The L. A. Times could hire Jayson Blair and improve its credibility. It is simple a vehicle for those who believe that the Democratic Party is far too conservative.

But in point of fact, Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq.

Here we go again.

P.S. No one cares.

It's not so much that Fox makes up it's news, it's just the conservative slant they put on it. I recently saw a comparison between an Associated Press news realease about the March for Women's Lives put up next to the Fox News release (taken from AP). The AP Headline? "Thousands March for Abortion Rights." The Fox Headline? "Pro-abortion Activists Rally in Washington."

Then IN the article they continue to change various things that don't actually make the article false, but simply make it better fit a conservative agenda.
AP said, "Abortion-rights supporters marched in the hundreds of thousands Sunday, galvanized by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and foreign policies that hurt women worldwide."

Fox said, "Abortion-rights supporters marched in the hundreds of thousands Sunday, galvanized by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and foreign policies that hurt women worldwide."

APsaid, "The rally on the National Mall stretched from the base of the U.S. Capitol about a mile back to the Washington Monument. Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates, but various police sources informally estimated the throng at between 500,000 and 800,000 strong."

Fox simply said, "Authorities no longer give formal crowd estimates but suggested the crowd was over hundred thousand strong."

Starting to see why Fox is sometimes doubted as the most legitimate news source out there?

That first article quote from Fox (after the headline quotes) should read:
"Pro-abortion activists marched in large numbers Sunday, roused in this election year by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and foreign policies they say hurt women worldwide."

The police have stopped giving out official crowd estimates for a reason, Dolph. They have been found on numerous occasions to be way off target.

Ara, it's funny how the Administration was getting beaten over the head for months over WMDs not being found, and now that they have been, suddenly "no one cares."

McGehee:
I wasn't making a statement women's rights or the march, nor was I agreeing or disagreeing with the police officer's estimation. I was simply pointing out that if Fox wanted to mention police estimations AT ALL they might have considered using the ACTUAL informal estimation instead of changing it to better fit THEIR views. THe post was not about the march or police estimations, it was about how Fox words it's news in the way that sounds most appealing to conservatives, sometimes at the expense of losing information.

Ara: ?

Dolphin: While I am pro-choice, I'd have to say I find the AP story more slantedin its phrasing and assumptions than the Fox story is. In fact, the Fox news story, overall, looks more fair to my eye.

Mind you, I'd generally agree that what I've seen of Fox News' reporting is that they tilt rightward, not wildly so but somewhat. Then again it's certainly no worse than the leftward tilt I see on other sources, and it's certainly not wild or draconian. Believe me, I've read and heard real right-wing sources.

Many newspapers are open about their political tilt. I wish more TV networks were.

Kevin: Some quantities of mustard gas and anthrax were found within weeks of the liberation of Baghdad. The problem isn't that WMDs weren't found because they were; the problem has always been that it's been in much smaller quantitites than was expected.

Nevertheless anyone who said they'd been found--which I recall Fox News did report--would be correct. If the question had been "large quantities have been found" or "as many as the government claimed were there" or something more precise, that would be a fairer question.

It's rather like the ridiculous spin that a majority of Americans supposedly believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, a factoid that keeps getting repeated even though no poll anywhere has ever said any such thing. If you spin the poll results and ignore how the questions are asked, you can get all sorts of bogus results.

I don't, and I don't think many people do, object to slanted journalism. The problem is this faux neutrality that was the central thesis of the LAT editor's rant. My resonse to those who sneer "Fair and Balanced" is not some metaphysical defense of Fox. Frankly, I find the tone a bit over the top and I've never cared for those who employ "we" when speaking of military actions... Were YOU pulling a trigger? The defense of Fox lies in a comparison to it's opposite number, generally CNN though one might compare specific elements to the big boys. Where is Fox's "Tailwind"? Oh, and the "No Evidence" mantra (of Saddam/Al-Queda ties) which is a staple of the MSM, is simply false, assertions in that lamentable, soon to be forgotten poll notwithstanding.

A vial of anthrax isn't a weapon of mass destruction, Dean. Its part of what they they call 'weapons of mass destruction related programs'. By the way, Fox is wildly biased towards Republicans; other networks may be slanted similarly leftward (although I wouldn't agree, its an argument that can be made) but none of them even approach Fox's slant in being biased towards Democrats.

So this strikes me as either a flaw in the polling, or a problem with the interpretation

Or, perhaps, a problem with the people producing the poll.

Or how about:

Only Fox News viewers tend to believe WMDs were found in Iraq because only Fox news saw fit to report on their discovery?

It can't be as simple as that, can it?

Brian, your simplisme would make Monsieur Chirac blanche.

Sorry Max, but I see it more Brian's way than yours.

A single vial of anthrax is a weapon of mass destruction, and you're being silly if you don't agree.

I'd agree that the Fox headline on the protest is more neutral than the AP one (provided Fox uses "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life"), although the number of protesters reported might be biased. On the other hand, Fox and AP may have talked to two different "informal" sources.

maor:
Fox's source WAS the AP article. Like most news networks Fox gets their stories from the Associated Press, Reuters, etc. That's what the (AP) stands for under the byline.

Maor,

Well, perhaps, the AP's "informal source" was actually a march organizer and not a member of the police force; anonymous sources always carry the risk of being something other than what they are described as.

Dolphin,

Its actually hilarious that you're trying to paint Fox New's coverage as biased while other major new sources are unbiased...I just read a report from Reuters where they manage to work in left-wing accusations about President Bush's ANG service in a report about how the President observed Memorial Day.

The left-wing media bias in the major media is unmistakable, pervasive and perfectly ok...now that we've got alternative media to point it out.

and one other thing on the headline. I dont' see Fox's headline as being neutral. "Pro-abortion" is hardly ever used by pro-choice people because it implies that the person is in support of the actual abortion, instead of simply being given the choice, instead the term "pro-abortion" is most frequently used by "pro-life" to describe pro-choice individuals in order to paint them as cold-blodded murders.
The key word that sounds VERY biased to me howwever, is the term "activists." I know quite a few women who drove up to DC for the March, and NONE of them were activists in the traditional sense of the word. Activists tend to be so dedicated to their cause that people don't often take them seriously (whether they should or not). To call the gathering an "activist rally" was an attempt to belittle it.

Mark:
While it was only by accident that I read your comment to me (I try to look out for your name to avoid wasting my time on your posts), I would love for you to point out where specifically I claimed that "other major new[s] sources are unbiased." Otherwise stop putting words in my mouth and go back to your mindless liberal bashing.

The FOX report reads:
"Pro-abortion activists marched in large numbers Sunday, roused in this election year by what they see as an erosion of reproductive freedoms under President Bush and foreign policies they say hurt women worldwide."

True that the opening description, "pro-abortion activists", is less complimentary than "abortion rights supporters". But FOX kept the rest of the AP's language. A more accurate description would have been: "...roused in this election year by what they see as an erosion of the freedom of some women to terminate the lives of their unwanted unborn offspring..."

Which is what abortion _is_.

If the pro-choice people are not pro-abortion, then why do they object to any attempt by pro-life people to non-coercively dissuade women from having abortions, e.g., through sidewalk counseling? Why do pro-choice people object to pictures of aborted fetuses? Why do they try to censor knowledge of what abortion actually involves?

Ha! Dance all you want, dolph, you aren't going to square the circle. If you are pro-choice, you have to be pro-abortion. Or are you pro-choice, but against one of the choices? That's called "hypocrisy," amigo.

The reason one camp uses "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" is that most people have a negative reaction to the word abortion. It's that simple. This is why the other side uses "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion." While you mght think that "against abortion" would get them points, those same people also react negatively to "anti." Go figure. :)

Now, if Fox had called them "anti-life" activists, that's a slant!

Which major newsreader recently started a national news cast by saying something to the effect that "the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate."? That's not slant? The same way that Rueters refuses to use the word "terrorist," but instead calls those murdering slime "militants" instead? I can't recall if NPR does the same or not. Feh.

As for Mark's "mindless bashing" if you actually read his post instead of scanning it for things to bitch about, you would have realized that he was providing examples of real slant, as opposed to supposed slant.

If that's the best you can come up with for slant, then you don't have much of a case. You should ask yourself why Fox is the fastest-growing network around?

Oh, I forgot, liberals already have: that audience is a bunch of reactionary 'tards. Nevermind.

Steve:
I don't recall hearing a pro-lifer say that women shouldn't be given the option to not have an abortion. If you can find evidence that this is happening (by someone other than some tiny extremist group), please share it. I do know that most parents don't want their children to see dismembered fetuses. People should have access to all the dismembered fetus pictures they want, but they do not have the right force others to engage in their gruesome hobby. That's why we have movie ratings, warning labels, etc. If people wish to view offensive material they should be able to, but people should not be forced to (such as on a sidewalk sign).

Casey:
I would like to dance all I want but funds are tight and clubs charge, so for now I'll stick to spending my money on food instead of cover charges for dance parties.
Regardless of what I do in my freetime. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. I personally am neither as I have mixed feeling on the issue of abortion and that's why I don't discuss it. The post was NOT about abortion, it was about biased news. Pro-abortion is a biased term. Are Christians who believe people ought to be able to chose how they wish to believe to be called "pro-satanists."
As for me stating anywhere that no other news agencies are biased, I'll give you the same challenge I gave Mark, find the quote where I said that or stop putting words in my mouth.
I read every word of Mark's post. Good for him, he found something he thinks is bias. He might be right though we won't know because he left out all the details and is just expecting us to take his word (which I certainly will not do). His liberal bashing is clear throughout the site and is the reason Dean's World isn't on my blogroll anymore (no offense Dean, but I'm sure it really doesn't hurt your feelings that bad anyways) because I don't mind intelligent discussion but I won't participate in or link to arguments that go soemthing like this:

"Conservative: 'Liberals suck.'
Liberal: 'No Conservatives suck."

And that essentially what I have seen Mark try to get started, for instance when he offered no evidence to back his assertion that liberals are intentionally and malicously seeking to destroy society (for the purpose of knowingly destroying society).

If you want to speak (on this topic further) with me, please find the quote where I stated that other news sources contain no bias. Otherwise I don't waste my time with people who put words in my mouth.

As I say, I found the AP source far more biased in the other direction. For example, the phrase "abortion rights" --they mean the right of the unborn child not to be murdered in the womb, right? Or the right of taxpayers not to have to pay for a procedure they view as abhorrent, right?

No? What do they mean? OH! The right to HAVE an abortion? Up through the ninth month, including partial-birth abortion?

Also, why would they report anonymous, unaccountable sources on crowd estimates, except possibly to make the rally bigger than it might otherwise have been?

So, in short: I see problems in the AP reporting that's pretty typical for most mainstream reporting on this issue. The pro-choice side always gets subtle spins on its behalf this way from the press. Fox News' report struck me as a more fair description overall, although I would agree that the term "activists" is problematic.

I'm new to posting here, but I do lurk sometimes and I just wanted to jump into this one.

A vial of anthrax or a tiny bit of sarin gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that causes mass destruction. Both of those things in large amounts would do that, but a little bit of either won't. They are part of programs that were meant to produce WMDs. I didn't and still don't support this war, but I do think there could have been plenty of legitimate arguments put forth about why it was necessary without the (at the very least) truth stretching that was used to justify it. I probably still wouldn't have agreed, because the only reason I think a war is justifiable is in direct self defense (and this clearly isn't that), but I cold have at least understood other justifications.

And as far as abortion rights go, I am very pro choice, but I hate that term. It's not necessarily the same thing as being pro abortion, because I honestly don't think I could ever bring myself to have one. But I've also never been in a situation where I've had an unwanted pregnancy, been raped, had a pregnancy cause serious helth problems, etc. The only time I've ever been pregnant was totally planned and led to a beautiful 2 year old son that I love completely. But I do believe that women have the absolute right to determine what happens inside our bodies at all times. Period. And if somebody wants to have an abortion, then that's her right.

Kathy,
the definition of WMD is debatable, which is why it's incorrect to present as fact that another person's view is wrong. As an opinion (such as your's) it's perfectly legitimate to say these people are wrong, but that's not the issue here.

dolphin,
I wouldn't at all mind being called an "activist" if I was attending a rally. I just don't see that as biased.

dolphin and Kathy:

Being pro choice is being pro abortion. It is the only choice that is controversial. Any other choice is so widely acceptable that it is meaningless. You can call it anything you want, but it is simply in favor of abortion as a right.

All news is biased. Every organization and every person reports according to their views. FOX is biased as is AP. The problem is not bias, it is unbalanced bias. 90% of news sources tilt left. The mainstream media will lose market to FOX and other rightist sources until the bias is again balanced.

Kathy et al. Anthrax as a WMD, hmmm, well, I seem to remember that the Congressional mail room was shut down for a few days because of trace amounts of anthrax, that is an invisible amount. To my recollection two postal workers died. You will find that this fits the legal definition of "mass murder" because of it's indiscriminate nature. The thing about biological agents though, is that while sarin does not make sarin and plutonium does not make plutonium, anthrax DOES make anthrax. The vial in question is what is called a "seed strain"... the mother of infinite children if it is only nurtured.
On the question of whether the Iraq campaign was a response to an attack, prepare yourselves, the evidence of Saddams culpability is about to break out. Google up Salman Pak. Find a federal civil case in NY decided by Judge Baer (a Carter appointee) where the court finds Iraq liable for 9-11 deaths largely because the plaintiffs proved prior knowledge by Iraq's state controlled press. Why was this info not aired at the time? Excellent question. Excellent question.

I, too, have wondered often why Fox's local networks don't toss up Britt to go against the big three either.

I'd like to see the ratings.

Dolphin wrote:
"Steve:
I don't recall hearing a pro-choicer say that women shouldn't be given the option to not have an abortion. If you can find evidence that this is happening (by someone other than some tiny extremist group), please share it."

Forced abortions in Communist China. Not a tiny extremist group but a _government_ ruling over an enormous population. If your friends were really pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, wouldn't they be protesting against this?

I don't have the URL on hand but I have read of at least one case here in the United States where a teenage girl here in America was forced by her family to have an abortion against her will, and there was not a peep from the "pro-choice" crowd.

"I do know that most parents don't want their children to see dismembered fetuses."

I also know that most parents don't want their children to _be_ dismembered. Which is what abortion is.

"People should have access to all the dismembered fetus pictures they want, but they do not have the right force others to engage in their gruesome hobby."

As opposed to the gruesome hobby of those who actually do the dismembering? Why is a picture more offensive to you than act itself?

"If people wish to view offensive material they should be able to, but people should not be forced to (such as on a sidewalk sign)."

To the contrary, a sidewalk is the _only_ proper place to view these pictures of horror. Or TV. Or the newspaper. Everyone, man or woman, should know what abortion actually is, should see what it is with their own eyes.

Nobody (nobody I know or would want to know) _wants_ to look at pictures of dismembered fetuses. Nobody wants to look at pictures of war in its full horror, or pictures of executions, or pictures of Nazi or Communist* death camps. But we _must_ look at them so that we will not repeat that history, or at least so that we will know what we are choosing to do or to allow to be done. Abortions, wars, executions, may indeed be justified in certain circumstances, but we must at least know what they are.

"We must either face the things we do, or leave off doing them." -G. K. Chesterton

(*I submit that if the American public were exposed to pictures of the horrors of Communism, there would be many more anti-Communists, as many as there are anti-Nazis today.)

"But I do believe that women have the absolute right to determine what happens inside our bodies at all times. Period. And if somebody wants to have an abortion, then that's her right."

That was my position for a long time. But now I say that, at the very least, she should have the right to make an _informed_ choice. Which is what the pro-abortionists are hell-bent on denying her at all costs to the First Amendment or anything else.

Dean asked rhetorically:
"Also, why would they report anonymous, unaccountable sources on crowd estimates, except possibly to make the rally bigger than it might otherwise have been?"

For the same reason they don't want people to see pictures of dismembered fetuses: because they are intellectually dishonest.

Dean:
"As I say, I found the AP source far more biased in the other direction. For example, the phrase "abortion rights" --they mean the right of the unborn child not to be murdered in the womb, right? Or the right of taxpayers not to have to pay for a procedure they view as abhorrent, right?"

Indeed. Those _are_ the issues.

"No? What do they mean? OH! The right to HAVE an abortion? Up through the ninth month, including partial-birth abortion?"

And with no nasty anti-abortionists confronting them with the gruesome reality of what they're doing.

Dean:
"The pro-choice side always gets subtle spins on its behalf this way from the press."

Or not so subtle, as when pro-lifers are portrayed as degenerates who _enjoy_ looking at and displaying pictures of dismembered fetuses.

Dean:
"I would agree that the term "activists" is problematic."

It is. As in "judicial activist" (i.e., "Supreme Court decision I didn't like"). Like "bigot" and other meaningless terms, it's one I don't use.

Sorry, I couldn't resist this:

Dolphin wrote:
"His liberal bashing is clear throughout the site and is the reason Dean's World isn't on my blogroll anymore (no offense Dean, but I'm sure it really doesn't hurt your feelings that bad anyways)"

You took Dean's World off your blogroll because Mark Noonan comments here?

ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Steve, that is a hoot and frankly, it is indicative of the mortal flaw in the "Left" generally. (I use scare quotes to respect your well-held contempt for the term.) Roger Simon has detailed experiences along the same meme; heretics to the Liberal cause MUST BE CAST OUT!!!! POLLUTE NOT YOUR EYES WITH CONTRADICTING FACTS OR NOTIONS!!! (I mean, Mark Noonan? There are many posters quite worthy of a skim-passed but "mindless" that guy ain't.)And they don't want anyone else's mind corrupted either. Check this
http://thewholething.typepad.com/weblog/2003/09/jonathans_hate.html
You will see that the comments have been maliciously infected with links to the most degraded pornography (okay, unroll those eyes, even you will call it degraded) and to only one end I can see, to prevent the page from penetrating filtering software. The "Mobying" campaign is another example of this sort of intellectual vandalism. It's pathetic really. If it were going to work it would have worked by now. Like the new wave of BusHitler angst leaking into even Big Media, it is the Death Knell, the final rabbit-scream before these poor critters conventionally called The Left spiral down into a collapsing black hole of embittered irrelevance.

Steve:
The post was NEVER about abortion. You're unable to counter my arguement about Fox altering a news report to better fit their views, therefore you took the topic of an example news article and tried to form a debate around that. While, as stated, I generally refuse to discuss abortion as I have no cemented feelings on it at the moment. Yet even in your own argument you have decided to must rely emotional language instead of factual evidence and cite examples of China to justify your position on US legislation. That's just poor argument. If you want to prove that Fox didn't alter the article (which is the ONLY topic), then feel free to present your evidence.

To get back to the original point of this post...

I remember when the poll in question made the rounds of the blogosphere, and I thought it was slanted. It said that people who watched Fox News were more likely to be misinformed about the war, but all the "myths" they asked about were skewed right. They didn't cover some of the leftward myths about the war "Did Saddam and Reagan have close ties?" "Isn't Halliburton making a lot of money from a pipeline in Afghanistan?" "We're in Iraq to steal their oil." Also, some of the things they declared as "myths" were still under debate. Did Saddam plan 9/11? No. But did he have ties to Al Qaeda? Possibly. Did he have ties to Islamic terrorists? Definitely.

I dont' know enough about the topic to know whether that qualifies as a "push poll", but it certainly doesn't prove that Fox News is any more or less biased than the LA Times.

Dolphin:

I have not the slightest interest in defending FOX or anybody else. My point is that the AP and a large segment of the media present a very distorted view of abortion, which you have swallowed. I used to be totally pro-choice, and I'm still strongly inclined in that direction, but rhe facts of embryology, and the dishonesty of the pro-abortionists in covering up those facts, have persuaded me the other way.