From the article:

 

"In the annals of modern advertising, “Fair & Balanced” will be considered a classic. The slogan was Ailes’s cynical genius at its most successful. While liberals mocked the tagline, it allowed Ailes to give viewers the appearance of both sides being heard, when in fact he made sure producers staged segments so that the conservative viewpoint always won."

 

I refer you to post #1 of this thread.

I refer you to post #1 of this thread.

 

What for? I'm not defending any channel. We all know what they are. I just dispute this "fair and balanced" moniker that Fox News has touted when the truth is that they aren't anymore fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC. They just have a different slant and agenda.

What for? I'm not defending any channel. We all know what they are. I just dispute this "fair and balanced" moniker that Fox News has touted when the truth is that they aren't anymore fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC. They just have a different slant and agenda.

 

Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.

What for? I'm not defending any channel. We all know what they are. I just dispute this "fair and balanced" moniker that Fox News has touted when the truth is that they aren't anymore fair and balanced than CNN or MSNBC. They just have a different slant and agenda.

 

At least according to Harvard, Fox News is the only fair outlet when it comes to President Trump's first 100 days.

 

An article talking about Fox changing their slogan and a little of the dirt that went on behind the scenes at Fox doesn't change anything the Harvard study said about Fox.

At least according to Harvard, Fox News is the only fair outlet when it comes to President Trump's first 100 days.

 

An article talking about Fox changing their slogan and a little of the dirt that went on behind the scenes at Fox doesn't change anything the Harvard study said about Fox.

 

Why would it? Fox News is the only channel that has positive news stories about Trump.

Why would it? Fox News is the only channel that has positive news stories about Trump.

 

I have no idea what you are asking?

At least according to Harvard, Fox News is the only fair outlet when it comes to President Trump's first 100 days.

 

An article talking about Fox changing their slogan and a little of the dirt that went on behind the scenes at Fox doesn't change anything the Harvard study said about Fox.

 

Fox is still the only fair and balanced channel as far a President Trump goes. Period.

Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.

 

Please explain, when the facts show different, as far as our President goes.

Fox is still the only fair and balanced channel as far a President Trump goes. Period.

 

Right.

 

What we have is Fox in the Middle and everyone else either well situated on the left or so far left they passed Bernie Sanders.

I have no idea what you are asking?

 

You quoted my post saying nothing changes the Harvard study about Fox News. My reply and what I am asking is why would it change the study? The study is pointing out how fair channels are in their coverage of Trump. Fox News has easily and predictably been the most favorable channel for Trump but let's not forget this important piece from the study:

 

 

 

• Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.
  

 

That tells me that the negative tone reading at 52 for Fox News could have been Hannity being mad at Trump for something. The chart in your post only talks about the tone being a negative or positive tone. It says nothing of the topics.

You quoted my post saying nothing changes the Harvard study about Fox News. My reply and what I am asking is why would it change the study? The study is pointing out how fair channels are in their coverage of Trump. Fox News has easily and predictably been the most favorable channel for Trump but let's not forget this important piece from the study:

 

 

 

• Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.
  

 

That tells me that the negative tone reading at 52 for Fox News could have been Hannity being mad at Trump for something. The chart in your post only talks about the tone being a negative or positive tone. It says nothing of the topics.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62325[/ATTACH]

 

And there you have it folks, in red and yellow.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62325[/ATTACH]

 

And even that chart doesn't give a good break down of what the study is actually saying. For example...Fitness for office has Fox News at 33% and Other Outlets at 85%. The study is reporting that only 3% of all US news stations have even reported on Trump's fitness for office while over in Europe with the exception of BBC Trump's fitness for office has been a popular topic. The German station ARD devoted 20% of the coverage of Trump on his fitness for office.

 

So again, to use tone as a measure still isn't wholly accurate when comparing one station against the rest of the world. Fox may have done one or two stories on Trump being fit for office while a station in Germany has done over a hundred.

 

To go even further into what the study is saying they noted that during the Vietnam War journalists began to make the turn to negative reporting. The study says that the goal of journalists became to find out everything wrong with our politicians instead of finding out what is right with our politicians and that change happened decades ago. Trump is the topic of 41% of all news coverage. Three times more than any other president ever. In an age where the goal is to expose and accentuate the negative over the positive and Trump is receiving three times more coverage than any other POTUS ever then it's easy to see why his coverage has been largely negative.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62325[/ATTACH]

 

Let's jump even further into this chart of tone and topics.

 

Immigration-the travel ban is struck down by all courts and is headed to Supreme Court. Nothing positive there to discuss.

 

Healthcare is still a huge mess with upwards of 20 million people who could be uninsured over the next couple of years. Nothing positive there.

 

Personal-Twitter. Nothing positive here.

 

Russia and the election-nothing positive there.

 

Economy-that has seemed to be a pretty positive topic to discuss.

 

Fitness for Office-European topic

 

International Trade-European topic

 

Terrorist threat-mixed bag that can go either way depending on the story.

I'm reminded of an old saw that is as true today as when it was coined.

 

There are three types of lies. White lies, damned lies, and statistics.