That's a new for me; I just defended FOX News

[rumborak]

(in case you can't discern it, the poll adds up to more than 100%)

rumborak

[ehra]

Yeah, that sort of thing gets me. Pretty sure a big(ish) deal was made about a similar poll they did in the past.

[Orbert]

The problem then is that the results are displayed in a pie chart.  The only time you use a pie chart is when the results will add up to 100%.  That's the whole point.  The numbers should have been displayed as a bar graph and with whole numbers, not percentages.

So Fox is still doing it wrong, but not for the reasons most people might think.

[Scheavo]

Pretty sure a big(ish) deal was made about a similar poll they did in the past.

In the other case, it wasn't multiple choice.

[Ultimetalhead]

FOX news does plenty to embarrass itself on its own. I don't think the pie charts are the concern.

[hefdaddy42]

The problem then is that the results are displayed in a pie chart.  The only time you use a pie chart is when the results will add up to 100%.  That's the whole point.  The numbers should have been displayed as a bar graph and with whole numbers, not percentages.

So Fox is still doing it wrong, but not for the reasons most people might think.

This exactly.  They still fail, even when they succeed.

[kirksnosehair]

Fox News 

Fox is to "news" what Milli Vanilli was to "vocals"

[SnakeEyes]

Soooo....

Anyone remember DAN RATHER and the ELECTION OF 2004? 

[El Barto]

Soooo....

Anyone remember DAN RATHER and the ELECTION OF 2004? 

Yeah,  I do.  Two problems.  One,  incompetence isn't the same as intentional deceit, and I have no idea which of those the Kllian documents falls under.  Two,  CBS apologized and fired several people involved in it.  I've never heard of anyone at FOX being sacked for demonstrating bias.  There really isn't much similarity between the two. 

[SnakeEyes]

You can't be serious.  Dan Rather and his network CLEARLY had it out for George W. Bush.  They WANTED him to lose the 2004 election and wanted to get that story out as quickly as they could.  This wasn't "incompetence," it was bias.  Their hatred of George Bush made them air a story that wasn't authenticated and they got caught.  Not only that, but as recently as 2008, Dan Rather STILL was saying he didn't do anything wrong.  So, please, give me a break. 

edit..

I'll say that it was imcompetence AND bias.  (edited a few days after I originally posted this reply)

[El Barto]

Wanting him to lose and rushing to get an unauthenticated story on the air is not the same as knowingly airing a bogus story to hamper his prospects.  It still falls closer to incompetence, I think.  Assuming of course that's what happened.  For all I know you're right and they actually were doing the latter.  I'm just not going to automatically assume anything.  CBS's track record gives me no reason to assume the worst.  If CBS starts to demonstrate a systemic culture of biased reporting, like FOX,  then I'd certainly change my stance.

[SnakeEyes]

You are really missing the point.  It doesn't matter whether they knew the authenticity was in question.  What matters is the REASON for why they aired the story and that was to make George W. Bush look bad.  Had they cared about real journalism, they WOULD have checked their sources more, but they didn't.  Why is that?  BECAUSE THEY HATED GEORGE BUSH.  That's the bottom line.   

[El Barto]

W's dodgy service in the TANG was news long before Dan Rather got a story.*   Any outlet would have investigated that.  A better one would have authenticated the documents.  CBS might well have been in a rush to publish it because they hate the guy,  but that still reeks of incompetence; more-so than bias, IMO.  As I've said,  stupidity as a result of bias is a far cry from deliberate misrepresentation as a result of bias.  I hope you can see that.


*For that matter, it still is regardless of the authenticity of the Killene papers.  If I recall, the evidence still points to him being away partying and politicking during his service. The Killeen papers were merely an attempt to make it look like somebody actually gave a shit. 

[Sigz]

Maybe it's just because I'm a result of the socialist/communist/progressive/neo-monarchist Kalifornia university system (and am moderately drunk right now), but rushing to release a story because it agrees with your opinions is very different from the bullshit Fox pulls on a regular basis. Whether it's blatant photoshopping of journalists they don't like or even simple wording like calling Cindy Sheehan an 'alleged' gold star mother - you know, because whether or not her son died in Iraq is somehow questionable - they've proven themselves time and time again to be an untrustworthy source of news and information.

[SnakeEyes]

W's dodgy service in the TANG was news long before Dan Rather got a story.*   Any outlet would have investigated that.  A better one would have authenticated the documents.  CBS might well have been in a rush to publish it because they hate the guy,  but that still reeks of incompetence; more-so than bias, IMO.  As I've said,  stupidity as a result of bias is a far cry from deliberate misrepresentation as a result of bias.  I hope you can see that.


*For that matter, it still is regardless of the authenticity of the Killene papers.  If I recall, the evidence still points to him being away partying and politicking during his service. The Killeen papers were merely an attempt to make it look like somebody actually gave a shit.

It was bias AND incompetence.  But, the bias was there, hence my point.