The debate "CNN lies more than Fox" was started by
November 18, 2015, 10:03 am.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 10 arguments, liberalssuck posted 2 arguments, bigB posted 3 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 12 arguments to the disagreers part.
liberalssuck, benhawthorne, Alex, bigB, DannyknowsItAll, fredtyu, Tien, lets_hear_your_argument, AGustafson and 5 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, historybuff, PsychDave, omactivate, Sebsworth, AngryBlogger, barman, Cato, YMayy and 4 visitors disagree.
let's talk about the George Mason Study then
Here is Politifacts' statement:
"Actually, PolitiFact rates the factual accuracy of specific claims; we do not seek to measure which party tells more falsehoods.
The authors of the press release seem to have counted up a small number of our Truth-O-Meter ratings over a few months, and then drew their own conclusions."
politifact distanced itself from the George Mason Study because it was flawed. So I would say the George Mason Study was biased in the conclusion it drew.
The punditfact study I cited was an internal study that rates the networks. Some of their criteria
Q: What fact-checks are included in your tallies for each network?
A: We include any fact-check of content that appeared on that network where the speaker was a pundit or paid on-air talent.
Q: What fact-checks are not included in your tallies for each network?
A: We do not include fact-checks from politicians or official spokespeople for politicians or the government.
Q: Do you subdivide each network by claims made by conservatives and liberals?
A: No. The network scorecards were designed to provide you a way to measure the relative truth of statements made on a particular network.
"we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn’t have a cable network equivalent, so we haven’t fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much."
So while you could make the argument that the number of errors reported may be slightly skewed, and you could make the argument that MSNBC's numbers are probably about the same as Fox News' numbers, it's a stretch to say that CNN is likely just as inaccurate as either of the networks.
According to Pew research
Fox News: 55% pundit reporting and 45% factual reporting
CNN: 46% pundit reporting and 56% factual reporting
since Fox News has more time spent on punditry than CNN, it has more claims that can be evaluated. I could find no source that differentiated the networks by factual reporting time. Since over 55% of Fox news is dedicated to punditry compared to CNN's 46% the number of claims made by Fox news is undoubtedly higher meaning that even if they made the same number of errors during the pundit's time, in a 24 hour period, Fox News would still make more errors due to the time allotted to pundits.
the study shows that either
1. conservatives are a bunch of liers
2. politifact is bias
even if conservatives Lie the 1/3 ratio I'd a huge amount
OK, I thought it conflicted with your earlier statement so I just wanted to clarify.
Are you saying that because the George Mason University study showed GOP lying 3x as much as Democrats in politifact evaluations that this is proof positive that politifact is biased? I just want to make sure I understand your argument fully here before I respond.
I already cited my sources ealier in this debate
sorry I ment wrong, not right.
I don't know if I understand that sentence Alex. Are you saying politifact rates liberals as making false statements 3x as often as conservatives?
Can you cite your source please?
Also, if that is the case, then the argument about politifact being biased is sort of mute and only strengthens the argument that fox news has more errors than CNN...
it is a fact that Politifact decides conservitives right 3 times as much as liberals
Liberalssuck....which argument did I misrepresent or invent? Please learn the definition of a term before using it.
Alex, please read my statement again and try a more reasoned response. Otherwise, point out where I said politifact treats non-facts as facts. I have said multiple times that they don't evaluate opinions, but they do evaluate empirical claims within opinions. So stop trying to make a strawman out of my argument and either challenge my argument on a logical basis or present your own sources that conflict with mine and my argument.
so your saying politifact looks at non-facts and evaluates them as facts?
Alex, until you form a reasonable argument I'm just going to ignore you on this subject. You need to do a bit of research and figure out some sort of evidence for your claims.
Have you ever looked at politifact and seen how they evaluate claims? What they do is look at the statistics which a person claims. So if fox news says Obamacare will cost x amount, they will look at economic studies to see if that figure is correct, if it is incorrect, they will look at where that number came from and evaluate the source. So when someone says obamacare will cost x, but x is much greater than the typical analysis of the cost then they will go on to say that it comes from an analysis using y parameters. They then will go on to evaluating the source to see if the facts of the source were misrepresented. If the source checks out, they will assign a partially true, or mostly true since they ignored to mention certain conditions. If they completely make up a number or use sources that are not trustworthy (some pundits have used numbers found in chain emails) that claim is then given a value of false, mostly false, or "pants on fire".
Now if CNN comes into the debate and says raising taxes by x% on y number of people, politifact will crunch the numbers and present a analysis on the statement by a similar process. Using economists, research studies, and other sources to verify their findings.
What they can't analyse is which claim is made by a news team and which is made by a pundit team since there is no disclaimer prior to the program. It would make sense that pundits make more errors since the vetting process of information is different than that of news teams. So when you give more air time to pundits than news teams, it would make perfect sense that the number of errors over a given period of time would be higher than those of an organization which ha more time dedicated to news.
This also means no one is accusing fox news of a system wide conspiracy of misinformation. It simply means that fox news pundits do a worse job of vetting their information than CNN news does. I would expect to see similar rates of errors were we to compare news to news. This is because MSNBC has similar numbers to fox news and also has similar pundit hours Vs news. However, empirically speaking, fox news makes more errors per hour of TV than CNN.
Alright, Fox News says ObamaCare will cost a bunch of money. That is fact (socialized medicine does cost money). CNN says it won't cost that much money if the 1% pays more taxes. So how would you differentiate what is fact and opinion? Pundit fact would say Fox News is lying and is an opinion and CNN is stating facts on the subject. How could you look at it and say it's bipartisan and only looking for facts. In my opinion it's open ended, both news programs are stating facts in their own agenda.
this is how they evaluate them. "conservative=wrong, liberal=right"
No, I'm saying "Obama sucks" statements aren't analyzed. Claims like Obamacare costs "x" amount, or immigrants are costing America "y" amount, or shootings are up/down, can be. Pure opinion can't be analyzed as being true or false. If you look at punditfact and politifact and familiarized yourself with the types of claims they evaluate and how they evaluate them, you would know this. You should really inform yourself before speaking out about something you don't seem to have too much knowledge about.
a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs says that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats.
politifact isn't bias....
you said "politifact can't seperate the two"
so they must analyze the Obama sucks statement. unless you want to change your argument. I would hope politifact can seperate "Obama sucks" an opinion, from a fact. but you said they cant.
Also, if you agree with the statement that CNN lies more than fox, where is your empirical evidence? Anecdotal evidence is not a good enough standard, especially when the source is third party. Am I just supposed to believe everything Alex says that someone he knows said? Please provide your sources otherwise can't I just accuse you of being biased since you provided no evidence.
That's not how politifact analysis statements Alex.... You should know better than to spout such nonsense.
politifact looks at fox saying "Obama sucks" says "that's a lie" and fox gets -1. CNN says "Obama is not a bad pres" politifact says "I agree" and cnn gets a point.
No one is saying fox news requires their pundits to lie. And yes, one person's experience is anecdotal at best.
Now, the reason why is say that those numbers are immune to the criticism of bias is because of statements put out by politifact itself. It states that the analysis is skewed due to the nature of the networks. Fox and MSNBC tend to have a largely opinion based program, while CNN has less pundit time thus eliminating the errors made by pundits. Punditfact cannot, and has stated that it cannot conduct a complete analysis of news content because the amount of time alloted to news Vs pundits differs from network to network. Also, a lot of the networks do not have a disclaimer on what is news and what is punditry and so politifact and punditfact can't really separate the two out.
The challenge of bias is usually that punditfact and politifact lump in pundit comments along with news, and some claim this skews the numbers.
However, the numbers clearly show that by stats alone (ignoring the type of program I.e. Punditry or news) fox news makes more errors than CNN. Now, it should be pointed out that MSNBC isn't far behind fox news which should further illustrate the point that pundits are the primary reason why the stats look so badly for fox when compared to CNN.
Alex's connection and example is legitimate. That person is a representative of that particular network. If the network required him or her to lie all the time, do you think an honest person would still work for them? (and now a stupid response because you don't want to answer the question)
"the numbers between CNN and Fox News are too large to attribute it to bias" What! Are you retarded? (that's a legitimate question). You seem smart, however you say some of the dumbest things I've ever heard
Alex, punditfact is a branch of politifact. Politifact has been criticized for liberal and conservative leanings. The numbers between CNN and Fox news are too large to attribute it to bias. The MSNBC numbers are much smaller and may be interpreted as bias, and I would be OK with conceding that point.
Your personal connection to Fox news is irrelevant since your one connection may not be representative of the network as a whole. That is why we have to use independent sources and studies because anecdotal evidence is a poor standard of evidence.
he just gave you a study of fact checking. lies aren't a matter of your politics view. the statements they say are factually correct or not. that study shows that fix news is factually wrong most of the time. so that seems pretty conclusive that your statement is incorrect.
Show me where I made a strawman argument...i presented no opposing argument which I could have possibly misrepresented. Know the definition of a term before using it
Stop making strawman arguments Sosocratese
it depends. if you are liberal fox lies more, if you are conservative CNN lies more.
I'm guessing punditfact is liberal.
I have connections to one of the anchors on fox, and I know him to be an honest person who is fair, balenced and unafraid.
Your claim seems to be false as per the actual numbers.....Do you have any evidence which would corroborate your claim?
Punditfact, a branch of Politifact, has put together profiles for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News detailing just how honest each of these networks are. And while it’s obviously not a completely comprehensive profile (it would be nearly impossible to fact check every single thing said on each network) it’s a decent measure of the honesty of each. And what do you know, Pundifact found Fox News to have only told the truth 18 percent (15 of 83) of the time for the statements they checked. And even of that 18 percent, only 8 percent of what they said was completely “True.” The other 10 percent was rated as “Mostly True.” A staggering 60 percent (50 of 83) comments were found to be either “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire.” The other 22 percent were rated “Half True.” Essentially well over half of what Punditfact has fact-checked on Fox News has been a lie and only 18 percent has been deemed factual.
To compare, CNN was found to have been honest about 60 percent of the time, while only having 18 percent of their comments found to be false.
As for MSNBC, they were found to have been honest about 31 percent of the time, while 48 percent of the comments they had fact-checked were deemed untrue. So while MSNBC’s numbers aren’t exactly worth bragging about, they’re still far better than the “fair and balanced” Fox News