I love Fox News. Reading it helps me stay in touch with my conservative roots, and observing their bias allows me to relish in enjoyable levels of contempt and self-righteousness. Today, I found gold. I would like to bond with all of you by collectively pointing at Fox News, shaking our collective heads, and smirking.
As you might have heard, Hillary Clinton fainted and suffered a concussion today. Fox News ran this headline on their main page,
BENGHAZI HEARINGS: Clinton will not testify before Congress on Libya, purported concussion cited
Nothing is false, but you should read the article for laughs. After stating what was reported about Clinton’s fainting, the article states eerily, “However, the agency did not say when the fall occurred.” The rest of the article is about how she really needs to testify and that John Kerry is letting her off the hook.
There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton’s fall is merely purported, or had anything to do with Benghazi, yet “Benghazi Hearings” appears on the front page of Fox News, bold and in all caps, which has the well-understood framing affect of implying that the rest of the headline has to do with the Benghazi hearings. This is a strategy that people use to, for instance, sell you stuff you do not need—a classic trick. In this case, the title states and implies that the Benghazi hearings caused Hillary to pretend to faint and have a concussion. It is true that the concussion is “purported.” The media did not see it. However, by saying it is “purported,” they imply that it is not true.
CNN’s headline was “Hillary Clinton Faints, Has Concussion.” ABC News said “Hillary Clinton recovering after fainting, suffering a concussion.” Politico stated what the fallout of the concussion would be by saying, “Hillary Clinton won’t testify on Benghazi after fainting, concussion.” However, Politico did not imply the hearings caused fake concussing, or caused the fainting at all, or implied in the article that Clinton should get her shoulder pads on and push through the pain. Also, Politico reports how news affects politics; it’s their job to discuss the political fallout of school shootings, wars, terrorist attacks, etc. Finally, all of these articles talked about how Clinton’s concussion would affect her work, including Benghazi hearings. Fox news was the only one to imply without any evidence that Clinton’s ideology may have caused the news—and to do so in the title and story image.
Does anyone know if studies have been done trying to objectively measure the bias at Fox News? It seems that it would be fairly easy to demonstrate, but it would take some money to run the study. Why don’t liberal think tanks or super pacs do that?
I have not seen the video of my very very short interview on Dr Drew’s Show yet. My connection was cut off for a second and I did not get many words in. But they are sending me a video, which I will post soon with my extended comments. There are also a ton of other topics and cool ideas that I want to discuss on my blog. Thanks for all of your wonderful comments on Why Wars Start and Positive Theology Will Change the World. These are two of my favorite ideas/projects lately and I am pleased how much excitement they have generated. Thanks for reading! I love your comments and try to respond to all of them.