Fox news

The only reliable way to accurately assess bias in media is to use objective scientific methods impartially applied. Pro cites what amounts to blog opinion, with no pretense to scientific methodology. An objective study requires an objective methodology that relates news coverage to positions on issues. UCLA released such a study at the end of 2005. http://tinyurl.com... They defined "liberal" in accordance with the Americans for Democratic Action scoring of issues. The ADA rates Congress people on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being perfectly liberal. The average ADA score, weighing districts by population, is 50.1 I will note that in 2005 congress was considerably to the left of center, so the comparison is to a left-of-center center. Nonetheless, the study is objective relative to the center of Congress. The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News. The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias or the appearance of bias in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research. Keep in mind that editorial pages are not included in the study, only news reporting. The New York Times editorial page is not pulling their score to the left, and the Wall Street Journal's editorials are not pulling them right. Bill Moyers is not counted on PBS, only Jim Lehrer. Lehrer, incidentally, came out with a good score as being unbiased. Pro errs in confusing opinion with news reporting. Bill O'Reilly frequently disclaims the notion that he is trying to provide straight news. No one ought to care what the editorial pages of the New York Times or Fox News or any other outlet say, so long as the news reporting is unbiased. However, even in opinion matters, Fox is far less biased than, say, MSNBC. The principle MSNBC commentators, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow never have any dissenting voices on their shows. They pontificate unopposed, as Olbermann admits. http://tinyurl.com... O'Reilly is bombastic, but he entertains opposition. Professor Marc Hill, an avowed socialist, is a regular guest. http://tinyurl.com... Liberal PBS commentator Juan Williams is on the show frequently and does a good job of presenting the liberal position. Leftist Alan Colmes is a weekly guest. Rachel Maddow interviewed Democrat Joe Trippi, and the unthinkable happened, he disagreed with her. Flabbergasted, she immediately folded with "well, we'll just have to agree to disagree." I'm not claiming that O'Riley is unbiased. He is under no obligation to be. However, he is considerably better than his counterparts on MSNBC., who never provide any opposing viewpoints. Unopposed is not fair. Pro presents a string of his opinions unsupported by objective evidence. He sees "evil" all over Fox. Of course he does, but that is because he doesn't like what he is hearing. He did not cite a single lie or serious uncorrected error by Fox, he just doesn't like their attitude, or something. Pro makes an ad hom attack on Fox executives. The FAIR organization Pro references is self-professed as having a liberal agenda and wanting government sponsored media. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro also cites Newsweek, which even the BBC admits is a leftist mouthpiece. http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com... Pro invites us to read other sources and make our own case. Nah. Fox News has objectively-proved unbiased straight news reporting. They have right-of-center commentary, but Fox commentary regularly presents opposing views. Pro has the burden to prove that Fox is the "most biased, manipulative, and corrupt" outlet. Clearly MSNBC is far worse.