• Pew Research: MSNBC 15% Factual Reporting, Fox News 45%, CNN 54%
    22 replies, posted
[img]http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51471ca3ecad045a6e000020-475-382-550-/1-on-msnbc-opinion-dominates-reporting.png[/img] [url=http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/]Pew Research's State of the News Media 2013[/url] [quote]CNN, which has branded itself around reporting resources and reach, cut back between 2007 and 2012 on two areas tied to that brand—in-depth story packages and live event coverage. Even so, CNN is the only one of the three big cable news channels to produce more straight reporting than commentary over all. At the other end of that spectrum lies MSNBC, where opinion fills a full 85% of the channel’s airtime.[/quote] There's a nice breakdown of statistics available in the article.
breaking news US Media sucks shit at reporting and is just a propaganda box for <Political party here> coming up next, we have figured out the molecules in the sky combine to make a blue hue color seriously for a non-biased and factual reporting just go to some out-of-country sources that arn't russia today. Or you can watch the daily show and the colbert report.
Does it have anything about how factual the "factual" reporting is? I think that'd be the main concern, it's easy to tell when someone's giving their opinion, but harder to tell when someone's bending or making up their "facts" unless you're doing research into it yourself.
[QUOTE=Rents;39979029]Does it have anything about how factual the "factual" reporting is? I think that'd be the main concern, it's easy to tell when someone's giving their opinion, but harder to tell when someone's bending or making up their "facts" unless you're doing research into it yourself.[/QUOTE] The study placed something in the category of "factual" if it was reported in a way that was not opinionated or commentary, so technically a reporter could report on incorrect or cherry-picked information and it would still be factual reporting under this study.
Maybe they should take the word "Factual" out, it's confusing.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39979188]Maybe they should take the word "Factual" out, it's confusing.[/QUOTE] No. As long as they say something backed up with facts, it's factual. Even if they "twist it".
[QUOTE=Wii60;39978964]breaking news US Media sucks shit at reporting and is just a propaganda box for <Political party here> coming up next, we have figured out the molecules in the sky combine to make a blue hue color seriously for a non-biased and factual reporting just go to some out-of-country sources that arn't russia today. Or you can watch the daily show and the colbert report.[/QUOTE] Every time I go to the US, I'm just blown away by how [I]terrible[/I] news programming is there. It's all just pointless crap and completely focused on local events, instead of the bigger pictures. Even CNN, which I had watched like every day in the cafeteria of my University, focuses on just random shit that doesn't even matter. During some big Middle Eastern events during last year, they decided it was more important to play a piece on Anonymous for Christ's sake.
This is why I read the news on CNN although I'm sure there are better sources still
As a non-American, I am genuinely shocked that MSNBC is so low on the list. I always thought Fox was the go-to place for opinionated sensationalist bullshit.
I wonder what that number is for the BBC and Al Jazeera.
Did they account for how much Fox News says "some would say?" As in: "The DOW Jones rose to its highest level in a decade. Some would say that the administration may be falsifying data in order to artificially boost the score to make the Socialist Hitler president look better. We report, you decide."
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;39979301]As a non-American, I am genuinely shocked that MSNBC is so low on the list. I always thought Fox was the go-to place for opinionated sensationalist bullshit.[/QUOTE] Even Fox's reporting is opinionated, sensationalist bullshit, it's just not as easy to see. Lies of omission, cherry picking sources, cutting off opponents, etc. After watching BBC and Canadian media it's hard to watch US media, they're so bad. My favourite was how we Canadians were being told by our media that the US market was tanking before 2008. My American clanmembers had heard nothing about it, and refused to believe me. The whole world knew America was tanking before Americans did. It was quite sad to watch.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;39979301]As a non-American, I am genuinely shocked that MSNBC is so low on the list. I always thought Fox was the go-to place for opinionated sensationalist bullshit.[/QUOTE] As someone stated earlier in this thread "factual" news aren't necessarily unbiased. The angle you choose on a story means as much, or even more than the story itself. You can say pretty much everything with a story if you do it right. And really, almost all US news stations are shit - you're better off watching Al Jazeera or something.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;39979301]As a non-American, I am genuinely shocked that MSNBC is so low on the list. I always thought Fox was the go-to place for opinionated sensationalist bullshit.[/QUOTE] it's a well kept secret that while we talk shit about fox we go back and masturbate to msnbc. we all know how terrible it is, only a couple of people are worth watching. the rest just go on and on and on and on, it's prime time ranting channel for lieberals
It's bad when the colbert report has about the same amount if not more news than your big stations.
Once again, Fox topples nearly all. Excellent bastards know their shit only halfway.
Except Fox News isn't factual, it's entertainment.
This is kind of misleading. It's a measurement of percentage of airtime devoted to what kind of show. It's like how much of their schedule is daytime Headline News stuff, and how much of it is opinion shows like Rachel Maddow. It's not an empirical measurement of which network is more "factual". Especially Fox, since there is little to no discernible different between their opinion shows and their regular news. I wonder, with the MSNBC measurement, do they lump all the prison shows in as "commentary/opinion"? Because that's how you get to that percentage.
perhaps its surprising that Fox isn't #1 here because the others give opinionated bullshit stories that more people here agree with. just about everyone on facepunch hates Fox, but a lot less people hate MSNBC and CNN, so naturally its easier to point out the shit in Fox while the shit in CNN and MSNBC seems more correct as its usually more agreeable.
It's no lie that MSNBC has gotten a lot more biased, probably because the Democratic Party felt they needed their own FOXnews-esque propaganda channel. Maybe the fact the NBC already has NBC news that they feel they can use MSNBC in a more opinionated form.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39979380]As someone stated earlier in this thread "factual" news aren't necessarily unbiased. The angle you choose on a story means as much, or even more than the story itself.[/QUOTE] Case in point: CNN's recent "oh no those poor rapists!" debacle recently. I can tell this study is going to lead to a lot of people saying "Fox news is just as true and unbiased and factual as CNN! Pew said so!" even though this study is about "reporting vs commentary", not "factual reporting vs biased reporting".
[QUOTE=Zeos;39979226]Every time I go to the US, I'm just blown away by how [I]terrible[/I] news programming is there. It's all just pointless crap and completely focused on local events, instead of the bigger pictures. Even CNN, which I had watched like every day in the cafeteria of my University, focuses on just random shit that doesn't even matter. During some big Middle Eastern events during last year, they decided it was more important to play a piece on Anonymous for Christ's sake.[/QUOTE] Part of that is because the average american is fed up with hearing about that part of the world. We're tired of it, we stopped caring three or four years ago, we don't want to watch it. Since the news networks only report on what people want to hear they're going to ignore that part off the world as well. If you wanted to see more worldly news reports in America you'd have to somehow stop the news networks getting funded based on ratings, because until then they're only going to report on what gets them the best ratings. If that means a piece on Anonymous airs instead of news on Syria they'll talk about anon.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.