Jump to content

Fox News... Fair and Balanced?


Recommended Posts

lax32 (1/7/2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c

I think its sad people actually watch that channel anymore.

Some language later in the video.

I usually respect Penn and Teller's stuff, but they're just grandstanding here.

It's actually very common for campaigns to use focus groups tracking the same people over the campaign. The focus group is NOT supposed to be a representative sample, it's supposed to measure how attitudes change in RESPONSE to political events. FOX never said that Luntz's group was a random sample.

To the point about FOX News, it's not surprising that they would use a partisan Republican pollster as their network expert. Kind of sad, but not surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (1/7/2008)
lax32 (1/7/2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c

I think its sad people actually watch that channel anymore.

Some language later in the video.

I usually respect Penn and Teller's stuff, but they're just grandstanding here.

It's actually very common for campaigns to use focus groups tracking the same people over the campaign. The focus group is NOT supposed to be a representative sample, it's supposed to measure how attitudes change in RESPONSE to political events. FOX never said that Luntz's group was a random sample.

To the point about FOX News, it's not surprising that they would use a partisan Republican pollster as their network expert. Kind of sad, but not surprising.

That would work... but i believe that these are supposed to be random people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lax32 (1/8/2008)
Ramen (1/7/2008)
lax32 (1/7/2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c

I think its sad people actually watch that channel anymore.

Some language later in the video.

I usually respect Penn and Teller's stuff, but they're just grandstanding here.

It's actually very common for campaigns to use focus groups tracking the same people over the campaign. The focus group is NOT supposed to be a representative sample, it's supposed to measure how attitudes change in RESPONSE to political events. FOX never said that Luntz's group was a random sample.

To the point about FOX News, it's not surprising that they would use a partisan Republican pollster as their network expert. Kind of sad, but not surprising.

That would work... but i believe that these are supposed to be random people.

No, they're not. Luntz said tonight during Hannity and Colmes that he uses many of the same people over again. In the Democratic focus group for the Hillary crying incident he said 3-4 people were repeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eliyahu ha navi (1/8/2008)
lax32 (1/8/2008)
Ramen (1/7/2008)
lax32 (1/7/2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c

I think its sad people actually watch that channel anymore.

Some language later in the video.

I usually respect Penn and Teller's stuff, but they're just grandstanding here.

It's actually very common for campaigns to use focus groups tracking the same people over the campaign. The focus group is NOT supposed to be a representative sample, it's supposed to measure how attitudes change in RESPONSE to political events. FOX never said that Luntz's group was a random sample.

To the point about FOX News, it's not surprising that they would use a partisan Republican pollster as their network expert. Kind of sad, but not surprising.

That would work... but i believe that these are supposed to be random people.

No, they're not. Luntz said tonight during Hannity and Colmes that he uses many of the same people over again. In the Democratic focus group for the Hillary crying incident he said 3-4 people were repeats.

What did the focus group say about that little event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lax32 (1/7/2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFL-LubDF9c

I think its sad people actually watch that channel anymore.

Some language later in the video.

Lax that is disturbing and I have been on this board for about 3 years telling people about to GOP propaganda network that is Faux News but a video about a plant is more disturbing is a video that accompanied by the one you linked so thanks for the heads up but watch this one as well.

<a%20href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wu1i6GooQY&feature=related"%20target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wu1i6GooQY&feature=related</a>" target="_blank">

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wu1i6GooQY&feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly hope that in this election cycle FAUX news will get exposed as the "news" network that has an agenda and so far in this election cycle I think they are slowly being exposed as a network with an agenda that is not necessarily conservative but more of an agenda of wanting to ensure that a Republican wins.

I mean even republicans are attacking Faux News now because of there blantent bias. Just look at Paul supporters going after Hannity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMrHorlOB0k

THESE are Republicans that would never support a DEM that are going after FAUX news second most popular GOP waterboy on FAUX behind O'Reilly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

octoslash (1/8/2008)
I can't believe this many people are so ignorant as to not know the difference between NEWS and OPINION.

Wait......YES I CAN. :hehe:

Yes it saddens me as well that there are so many people that believe that FAUX News is actual news instead of what it really is and that is the GOP opinion/propaganda network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (1/8/2008)
lax32 (1/8/2008)

That would work... but i believe that these are supposed to be random people.

Show me where anyone on FOX said this was a random, representative group of voters.

Have you never watched any of those post debate Luntz specials on FAUX they ALWAYS tell you that it is a group of random voters. I didn't think that needed to be proven. Well I guess they should have showed FAUX saying that it is a random group of voters but if you have watched the debates they ALWAYS say it is a random group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

octoslash (1/8/2008)
I can't believe this many people are so ignorant as to not know the difference between NEWS and OPINION.

Wait......YES I CAN. :hehe:

Hold on a minute, the segments with Luntz were very clear part of the regular "news" reporting and Luntz was being used as an "expert" and the focus groups were cast as "scientific" (they're really not, but whatever). This was NOT opinion ala O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

braves_n_falcons (1/8/2008)

Have you never watched any of those post debate Luntz specials on FAUX they ALWAYS tell you that it is a group of random voters. I didn't think that needed to be proven. Well I guess they should have showed FAUX saying that it is a random group of voters but if you have watched the debates they ALWAYS say it is a random group.

No, I try not to watch FOX whenever possible. I'd like to see them saying the group was random. I have a hard time believing that Luntz would allow that kind of misrepresentation of his group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

octoslash (1/8/2008)
I can't believe this many people are so ignorant as to not know the difference between NEWS and OPINION.

Wait......YES I CAN. :hehe:

that's the problem- people ARE ignorant as #####, and fox news caters to that lowest common denominator that will watch and trust a network because it has the shiniest computer graphics and slickest marketing that plays off emotions of patriotism and pride.

come on, you don't see CNN or MSNBC or any of these "liberal media" outlets trying to convince people they're "fair and balanced" or their opinion shows are the "no-spin zone".

i'm not saying those other networks aren't biased (because they certainly are), but they aren't dishonest and misleading (and catering to the ignorant and the emotionally immature) like Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I probably should have known about this but didn't. Now I have to question FOX New's choice of Luntz as their polling expert:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...e/wat082800.htm

The National Council on Public Polls has issued an advisory criticizing "instant" or overnight polls as significantly less reliable than surveys conducted over several days.

"In general, the quality of a sample improves the longer the survey is in the field. Surveys conducted on one evening, or even over two days, have more sampling biases due to non-response and non-availability than surveys which are in the field for three, four or five days," the NCPP Review Board wrote.

So true. The NCPP has been particularly active this election year. Earlier this month, it censured pollster Frank Luntz for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the Republican Convention.

That marked the second time that Luntz has been formally criticized. A few years ago, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) censured Luntz for failing to release the results of surveys he allegedly conducted for the Republicans in support of the Contract With America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...