FOX News isn't fair and balanced?

^ Oh, so now we're giving credence to majority consensus...

Otherwise, pretty much what I'd expected from you. We've had these roundabouts several times before as I recall.

^When it comes to matters of science, yes, I do give credence to consensus.

Which is not to say that consensus can't be wrong. It obviously has been numerous times before.

However, as I understand it, the scientists on global warming who go against the consensus are generally funded by oil companies and the like.

Perhaps government and other environmentally minded groups should fund the global warming skeptics as well, thus insuring a credible argument.

Pay a shill, you get shill reviews.

--

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a media watch organization.

On its website, CMPA claims to be politically neutral: "The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media. CMPA election studies have played a major role in the ongoing debate over improving the election process." [1]

However, as shown below, CMPA's claim to be non-partisan is incompatible with the fact that nearly all its funding comes from conservative foundations.

CMPA also runs the Statistical Assessment Service as a front organization.
Contents

* 1 History
* 2 Funding
* 3 Staff
* 4 Attack on PBS in 1992
* 5 Attack on Fahrenheit 9/11
* 6 Support for 'The Reagans' miniseries
* 7 Contact
* 8 Related SourceWatch resources
* 9 External Links

[edit]
History

The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by S. Robert Lichter and Linda Lichter [2]. According to Salon.com, "the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson" [3].
[edit]
Funding

CMPA's claim to be 'non-partisan' is undermined by an analysis of its sources of funding. Information provided by mediatransparency.org [4] reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations. The funding information, covering 1986-2002, lists the following donors:

* Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $267,000 from 5 donations
* Earhart Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations
* Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations

Thus, out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

* John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
* Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
* Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit." [5]

As at August 2004, the CMPA website contains no information about the Center's sources of funding.
[edit]
Staff

* S. Robert Lichter - President. Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to the Fox News Channel [6], and a former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute [7].
* Matthew Felling - Media Director

[edit]
Attack on PBS in 1992

According to a Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) research memo [8], a 1992 study of PBS by the Center for Media and Public Affairs concluded: "On the social and political controversies addressed by PBS documentaries across a full year of programs, the balance of opinion tilted consistently in a liberal direction."

However, FAIR points out that the study excluded, on rather vague grounds, some of PBS's most conservative output. This included "talkshows such as William F. Buckley, Jr.'s Firing Line and Morton Kondracke's American Interests, news reports like the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, and business programs like Louis Rukeyser's Wall $treet Week. The Center claims this is to ensure 'a group of programs that were similar in style and content, to maximize the comparability of judgments.'"

According to the FAIR memo, these shows were the ones "most often criticized for having a conservative slant - programming that takes up more of the PBS schedule than the documentaries that the Center's study is limited to. Firing Line and American Interests - programs underwritten by the Center's biggest funders--provided approximately 50 hours of programming a year between them."
[edit]
Attack on Fahrenheit 9/11

In June 2004, the CMPA's media director, Matthew Felling, waded into the debate on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 with the following comments: "Of course, this movie is going to be Michael Moore's version of what he thinks President Bush is up to and what he thinks his capabilities are," he said. "We already know that he does not think that he is really cut out for the job. So Michael Moore will pick out everything he can to support that argument and we can only hope that Americans are well-versed enough in the successes of the Bush administration that they can balance it out on their own." [9]
[edit]
Support for 'The Reagans' miniseries

Despite the fact that the funding for the Center for Media and Public Affairs comes overwhelmingly from conservative foundations, and that its president has strong conservative connections, CMPA employees do manage to express some liberal-leaning viewpoints in media interviews. Matthew Felling criticised CBS' refusal to run "The Reagans" miniseries back in the fall. In the Denver Post, he said 'The conservative movement wanted to spin one for the Gipper and succeeded. Then the paper continued, saying "Matthew Felling of the liberal think tank Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington says 'Without a doubt, I think CBS mishandled this by succumbing to the pressure instead of spinning it into 'Watch the movie that some don't want you to see,' Felling said. "They could have sexed it up. At the end of the day, the dollar spoke and advertisers pulling their support made the decision for them."
[edit]
Contact

Center for Media and Public Affairs
and Statistical Assessment Service
2100 L St NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037
STATS line (202) 223 3193
CMPA line (202) 223 2942
Fax (202) 872 4014 Web: http://www.cmpa.com

Speaking of paid shills,

Meh. They're all personas designed to get ratings and sell books. Some are more entertaining than others, and a few even dish out nuggets of truth among the torrents of crap. But in the end, they're all characters.

And if Juan Williams or Mara Liasson did a study concerning FOX, I would have the same expectation that they divulge that they are paid FOX consultants.

^ And I admitted that the guy should've done that. I posted those merely to show that Fox had consultants (long-term consultants at that) from the other side of the political spectrum.

The editorial / opinion shows on FOX may have a bias, the news / events as they happen is straight up. And don't pretend that CNN or MSNBC don't have their op / ed hosts who are in bed with the DNC either.

If you believe that to be even remotely possible for any network or news channel whatsoever, you're a perfect tool for ideology.