Nervous about Muslims? Shhh...Follow

I googled both shows and watched the first video available from each.

Here's gbaji's problem.

What he describes as "news" above: "What you'll see is that when the Fox show has two or four people on a panel, half of them will be liberal and half conservative. When the CNN show has two or four people on a panel, most of the time all of the opinions presented by the whole panel will encapsulate only the liberal half of the equivalent panel"

Is not news.

He does not know what it is.

I saw news on "State of the Union", where the host interviewed a terrorism official in government and asked factual questions, which were replied to. This is like news, although I prefer to get news in written form. The whole business is slow.

You can imagine what I saw on "Fox News Sunday". I learned that America "is a center-right country and you run into trouble governing it from the left" - Britt Hume, to which no counter was offered, in any way.

Now I've found the equivalent on FNS: the host puts forward statements which the official has to reject as untrue. In some cases repeatedly. In one case, the host puts words in the mouth of the official, which yet again the official has to correct.

It all comes back to reliability. I have NO idea if the official or the host is correct. Some of this is simple fact: was the first bomb found by the A or B?

"you can certainly objectively measure which network provides the viewer with a broader set of viewpoints"

Oh dear. I'm not sure gbaji knows what news is.

Let me be clear: I don't care if you listen to this crap. Just don't substitute it for actual news. Which I did find in both shows (took me a few videos on Fox, but you can find it). There is clearly a difference in quality as I discuss above.

I did not describe it as "news". I have, in fact, been very specific that I am talking about "political commentary". I even made a point of saying that you can't compare "bias" in news coverage because that's always going to be a subjective measurement and subject to the bias of the person making the comparison. Thus, I specifically cited cases in which a panel is asked to "comment" or "analyze" some issue, and talked about how the people on those panels and the opinions they give tend to be overwhelmingly liberal on CNN (and MSNBC of course), while the people and opinions on Fox tend to be more balanced.


This can be objectively measured by taking note of the opinions expressed by panels on both networks when talking about the same issue, and comparing them:




Which is what I'm talking about here.



I didn't say it was. I was talking about the commentary and analysis. Since Williams job isn't as a journalist, but as an analyst, that would seem to be relevant to this topic. We're not talking about the evening news here. We're talking about political shows where issues are discussed on the show. Are you confused?



I know exactly what it is. Which is why I very specifically clarified that I wasn't talking about normal news coverage. Do you know what commentary is?



Yes. Great. Fox does that to. However, as I pointed out earlier, any claim to bias is going to be subject to the bias of the person making the claim. You can point to someone and say that his questions themselves are biased in some way, but I can do that to. It's somewhat meaningless, which is why I already talked about this and discounted it.



Comparing apples and oranges there, aren't you? You seriously don't see CNN hosts doing the same thing on their shows? Like I said, that's your own bias. Which is why it's an unreliable method to use to measure anything.



Yup. Which is why this is a bad way to try to measure bias. I can just as easily make claims of bias in interviews conducted by other news outlets. Heck. I *have* done so. I look at the interviews of Palin by Gibson and Couric and see massive bias in their form of questions, the assumptions made in those questions, and the use of "gotcha" tricks.

But when I talk about that, you don't agree with me, do you? Just as I don't agree with you. That's why I was attempting to find an objective way to measure bias. Not in the news coverage itself, but in the commentary.



I know that I wasn't talking about news coverage. Maybe you should read what I write before repeating the same mistaken allegation over and over. It would have saved you a bit of time.




I wasn't. Since the topic started about Juan Williams, and he doesn't do "News", I'm not sure why you're dragging this in from left field. We are talking about commentary and analysis. Try to stay at least somewhat on topic.

Not me. I'm laughing at you for having pulled it with Halperin and then taking a guy with even weaker credentials and hailing him as the liberal voice on Fox. A guy who said he's only playing the part because someone has to do it. So are you saying that Halperin is a valid conservative voice or are you saying that Williams isn't a valid liberal voice because you seem to want it both ways. This whole "panel bias" thing is your baby, not mine, so I want you to explain this.


Again, isn't this what you're doing? In fact, it seems like you're doing a lot of flailing around here to discredit any conservatives on panels on MSNBC or CNN and trying really hard to defend any supposed liberals on Fox. I'd ask why that is but we all know the answer already.

Frankly, I don't really care about any supposed "panel bias" because I'm more interested in whether the people there are qualified to talk about the matter at hand than how they vote. Which is why I brought up Charlie Cook who you immediately assumed to mean I must be calling him a conservative because that's the only way you can see things. In reality, I was just pointing him out as a non-liberal on the panel who you'd probably call a liberal just to preserve your own mindset that MSNBC is ever so bad about their panels. Not like that wonderful Fox!

I see you've given up on saying that MSNBC is a network "which includes only liberals and rarely if ever allows a conservative voice" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and have diminished your argument to crying about the minutia of weekly panelists. That's good because it shows you're coming around (somewhat) to reality.

Wow! Are you still bending over backwards to explain why your type of burger is the healthiest?



Its amazing how far some people will go to defend their atrocious diet!

Political commentary != news.

LOL Smocking crack.

you guys are too serious. No, no, just kidding.