Evidence of actual bias in Fox News Radio content?

[FloridaBear1776]

Fox News goes out of its way to make the point that while its commentators
give their opinions, its newscasts are "fair and balanced."

A smidgen of evidence to the contrary may be found in a story that I heard on a FNR affiliate concerning the transit strike in Philadelphia.

The reporter, Robin Wallensky, wrote a piece around what sounded like a phone interview with one man who was unhappy about the strikers' not wishing to pay co-pays for health benefits. There was no "vox pop" of a representative sampling of people trying to get around, which in heavily Democratic Philly would surely have included someone who might have seen the union's point about eroding benefits. Nor were there any bites from the union or from the transit agency, for that matter.

Am I mistaken, or is Fox the only non-union shop among the New York-based networks?

Would Robin "Union Buster" Wallensky's piece be an example of bias by deliberate omission, or bias by stupidity (I've seen the other posts about the low overall quality of the FNR product).

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

> Fox News goes out of its way to make the point that while
> its commentators
> give their opinions, its newscasts are "fair and balanced."
>
> A smidgen of evidence to the contrary may be found in a
> story that I heard on a FNR affiliate concerning the transit
> strike in Philadelphia.
>
> The reporter, Robin Wallensky, wrote a piece around what
> sounded like a phone interview with one man who was unhappy
> about the strikers' not wishing to pay co-pays for health
> benefits. There was no "vox pop" of a representative
> sampling of people trying to get around, which in heavily
> Democratic Philly would surely have included someone who
> might have seen the union's point about eroding benefits.
> Nor were there any bites from the union or from the transit
> agency, for that matter.
>
> Am I mistaken, or is Fox the only non-union shop among the
> New York-based networks?
>
> Would Robin "Union Buster" Wallensky's piece be an example
> of bias by deliberate omission, or bias by stupidity (I've
> seen the other posts about the low overall quality of the
> FNR product).
>

Before we go further, was this a FNR newscast, or was it a local cast on an affiliate who happened to use FNR sound?

Just to set the stage.

Bash at will.

 

[dampier]

> Before we go further, was this a FNR newscast, or was it a
> local cast on an affiliate who happened to use FNR sound?

I think the reason this thread is going nowhere is that the one word I think one could use to answer whether or not there is bias in Fox News is:

DUH!!!!!

Any news/talk outlet that uses their newscasts can no longer call themselves a news/talk station. Their credibility just got tossed into the trash can. Most didn't do it for ideology - they did it for money. Like a prostitute. No improvement there.

 

[k9ez]

> > Before we go further, was this a FNR newscast, or was it a
>
> > local cast on an affiliate who happened to use FNR sound?
>
> I think the reason this thread is going nowhere is that the
> one word I think one could use to answer whether or not
> there is bias in Fox News is:
>
> DUH!!!!!
>
> Any news/talk outlet that uses their newscasts can no longer
> call themselves a news/talk station. Their credibility just
> got tossed into the trash can. Most didn't do it for
> ideology - they did it for money. Like a prostitute. No
> improvement there.
>


OH GOD THAT EVIL MONEY AGAIN!

Grow up! Radio is a B U S I N E S S. They TRY to make MONEY. If they can find a way to lower costs, I am sure they will.

Some of our stations uses FOX News reports. We dont use the top of the hour newscasts. For these reports rarely do we ever find any biases.

And even in your own post you said that they "..didnt do it for ideology..". So what is the problem if a station uses FOX? How can a station call themselves a News/Talk station if they use CNN? Oh let me guess... because you think CNN has no bias.

(Stepping off of soapbox)

 

[morningnews]

My station subscribes to Fox News service. They suck. First, the two minute newscasts we carry at the top of the hour are full of paper rattleling (sp?),people out of breath, poor mic technique. Their online actuality feed is also a joke and their newscalls seem designed by someone who never used one.

I don't see much bias....but what I do see is a lot of stories that are more TV stories than radio stories. A train derails across the country with maybe one person killed and Fox is full of breathless reports. Lots of inside the beltway political stories. They just have to much NON-relatable news. President Bush flies somewhere and this is a major story to Fox.

This is why networks are, in my opinion, more and more irelevant. Yes, the other radio networks carry a lot of the same type of story but at least their execution is a lot better.

 

[dampier]

> President Bush flies somewhere and this is a major story to Fox.

This has always been the case. You can be certain the "story of the day" coming out of the White House is also the top story on Fox unless it's missing white women. State radio around the world always leads newscasts with the leader's activities during the day. Fox is the closest thing the current administration has to state radio.

It's not news. Missing white women is not news. Reporting a controversy involving Geraldo is not news. Reporting that the president flew to city x to make the same speech he gave in cities y and z is not news. Having Fox News Channel paid commentators/guests deliver soundbites for the newscast is not news.

But it's cheap and since corporate radio has little respect for the needs of their listeners to provide actual news without the song and dance routine from Fox, that's what we end up with.

I stopped listening to local radio stations more than a year ago. Unless a disaster strikes, there isn't a single commercial radio station in town I waste any time with. I'd rather pay XM or take my portable MP3 player to listen to what I want instead of being fed amateur hour done on the cheap pablum. When enough people like me do the same thing, that great deal they got won't be so great anymore, and then it will be too late.

 

[k9ez]

> > President Bush flies somewhere and this is a major story
> to Fox.
>
> This has always been the case. You can be certain the
> "story of the day" coming out of the White House is also the
> top story on Fox unless it's missing white women. State
> radio around the world always leads newscasts with the
> leader's activities during the day. Fox is the closest
> thing the current administration has to state radio.
>
> It's not news. Missing white women is not news. Reporting
> a controversy involving Geraldo is not news. Reporting that
> the president flew to city x to make the same speech he gave
> in cities y and z is not news. Having Fox News Channel paid
> commentators/guests deliver soundbites for the newscast is
> not news.
>
> But it's cheap and since corporate radio has little respect
> for the needs of their listeners to provide actual news
> without the song and dance routine from Fox, that's what we
> end up with.
>
> I stopped listening to local radio stations more than a year
> ago. Unless a disaster strikes, there isn't a single
> commercial radio station in town I waste any time with. I'd
> rather pay XM or take my portable MP3 player to listen to
> what I want instead of being fed amateur hour done on the
> cheap pablum. When enough people like me do the same thing,
> that great deal they got won't be so great anymore, and then
> it will be too late.
>


Then why are you involved with a radio web site?

 

[dampier]

> Then why are you involved with a radio web site?

Because I can.

 

[k9ez]

> > Then why are you involved with a radio web site?
>
> Because I can.
>


Fair enough. I didnt mean to imply that you shouldnt be here. If my comment came off that way I appologize.