That depends. How dogmatic are the other channels? How willing are they to correct errors? How obvious is their bias? How fanatical are their viewers?
Hmm. You might be onto something, but it strikes me that rabid conservatives use the very same tactics. Could it be the choice weasel words and invalidated policies and positions that determine which side of the coin one falls on?
CNN disagrees! Also, ABC hasn't been worth watching since Peter Jennings croaked, NBC since Brokaw retired, and Rather sunk CBS. But they haven't systemically abused journalism like FOX has, so thanks for validating the OP
Another factuality: @T.R seems incapable of addressing the topic. I stopped watching TV news when Jennings died. No one else even comes close in terms of class and straightforward drama-free reportage.
A scorecard like this is basically useless. Unless the organization has evaluated every statement of fact made on the air, it only reflects the sample set of statements that happened to get fact-checked.
I preferred Brokaw myself, but being only 21 when he passed away, I hadn't really had a chance to get a good sense of the Big Three's nuances
Watching people debate FoxNews and MSNBC/CNN is like watching the elderly argue which was better: LPs or 8-tracks.
T.R. can't leave it alone, this is hilarious! @Bickendan, you've caught a fish and there's lots of play in that line.
Yeah, but why even do the scorecard in the first place? Why put out an evaluation you know to be useless?
P.S.: This would be a much better line of argument for T.R to pursue than sputtering uselessly about ... whatever, I've lost track.
For me, Jennings was the voice of news coverage on 9/11 - on-air for 17 hours straight before his first break. Calm, tireless, and not ashamed to say "we're only just hearing this, but we'll try to get confirmation..." Kept people in NYC sane. Of course, he made his bones on the ground during Nam. And for all his years in NY, he never lost that Canadian "a-bowt." One obit that suits the man: http://observer.com/2005/08/jennings-finest-60-hours-as-we-watched-them-2/ Some of his 9/11 coverage is available on YouTube, if you're interested.
By 9/11, I no longer watched all that much network news, and on 9/11 itself, I just watched whatever the other people in the dorm lounge had on, since I was in college at the time. But Peter Jennings was definitely the voice of calm, reason and authority for me during Gulf War I. Along with Bill Redeker, Gary Shepard ("Gary Shepard, ABC News, Baghdad"), and others, he kept up around-the-clock coverage in the most literal way ... I don't think he slept more than 60 minutes at a time for the first 48 hours of the war.
Their "product" is the most popular one. Personally I've stated many times I don't care for the cable shows. I think they are all equally worthless. They do nothing but preach to their own choirs. I just find it hilarious when you guys only think one of them lack journalistic integrity when the majority of your issues are with the nightly talk shows.
Jennings was the best modern anchor, hands down. I like Scott Pelley quite a bit because he reminds me of Jennings, but I don't get to watch the national news shows very often.
Jennings was the newsman of my childhood. For whatever reason my parents always used to watch local news on the ABC affiliate, and World News Tonight With Peter Jennings came on at 5:30. When he died it was almost like losing an uncle or favorite teacher.
That's just citing the ridiculous Politico piece where Politico graded the claims by using incorrect answers.
The problem with using "they're pundits, not journalists" as a defense for FOXNews is that too many FOXNews viewers consider O'Reilly and the rest as journalists. I see it too much on my Facebook feed. I've given up trying to steer those people toward actual news items about the things they hear Bill and the rest bloviate about.
