January 6, 2012

Can we dress these boobies in clown suits, and chase them with sticks?

This is the laugh of the day. Being "balanced" gets you an "F". If that doesn't encapsulate the Lefty mind, I don't know what does...

Study: Is Fox Too Balanced? - Washington Whispers (usnews.com):

....That's a conclusion one might reach from a first-of-its-kind study in the authoritative International Journal of Press/Politics of how Fox, CNN, and MSNBC cover the issue of global warming. The bottom line: Being balanced and providing supportive and critical views of global warming is actually biased because it gives critics a louder voice. Worse: Fox covers global warming about twice as much as CNN and MSNBC combined, meaning those critics get much more airtime, another sign of bias....

..The authors also looked at the opinions of guests. Here Fox again out-balanced the competition. Of Fox's 149 guests, 59 believed in global warming, 69 didn't, with the rest someplace in the middle. Of CNN's 53 story guests, 41 were "climate change believers" and nine were "doubters." On MSNBC, 11 of 20 guests were believers.

The study acknowledges that Fox was the most balanced from the numbers perspective, but the network still gets an F. The reason, it says, is because viewers are influenced by what they see, and seeing more critics of global warming makes more viewers critics. "The more often people watched Fox News, the less accepting they were of global warming. Conversely, frequent CNN and MSNBC viewing was associated with greater acceptance of global warming," the study concludes....

Question. Who—exactly—gets to dub the "International Journal of Press/Politics" as "authoritative?" I've never even heard of them.

Posted by John Weidner at January 6, 2012 7:29 PM
Weblog by John Weidner