Fox News Spins UC research

[qdavid]

We used to call 'em butt whores. Bwahahaha!

 

[CalcioErba2004]

Ah, so your parents are not "the Christian right".

Being Christian doesn't automatically make a person against weed. I am Christian and I partake of the burning bush.

More pain...maybe if you smoke to the point where you get a headache yea I can see that. I have never had unusual aches and pains from smoking too much weed. I have been achy the day after a bong olympics but that's different than smoking too much weed. Also look at the date of the article. This is back in 2007 when the Bush Admin was in office. Keep it danK!

 

[ZoeFresssh666]

Hate Fox. Actually, hate all of Rupert Murdoch's "play things." :-/

 

[ijimunot]

Get a party together and take your TVs to your local station and have a bonfire. The media in general has no respect for the intelligence of the people. How many people will read your post and go watch FOX to see for themselves. FOX will record the number of people watching then go to the advertisers with a rate increase. The next product you buy will cost more because they have to pay more for advertising. Its not news its baiting and you are the prey. Burn the TV have some friends over, get stoned, listen to some tunes and talk about how to make the world better not richer. Peace

 

[40AmpstoFreedom]

Judge Napalitano on the Fox News network dedicated most of a show to the legalization of cannabis and why are federal government has overstepped its bounds and should leave us a lone.

Great video to watch. His show is called Freedom Watch and the guest on the show was one of NORML's top guys. Look it up.

 

[OC80]

I just love my country so much...

Id never want it to hear the shit these hacks are spewing.

I would, however, watch the female anchors for a minute or two, with the mute function on.

 

[flatcurve]

I vote liberally, but that's only to support pot. I'm liberal on social issues, and conservative on monetary issues. At this point in my life, I just consider the former more important than the latter, so I vote democrat.

I'm with you on that... I'm extremely fiscally conservative. But the issue with republicans in office is that they only look out for their own. I don't make anywhere near enough money to benefit from the tax cuts that they always pass. Hell, only 2% of the country makes that kind of money (legitimately.) But what I do know is that my friends and family will all benefit from access to social services like education, health care, law enforcement, etc... so I like to vote for the guys who will support those programs.

The real problem is the pork barrel politics. If we cut all of the BS spending, there wouldn't be any reason for Jim Bunning to hold up the senate and ask everybody how the hell they would pay for it. The money would be there.

But this part of the system will never be fixed, because it benefits the senators and congressmen, and they're the ones charged with fixing it.

 

[GrnMtnGrwr]

but... but... but... fair and balanced...

 

[guest121295]

I like that news girl with the long black hair, she can give me my news anytime, hell I'll take more Paris Hilton pics while they're at it. Sure beats the rest of thecircus they put up and that Glen Beck is out of his mind, intelligent but slipping....I receive most of my news from comedy Central too.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It is often a hate fest when Fox news is mentioned. Well, all I have to say is that most, if not all, that throw stones and claim Fox to just be an entertainment outlet that makes up stories, have no real clue as to what they are talking about. It is simply jumping on the fashionable bandwagon, and acting like you know what others know. But you don't really know what you are talking about. Fox is every bit as legitimate if not more, than any of the major news networks and cable. For anyone to say the the BBC is not biased, yet FOX is, well..they simply do not know.

Your assessments have nothing to do with what is really shown on their broadcasts, but more of what you have politically in your head. You disagree with just about any stance you "think" is coming out of Fox, so you dis it. It is that simple.

You may not like the flavor of a report, but try to show us where they are making shit up. You simply can't do it. Oh sure, you will be able to find the hate blogs that waste time trying to trip folks up, and take things out of context...to give their fellow haters some ammo, but they won't have real evidence of what you and they claim...it just isn't so.

Now, on the other side of the coin, and I am certain that the majority of right leaning people both here and away from here will agree that the major networks and major cable news shows are very much biased. We see it clearly, and we watch them all.
You don't smell the stench of constant liberal bias mainly because you sympathize with their positions. Or, you don't watch them either...just like to talk shit when Fox gets mentioned. And the BBC being listed as an unbiased news source is a fucking joke...a joke for sure. You would have to be drunk on the kool aid to think that...or be a biased person yourself.

No, I think your stereotypical hatred is unfounded, and I challenge anyone to show how Fox is more biased, in any direction, than any other news source. But be careful, there has already been a study done by a very liberal institution that claims you all are way off base and really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

I am a Republican, and a Christian, and I have smoked pot since 1972.
And I really don't appreciate the fact that every time Republicans or conservatives are mentioned, the hatred shit comes out fast and heavy. Lots of big mouths in here, and I suspect not as much ass to back up the big words. Start by showing how you are correct in Fox being liars and hacks. Then get back to us.
Or better yet, keep your unfounded hated to your fucking selves. Cool?
Basically the old put up or shut up....got it in you to throw stones, do you have it in you to back it up with facts?

*EDIT
You know, I read the article you gave us as an example xfargox, and it is not what you claim. There was no spin put on the story at all. None. Just where is the spin in the story...can you quote it? Or....maybe what I said above is true? The researcher was the one who said he wouldn't recommend pot for pain relief at this time...was that a spin from Fox?

Another thing while I'm rambling...
Lets take a look at what the other newscasts leave OUT of their reports. Would a major news event being neglected completely be considered biased spin? I do, and it is, and liberal biased news sources do it all the time.

 

[ROJO145]

Anyone believing Fox news is legite is a nutjob,case in point!! Your posts are quite sad and predicktable Hoosier anymore!!

Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

FAIR did the test,and FOX FAILED!!!!

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

FOX NEWS IS THE MOST BIASED RETARDED FAKE NEWS THERE IS!!!!!

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Let's see it, rojo. Let's see some example. Don't have anything? You think the quote you posted proves anything at all about fox being biased and their audience nut jobs?
You are simply riding the hate wagon. I thought liberals felt they had a monopoly on feelings and emotions...always trying to say the "correct" things and all...or does that only count when you are talking to like minded liberals?

Sad and predictable...well perhaps it is because I'm responding to pureD shit all the time? Like this thread with folks like you throwing your hatred loose and free?
What is predictable is the bullshit that comes out of you haters mouths.

I read your article, and it is like I suspected... a laundry list of who Fox personalities are. That is all you need isn't it? If the person is a Conservative, then it is apparent to all that their stuff is biased and not worth listening too, yes? That is what your article does, list who they are and they know you will agree and there will be no more debate..Fox is biased and spinning non-news.
No, you and your article are the failures.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I am not a bitter person. Although I realize that folks who argue points often get labeled by their opposition. Seems that all one needs to do is enter into a debate with dissenting opinion, and no matter the substance it seems the person is marked for simply asking questions or making comments.
Many of you like to jump on the popular bandwagon and chime in, as if you really knew something about the subject matter, when the reality is that you have no clue and are only wanting to join the party.
That is very predictable to say the least. Youth has a lot to do with this I suspect.

Anyway, I want to post up a piece that backs up my side of this.
I would just post a link, but many don't click links. The full study is available for anyone to see in full, if interested. Most will probably say that the right wing conspiracy had something to do with it..or sumsuch attempt at a debunk...but statistics brought about by an UNFUNDED study at a major university are hard to argue with.

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — 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.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan December 14, 2005 Category: Research

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — 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.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

Maybe if the study were done by an institution that wasn't so conservatively biased, as UCLA is, this would be more believable?
(shrug)

 

[xfargox]

*EDIT
You know, I read the article you gave us as an example xfargox, and it is not what you claim. There was no spin put on the story at all. None. Just where is the spin in the story...can you quote it? Or....maybe what I said above is true? The researcher was the one who said he wouldn't recommend pot for pain relief at this time...was that a spin from Fox?

It's pretty easy to point out where the spin is.

Fox article:

"Based on this studies findings, Wallace said he would not recommend marijuana as a method of pain reduction at this time."

They are setting up marijuana as an ineffective pain medicine.

However, look at the .pdf:

"To date, four CMCR-funded studies have demonstrated that cannabis has analgesic
effects in pain conditions secondary to injury (e.g. spinal cord injury) or disease (e.g. HIV disease, HIV drug therapy) of the nervous system. This result is particularly important because three of these CMCR studies utilized cannabis as an add-on treatment for patients who were not receiving adequate benefit from a wide range of standard pain-relieving medications. This suggests that cannabis may provide a treatment option for those individuals who do not respond or respond inadequately to currently available therapies"

Anyone with experience with marijuana would realize immediately that "overdosing" causes a pain increase and is in general a not-fun experience. Getting too high obviously doesn't help. The CMCR article clearly supports marijuana, but Fox makes it sound like pot is of questionable medical value.

Of course, I know your only intention is to argue, and that's not why I'm here. You probably still think I'm a democrat or something and I hate Fox news. If you look at some of my other posts, I've clearly said that pretty much all media outlets are biased. I'm not trying to attack you, I just want to clearly set a boundary that I have no intentions of being the second party in what is clearly arguing-for-entertainment (with neither side willing to have an open mind). You just asked why I said there was spin, and since I can clearly demonstrate that, I'm replying. If you think I'm wrong to call it spin, then here's an example: If the supreme court votes pot should be legal 8-1 and Fox says "supreme court justice votes against legalization of pot," that's kind of spinning the event.

And I understand that one researcher said it needs further testing. However, when their report is overwhelmingly in favor of weed as a medicine, it's pretty obvious spin that Fox omitted that.

I don't understand why you're on a weed forum and you're arguing against weed because you identify more heavily with your republican status than you do your weed-smoking status.

 

[Balazar]

All news channels are pure bullshit. Their goal isn't to "tell the story" its to make it into the story they want to tell. I don't watch the news for one simple reason: It's scripted and more fictional than fact. Politics is fake too so I figure why bother watching this boring crap when I could get just as much accurate world news out of an episode of Ren & Stimpy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I don't understand why you're on a weed forum and you're arguing against weed because you identify more heavily with your republican status than you do your weed-smoking status.

I am not here to argue, and all you need to do is put me ignore and don't respond. Can all the schmooz. You put up a post, suck it up and debate. Or...

I disagree that Fox news threw any spin at all on that piece. It is NOT obvious. You have to stretch to see conspiracy of spin with it. And even then, it is just not there.
You want to blame Fox for this. Others chime in as well, and start calling nutjob and shit.
Fuck a bunch of nutjob. That was an ignorant thing to say. But it fits in with the stereotypical bullshit that spews from here. It is not Fox that the hatred is directed at anyway, it is the right wing. Unfounded charges are being thrown AT ME and lots of others just like me, that enjoy this place. And I refuse to sit back and let charges be thrown at me and people like me, without defending my position.

At the end of the day, the very same unfounded and ignorant stereotypes that have kept the taboo on mj. and caused an untold amount of people to lose their freedoms and even their lives, are the very same unfounded and ignorant stereotyping that you are partaking of.

I posted up a very good rebuttal, if I do say so myself.
Do you agree that the UCLA study shows that Fox news is NOT the liars, and show makers that many here would make them out to be? Would you agree that it is more stereotypical bullshit than fact when these charges get thrown around at Fox and the people that listen to them?

 

[Marywanna]

Fox beats every other News Station in ratings. Fact.

 

[hbstoner]

Fox beats every other News Station in ratings. Fact.

In a related story...

* 42 million American adults can't read at all; 50 million are unable to read at a higher level that is expected of a fourth or fifth grader.
* The number of adults that are classified as functionally illiterate increases by about 2.25 million each year.

These statistics might have something to do with faux new's growing popularity.

source.. http://education-portal.com/articles/Grim_Illiteracy_Statistics_Indicate_Americans_Have_a_Reading_Problem.html

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Nice failure there, hbstoner. That was quite a stretch to make, don't you think?
Now, care to discuss why this dumbing down of our society is taking place? It isn't because of Fox News, that is for certain.

 

[GrnMtnGrwr]

The dumbing down of our society isn't because of Fox News, but it sure as hell isn't hurting Fox News' growth.