If there are FoxNews advocates out there who are able to refute the argument made here against Fox News, I would like to hear those arguments. I for one don't watch ANY cable news, so I haven't seen these. Boy are these clips ugly though.

O'Reilly certainly does not come across well there, though it's disputable as to whether or not it is him saying "You son of a bitch." The other clips appear to be from morning talk shows, which are not as formal (think The Today Show), or are from people who were guests on Fox shows (e.g., the comment from Kate Obenshain was from Hannity & Colmes, on which she was a guest). It would be far more persuasive if Carl Cameron and Brit Hume were depicted. However, to say that this makes the case that Fox News is somehow biased against Obama would be to play into the hands of those who think all of the "mainstream media" has been biased against George W. Bush. There is little doubt that you could find Olbermann railing against W., guests on Hardball saying vitriolic things about Bush, edit them together, and make an MSNBC vs. Bush video. The madrassa "smear" would have a counterpart in the CBS "fake but accurate" document story, so again you could make the case that CBS was biased against Bush for the last eight years, as was the N.Y. Times.

Making such an argument, however, is fallacious, no matter who is doing it. People are so clever with editing that they can make a Stephen King horror film look inspirational: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA. A loose collection of clips--the parts--does not by itself demonstrate that the entire network in the case of Obama or the mainstream media in the case of Bush--the whole--is biased. In one sense, everyone is biased, but it takes a lot more than fancy editing to prove that that bias is systematic. What such arguments really amount to is poisoning the well. If the mainstream media bias meme poisons the well, then anything point they raise against Bush, no matter how legitimate, can and will be dismissed as media bias. The "Fox is biased against Obama" meme similarly poisons the well. It insulates Obama from any point Fox may raise in the future, regardless of its merits, and thus is not unlike Rush Limbaugh attacking liberal ideas because they are "liberal."

I don't watch cable news either since I only have a set of broken rabbit ears on the top of my TV. Brave New Films has produced an anti-Fox News documentary and continually acts as a watchdog against the network (I get their e-mails ever since buying their anti-WalMart documentary). So their stance against Fox News is well-documented, but I suppose the questions remains as to how well-founded their stance is.

I think that's a fair statement from Timbo. The issue with so many of the cable networks is that they have these pundit shows (O'Reilly, Olbermann, etc.), but don't necessarily sell them as such. From what I've seen of them, neither O'Reilly nor Olbermann label themselves as reporters, but they both like to break stories as well as opine on the day's events. Actually, both like to make themselves news stories, but that's for another time. (Newspapers have op-ed pages and the issue is usually how much those opinions leak into the general news.) What I would like to know is whether some of those reporting on Obama were news readers and not just guests on pundit shows -- not that it excuses making fallacious claims. Next, I wonder if someone on Fox News ever contradicted those making the madrassa claim or aired a retraction.

O'Reilly looks ridiculous there and even assaultive. Seeing these clips makes me glad I don't have cable news. Did populism win and America just lose in Iowa? Yeesh.

I have some recollection of watching FoxNews in the lobby of the hospital that seemed like solid news. My impression then was that they had regular journalists doing work less "access hollywood" than what I'd seen on CNN.

Why, though, would a network allow all of this hyperbolic opinion? These are not meet the press round tables with columnists with opposing vies. This is highly one sided political rhetoric. The fact that these figures were able to speak in the tone they were speaking suggests that Fox has deliberately created an environment where such highly one sided political rhetoric is allowed and valued.

Much of this issue centers on what would count as sufficient evidence that there is systematic bias at Fox. Tim speaks of "parts to whole" issues. Taking parts and presenting them to stand in for [or represent] a whole is precisely what metonymy does, and is also what language in general does [a single word represents a meaning that is a combination of several words]. There is always more language that we can supply to represent a position, and language can accumulate ad infinitum. The parts will never outnumber the whole.

So I reiterate my question: what would count as sufficient evidence to show that there is bias at Fox? Would Greenwald need to show the entirety of the interviews from such guests on Fox? And while editing here is being used as a critique or justification for broad-brushed skepticism against Greenwald's critique, what are we to make of the editing that goes on at Fox or any other news outlet for that matter? The news is a constant yammering of cut-off statements between host and interviewee, time constraints that bring discussions to a close prematurely, etc. There is not a "whole" to speak of in these time-slots that are put into place merely for the making of sound byte rhetoric. So what Greenwald or any artist using time-based motion images has to work with is not really a whole which Tim alleges is misrepresented, but a situation where one must use parts of parts, not parts of wholes.

This is not to say that truth cannot be achieved through a parts of parts production. Take even a sports recap. When the Boston Celtics beat the Detroit Pistons the other night, ESPN and several other news companies showed primarily the 4th quarter in their highlights, and these outlets used a mere three layups to reference the 20 points that Glen Davis scored to turn the game around and into the Celtics favor. Here is an instance where a part is presented [three layups by "Big Baby" Davis] to represent a whole [the fact that the Celtics took over the game and won]. Is it comprehensive? No. Is it true? Well...

To state things plainly: I just am not sure to what extent Kate Obenshain Griffin's statement, even if taken out of context here in the video [and by "taken out of context" I mean that it is a part lifted from a larger series of statements], could be redeemed by offering more of that said context to refute the sentiment conveyed by the part. And this would Greenwald's point in essence if challenged on his editing.

Fox and others have embraced the more talk radio style of public rhetoric -- notice in the video that some FoxRadio hosts were being interviewed on the television show. You're right that it doesn't resemble Meet the Press or even Fox's Fox News Sunday -- which is a bit more punchy than the other networks' Sunday shows, but still far more reserved than the pundit shows. Vitriol and grandstanding is easier to understand and classify than nuanced arguments and detailed discussion about specific policy. It's more entertaining to hear someone claim that another person is stupid or an idiot or evil than to hear someone calmly state that they think the other person's idea is wrong and then give a detailed answer as to why they think that way.

I share your concern that Fox News would allow those ideas on the air.

For what it's worth, Tim Russert's Meet the Press is one of my Sunday musts. I love his confrontational but respectful style with politicians.

I think Tyler is on to something with respect to a blurred line between pundit shows and basic reporting. The clips on the madrassa and the flag are taken from a morning talk show in which Fox people sit around and talk about the news of the day. They sort of mix straight reporting with their own opining (e.g., Obama refused to wear a flag pin=straight reporting; "it reminded me of Clinton"=opining). With the exception of Cavuto (he has a Fox show), the remainder of the commenters were guests. The guy (at 2:20) who says that Obama and Hillary are "both basically communists" is shown in split screen with another guy whom we never hear speak. My guess is that he supports Obama and had an opportunity to make statements to that effect, which, of course, Brave New Films edited out because it didn't fit their narrative. Thus, to say that Fox engages in "highly one sided political rhetoric" is to fall victim to the propaganda advanced by Brave New Films. You see "one side" because that is all they give you. The same could be done in an anti-Olbermann video where all his one-sided rhetoric is portrayed to create the impression that his network has an anti-Bush agenda. Your impression about Fox appears dated, however, since in recent years they've gone very Access Hollywood. But they also have serious reporters (e.g., Carl Cameron) and an anchor (Brit Hume) who do straight reporting. That Brave New Films was unable to find a clip which showed their bias is quite telling. That they have to use clips from guests, rather than Fox's main reporters and anchors, refutes their claim.

"So I reiterate my question: what would count as sufficient evidence to show that there is bias at Fox?"

Probably something similar to that which shows that there is bias at Brave New Films, which, according to its about page (http://bravenewfilms.org/about) boasts of partnerships with:

ColorofChange.org · MoveOn.org · Democracy for America · Sierra Club · Working Assets · ProgressNow.org · People for the American Way · Progressive Majority · Crooks and Liars · Campus Progress · Veterans for Peace · Campaign for America's Future · True Majority · The Nation · Hip Hop Caucus · Progressive Democrats of America · SEIU · Daily Kos and over a hundred more

I'm not sure to what extent the fact that the video uses primarily guest comments "refutes" the overall position the video upholds.

To believe such qualifies as a refutation relies on a deeper view: that of Fox News having no idea what those they invite to interview believe, and a further assumption that those doing the interviewing have absolutely no clue what responses will be offered by their guests. There is quite a lot of briefing and collaborating going on in the press, and if you don't believe this to be the case... ...As Bill states, the fact that those being interviewed are so consistently hyperbolic and to the right in their thinking tells us much.

I don't think many would dispute that Olbermann is biased and is one of the must enthusiastically anti-Bush commentators of our time, or that his network has an agenda against Bush. He generally has aggressive critiques, and what anyone who opposes him has to do is attack his positions, not the obvious fact that he is biased. In any event, the topic here is whether Fox has a similar proclivity to bias and an agenda going the other way. They claim to be unbiased, and it just flat isn't true. Again, what would count as evidence? Should we boil it down to statistics? How many of those interviewed per capita on Fox News are right slanted in their thinking? Is Hume a righty? Is Blondie a righty?

In 1987, when the Dodgers' Al Campanis offered statements about African Americans that were racist in nature, the team that ushered the great tradition of finding talent from all over the world, that has prided itself perhaps more than any organization in gathering great players from all races and creeds from all over the globe, fired Campanis within 24 hours.

Now, when Ann Coulter used the words "On Our Side" in this clip [http://youtube.com/watch?v=1MGPifkPXQ0], referring to Republican candidates in the next general election, Fox News being the great "beacon" of fair and unbiased news that they are took no action against her. Fox News not biased? No agenda? Preposterous.

Again, in terms of how things are lining up from my perspective, your qualification for a video by Greenwald to achieve objectivity is that he doesn't take things out of context, that he doesn't offer parts rather than wholes, the precise view you held against my Bush video a while back. To do this is propaganda. However, you did not address the unequivocal fact I raised that all news, including Fox News reporting and interviewing is "a constant yammering" of parts and not wholes, sound bites, cut-off sentences, and prematurely ended analysis due to corporate time constraints...before we even get into the concept of agenda[!]. Therefore, since Greenwald is held to such a standard of providing wholes or else he is deemed a propagandist, then likewise so must Fox News be as well for the same reasons. It therefore boils down to what is being said, not whether there is bias in the media. ['What is being said' needs to be determined as true or false].

"As Bill states, the fact that those being interviewed are so consistently hyperbolic and to the right in their thinking tells us much."

So consistently? Fox broadcasts 24 hours a day, yet the picture that a film company with partnerships to rabid left-wing organizations paints in less than three minutes of clips is representative of Fox's coverage of Obama? They indeed backtracked from the madrassa story (not calling it "fake but accurate," mind you), but their airing of it does not make the rest of their coverage somehow biased by default. Suggesting that it does is, as I said before, poisoning the well.

"what anyone who opposes [Olbermann] has to do is attack his positions, not the obvious fact that he is biased. In any event, the topic here is whether Fox has a similar proclivity to bias and an agenda going the other way."

So the issue with Olbermann is his position, but with Fox it is their bias? If Fox's bias were to be conceded for the sake of argument, would you require that its critics attack its positions, or would the charge of bias be enough to dismiss Fox News outright?

The interesting thing about this discussion is that I appear to be the only one here who has watched Fox.

"Fox News not biased? No agenda? Preposterous."

Diran, if you insist on misrepresenting the points I am trying to make, I will leave this discussion. I ask you to read & consider what I said this morning:

"In one sense, everyone is biased, but it takes a lot more than fancy editing to prove that that bias is systematic."

Thanks for being civil, Boys (I write on the Kitchen Computer as I take grilled cheese sandwiches off the stove.) Please be gracious to one another and compliment one another as often as possible. This is a fundamentally difficult question for you guys to discuss, but I trust you can handle it better than Congress can handle our fiscal problems.

Sorry, I don't have many moments to moderate.

Nor should you have to moderate. I will be bowing out here. Suffice it to say, given my experience editing video, I can state with incredible confidence that, if I had live feeds of every network, broadcast or cable, I would be able to edit together a three-minute video "proving" that each one of them has a bias for and against each candidate. In other words, the method by which Brave New Films argues that Fox has a bias against Obama can be used to prove other networks to have a similar bias in either direction against any candidate.

Well, while we are tooting our own horns here...Given that I have had various videos in film festivals all over the world and have a feature film set to debut next fall, I can state with "incredible confidence" that one cannot make a bacon cheeseburger if all there is to work with is dough, tomato sauce, pepperoni, and cheese.

You have just revealed that you place too much confidence in the idea that one can do absolutely anything with meaning in the medium of movement images. Such a claim is really saying something extreme for me, because I do believe in taking things out of context to make a point, but there are some limitations where the rubber band just can't stretch that far. You are basically arguing that within the medium of found film, one can argue, for example, that the universe is both infinite and finite [one of Kant's antinomies], and I find this logically untrue.

Therefore, the found objects available to us, be they tangible materials or in the form of video, can indeed be recontextualized and reintegrated to make certain claims, but discourse will be necessary to substantiate such claims. Greenwald's or otherwise...

Some clips of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CE_GoklEosQ