ing joke.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by chachi

Most balanced my ass...

They are having a "round table forum" in New Hampshire on 1/6... It is co-sponsored by the NH GOP...

Guess who they did not invite? Ron Paul...

Funny, he polls 2x higher than Thompson in NH but they invited Fred.

... it is OK... we have other plans.

Fox is a ****ing joke.

Ron Paul Supporters Panic Over False News Story

By John Stephenson | December 30, 2007 - 14:00 ET
URGENT MESSAGE! CALL OFF THE BOYCOTTS!
Rumors went out that Ron Paul was being excluded from a FOX Debate and his fans freaked out, as they have become famous for doing. They called for boycotts and protests, etc. Turns out that he was never even excluded from any debate, and that the debate in question didn't even exist. Oops! Panic buttons off.

Skip ahead to December 27th, when the Union Leader reported that all candidates had agreed to the ABC/WMUR debate and reporter Garry Rayno added a confusing paragraph about Giuliani finally agreeing to the (canceled) January 6th forum, which had already been converted into a simple state GOP brunch.
Due to the timing of this article, there was no way to confirm who will or won't attend the brunch, but it is not a broadcast debate and has nothing to do with FoxNews. Nevertheless, a blog in Washington picked up the story, scrambled it and their "BHDC Staff" reported a list of the candidates who would be attending, which did not include Ron Paul (he hadn't officially confirmed, due to the conflict).
That story was picked up by the AP Newswire, which added some information that it had from a month earlier about the format being discussed.
Finally, the AP article was picked up by Lew Rockwell and passed along to DailyPaul.com, with all the errors intact. Of course, a firestorm ensued on all the Ron Paul nets before the information could be verified. Immediately, thousands of messages went to FoxNews and the NH GOP protesting the exclusion.
Unfortunately, the Ron Paul campaign didn't sort out the facts before sending out a news release blasting Fox for their "outrageous" conduct, even if they did note that the information had not been confirmed. From there, the report spread into dozens of blogs and news commentaries.

LGF:

A few people try to point out that the story is false, but that doesn’t stop them from posting lists of phone numbers, plans to launch DoS attacks by downloading the Fox News site over and over (right!), freaky rants about the New World Order, and pleas for the “hotheads” not to commit acts of violence.

Yikes! Close call there guys. On the other side of the coin, here is some good news for the Pual fans! He's beating Rudy in NH.
Don Surber reports it was all made up by Big Head DC.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

Ron Paul Supporters Panic Over False News Story

You are 100% wrong.

The DEBATE was canceled and replaced with a FORUM.

On December 27, the Associated Press reported: "The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary." Later in the article, the AP stated: "Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson."

On the evening of December 28, Jared Chicoine and Jordan Brown of our New Hampshire campaign staff met in person with Fergus Cullen the New Hampshire GOP chairman to discuss whether or not Dr. Paul would be invited to participate in the forum. Mr. Cullen confirmed there will be an event on January 6, but he could not confirm whether or not Dr. Paul would be invited. We also learned the event would not be a debate with an audience, but instead would be a forum in a closed studio with the candidates questioned only by Chris Wallace of Fox News.
A few hours after that meeting, we contacted Fox News seeking clarification.
Later that night, we issued a press release while waiting to hear from Fox News.
On December 29, the Baltimore Sun featured a report by Jason George. Mr. George reported, "Calls and emails to Fox News spokespersons by the Tribune were not returned Saturday evening.

"An official at the New Hampshire GOP, which is co-sponsoring the event with Fox, said that Paul might still be included, but the planning for the debate was still coming together and it was ultimately Fox's call."

As of late afternoon today (December 30), we have nothing more to report.

Kent Snyder
Chairman, Ron Paul 2008

[chachi]

This is an email that I just received from Maureen Moore (the wife of Ron Paul's campaign manager, Lew Moore)

There is a round table forum, and Ron is excluded.

Here is the email.

There is going to be a round table forum on January 6th and Ron is not invited. Fox News is responsible. Please don't call or email the NH State Chair...he does not have any say in this.


Thank you for all you do.
Maureen McMahan Moore
Washington State Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008
425-345-4913

[Feckweed]

Originally Posted by Enrico Palazzo

GMU is a known right-leaning university. One of their most prominent faculty members if Dr. Walter Williams, a primary guest host for Rush Limbaugh. This means little. Any study can be set up to come up with any result the researcher wants (or is paid to come to).

BTW, boob....
"The organization has long been controversial in some circles, because its founders also co-authored a widely debated survey that identified most major media journalists as politically liberal. Some liberal watchdog groups, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), have challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute from 1986 to 1988 and is currently a Fox News contributor. (Lichter, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University, has also been a faculty member at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Georgetown, George Washington and George Mason universities.)
Private foundation financial reports show that CMPA initially relied heavily on funding from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations. "

So in other words, there must be some liberal watchdog groups that DON'T challenge their non-partisan claim

I do like their rationale, however. Guess that means that we can challenge claims of non-partisian groups that are funded by liberal sources as well