What is Digg?46 Comments
- biguyg3, on 12/27/2007, -8/+22Eat your hearts out, Diggers...
- nthug, on 12/27/2007, -10/+20lol watch the overly left-biased diggers bury this one
- Rabbittt, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9So, balance is determined by a percentage of negative statements made about a particular mainstream candidate? Pretty weak..
- lordmarcus, on 12/27/2007, -9/+16This study has proven methodology dating back to 1988. It will drive the folks suffering from FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome), like Minarchian, into a foamed-mouth frenzy. They'll trip over each other in denouncing this study.
- Navigator7, on 12/28/2007, -0/+7Great point.
Its like here on Digg.
The thumbs up or thumbs down mean very little. - johndi, on 12/28/2007, -3/+9No, but I will politely let you know you are misrepresenting the scope of the study. It compares one half hour of Brit Hume to broadcast news. It completely skips over all the talking heads on all the networks. The study doesn't mean what you think it does.
- war6986, on 12/27/2007, -11/+16People are so used to the extreme liberal bias of the rest of the MSM that Fox looks far right, when in reality it is far more 'fair and balanced' than any other network.
Bury me for telling the truth. - thrikulam, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5Profound. Got anymore?
- inactive, on 12/27/2007, -3/+7How often do you watch Special Report with Brit Hume?
- dunderballer, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5I would be interested in knowing what constitutes a "positive comment" vs "negative comment" as mentioned in the PDF file. It is possible that comments about Democratic candidates are perceived by the public as positive because-get this- they agree with the Democrats more than with the Republicans.
- Mahstah, on 12/27/2007, -14/+17The ignorance virus hits those hardest who get their information about Fox News from sites like Digg. It's been proven over and over that Fox is the the most balanced and if you watched it vs MSNBC/CNN it would be glaringly obvious. This is actually old news but needs to be told over and over to those who have never seen Fox News.
- sbader, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4"These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of all 481 election news stories (15 hours 40 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”) from October 1 through December 15, 2007." From the PDF.
It doesn't look like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and PBS were a part of this study. - inactive, on 12/28/2007, -4/+6The ignorance comes from people who argue by adjectives instead of refuting the article, Minarchian. Please examine your mirror for an example.
- thrikulam, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3And the point of this post was...?
- Spectre74, on 12/27/2007, -2/+4Are all the candidates and their coverage in this study? If so, I hope this trend continues. About 50/50 positive/negative is perfect.
- MissMargo, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
- thrikulam, on 12/28/2007, -3/+4Sure, digg him down since you don't agree. I mean, why should the facts get in the way of your opinions?
- Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Shhhhh(I know-it's a pop quiz, put your hand down)
- johndi, on 12/28/2007, -4/+5Read what they actually evaluated and you won't find it so surprising. It's very limited. They compared the first half hour of Special Report with Brit Hume to the broadcast network evening news. Without O'Reilly and Hannity spewing their hate Fox might actually compare to ordinary tabloid sleaze.
- Spectre74, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2Taken from here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa ...
It should be pointed out that while the Center for Media and Public Affairs claims to be "non-partisan," a review of their primary sources of funding indicates that the overwhelming proportion of their funding comes from conservative foundations. From Media Transparency, they list the following donors:
Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations; Earhart Foundation; ohn M. Olin Foundation; Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations; and the Smith Richardson Foundation
It goes on further to say:
In 1985, Lichter and his wife Linda, with the financial support of such conservative foundations as Scaife and Olin, formed the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a research institute that, while presenting itself as nonpartisan, sought to document instances of liberal bias on the networks and in newspapers. Its reports helped compliment the Reagan administration's efforts to portray the press as out of step with "mainstream America." The impact of these efforts was apparent in journalists' often uncritical coverage of such issues as supply-side economics and the abusive activities of the Salvadoran military, the Nicaraguan contras, and other forces allied with the US in Central America... - charlietootunes, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1The REAL thing to take note of here is that the MSM has made there pick already: Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites. So, folks, if they get their way Huckabee will be the next President. I don't think that would be good for America. Go Ron Paul, go Ron Paul, "We The People"... can surprise them all!
- dan222555, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Do us clear-thinking people a favor and bring forth the evidence that the researchers misrepresented the results of their survey.
- dan222555, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1That's all true but there's no evidence here that the people conducting the study did anything but follow the numbers. They've used the same methodology for 20 years and it's proven effective. Unless you can refute the methodology or prove the researchers misrepresented the results you have no case that the study is anything but accurate.
- sonnybobiche, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1*insert unsubstantiated sensantionalist vaguely leftist claim*
- charlietootunes, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1Thanks for digging further to find this info!
- brycelb, on 12/28/2007, -1/+1Someone needs a tissue.
- inactive, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1This piece of crap site won't load, so I googled and found this.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/media/1675-obama- ... - Drkboarder, on 12/28/2007, -2/+1Oh great, FOX is the most 'balanced' MSM source. Doesn't mean they are actually balanced. Down with them all.
- DeadRooster, on 12/28/2007, -3/+2It's not a typo, it's a lie. Brought to you by a conservative funded attack organization:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_ ... - WiseWeasel, on 12/27/2007, -6/+5I'm actually not too surprised by this, despite my personal distaste for Fox News. While Fox seems to be an equal-opportunity (political party-wise) spreader of disinformation, CNN, MSNBC, and even PBS are often much more biased in a single direction (from the traditional political left). All these sources are nothing but mouthpieces for large moneyed interests, but Fox seems to be less tied to a particular political ideology, and is just generally evil, with no attempt at a moral or political compass (besides appealing to Christians in a general demographic sense, not a specific moral sense). The fact remains that people shouldn't be consuming ANY of these media sources if they want to get humanist or populist angle information, unless it's just to compare with their other sources.
While Fox News might not show as much blatant political bias as CNN, MSNBC, PBS or others, that network is certainly not a trustworthy source of information for anyone in its own right. It may be useful for exposing important stories from time to time, but EVERYTHING they say needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, just like every other major US media broadcaster. - inactive, on 12/27/2007, -4/+2Hijacking the thread to post a working .pdf link...
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Stu ... - Navigator7, on 12/28/2007, -4/+2"Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest"
I'd suggest there is a typo in the works, if not a certain reality. It should read:
Election Study Finds Mainstream Media Hardest Hit if Hillary Is Not Elected.
Lack of bad news causes mainstream media recession. Women and minority journalists hardest hit.
Media changes old adage "no news is good news" to "no good news is news"
Pakistan's Bhutto assassination halts bankruptcy filings of several news organizations.
FoxNews announces it is seeking additional journalists. - Ajajadude, on 12/28/2007, -5/+2Not once have I been on Fox News and seen anything but a slanted viewpoint on any topic, especially relating to politics. With that said, every single news station is like that. Fox is still biased and far from balanced, but maybe just less biased than the rest.
- rcook18, on 12/27/2007, -13/+10Saying that "...Fox NewsChannel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage..." is like claiming to be the tallest person in a family of very short people.
- spucky, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1There is not a single commenter or pundit on Fox that is Progressive. There is no one that gives the other side so that people can make an informed decision. Fair and balanced, really?
- Minarchian, on 12/27/2007, -22/+18I wonder if there is some form of ignorance virus running rampant that we need to worry about.
Fox News and "balanced" should not be used in the same sentence and you're pretty sick with ignorance not to see that. - Navigator7, on 12/28/2007, -8/+3Ooops ... There goes another sexually tapped liberal Digger using 'expletives' to sell socialism.
There is a battle for the hearts and minds underway. Why voice an opinion steeped in disaster? The use of expletives are often found just before failure.
I'll cite a few examples:
o A Redneck.... Hey y'all...watch this! F&&k (Boom )
o An airline pilot.....what the?.... (Insert suitable expletive)
o A skydiver....
o Most of radical Islam facing the American military.
o Gays after the test.
o Gays before the test.
o clinton when he first learned about The DrudgeReport™
o The third grader who drew an awful picture of a gun an was expeled for same.
o Harry Reid trying to get something done this year.
o Me..missing a deer in my van doing 55 with the lights on and the horn blowing.
In the gunfight of values, ideas and history you DiggerKids™ continue to bring expletives, try to use it as a weapon and bring nothing but laughter and contempt on everything you stand for.
Even a little humility might further your cause...try it. - schroeder, on 12/28/2007, -8/+3"Balanced" or not, they're all ***** useless. ***** up that I have to read another country's news to find out about mine. MSM is all wool.
- syroncoda, on 12/28/2007, -11/+5ok so one university says that fox is balanced. just one university. not a group of 5 or 10. just one.
yeah anyone stupid to believe one source of information is going to fall for this obvious misinformation attempt.
go ***** yourselves fox and murdoch. - sbader, on 12/27/2007, -11/+3We're talking about the Fox Network not the Fox News Network right?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is