Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Which News Network is More Dominated by Opinion - Fox or MSNBC?

Hugh Pickens writes (1984118) writes | about a year and a half ago

The Media 2

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Jack Mirkinson reports that Pew Research Center's annual "State of the Media" study found that, since 2007, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC have all cut back sharply on the amount of actual reporting found on their airwaves. Cheaper, more provocative debate or interview segments have largely filled the void. Pew found that Fox News spent 55 percent of the time on opinion and 45 percent of the time on reporting. Critics of that figure would likely contend that the network's straight news reporting tilts conservative, but it is true that Fox News has more shows that feature reporting packages than MSNBC does. According to Pew MSNBC made the key decision to reprogram itself in prime time as a liberal counterweigh to the Fox News Channel’s conservative nighttime lineup. The new MSNBC strategy and lineup were accompanied by a substantial cut in interview time and sharply increased airtime devoted to edited packages. The Pew Research examination of programming in December 2012 found MSNBC by far the most opinionated of the three networks, with nearly 90% of MSNBC's primetime coverage coming in the form of opinion or commentary. "Given the current liberal approach at nighttime at MSNBC, it’s hard to remember that back in 2007, the prime-time airwaves were split between liberals (Keith Olbermann and, to a lesser extent, Chris Matthews) and conservatives (Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson). Now, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are linchpins in an ideologically reconstructed liberal lineup.""

cancel ×

2 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bullshit (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43255119)

100% of fox, msnbc, cnn, etc is bullshit

Bad factorization = Data useless (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43255381)

I'm all for using science to understand human behavior, but this Pew research is bunk.

The criteria they use are nonsensical. IAAJ, or used to work for a Fox TV affiliate and a local newspaper for quite awhile and the breakdowns for 'news' 'opinion' and 'commentary' are silly and wouldn't pass an undergrad Journalism bar, let alone a professional standard for quantifying opinion/news.

The problem is this study by Pew (who have their own house bias towards false equivalence) isn't about "opinion vs news" it is about good journalism vs bad.

Bias is an inherent part of observation, any scientist knows this. Good journalism wears its biases on its sleeve...bad journalism claims they are impervious to bias!

"News" is different from "Newsflash breaking! Go Live to our on the scene..." This study counted 'news' only as the 'flash news alert' kind...they lumped all other news into 'commentary'

In the business we have types of stories: Feature, breaking news, follow-ups, sidebars...kinds of news: sports, politics, crime, entertainment...those are categories based on comparable, consistent types.

Rachel Maddow is the perfect example (here I show my bias). She is first of all a news professional. She wears here bias openly. She usually doesn't *break* news, she usually does *feature* stories that delve into a topic in order to cover it properly. Rachel Maddow talks openly and often about bias and bad journalism in the news business. She references her place in that, and endeavors to include both perspectives in her analysis.

Contrast with your Bill O'Reilly or Joe Scarborogh...they are unprofessional and use the rhetoric of 'fairness' but without actually doing it.

In this study, because Fox as a network pre-plans *breaking news alert* segmetns every 20 minutes, O'Reilly's nonsense gets to rated as "hard news" during that time...where as Rachel Maddow would get no points for "hard news" during that same segment of time. This is how the statistics become skewed.

I understand this isn't the best evidence for my contention, but that's part of my point. This is absolutely too complex a phenomenon to measure they way they do in the Pew study.

It makes us dumber by making useless disctinctions and drawing far-reaching (and baseless) conclusions form them.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>