By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

The Fox effect

There isn’t one, according to a new study that gets an airing in today’s New York Times.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


The NEA’s non-boycott boycott


Wired wilderness


  1. John Galt

    Always overrated; promoted very well by a first class film and television marketing company. It mattered little who the talking heads are/were, and aimed at an audience of double digit IQs. The idea never was to create/generate thoughtful dialogue, but plug into the enraged populace that stewed with the idea it always received short shrift from the balance of our citizenry.

  2. David Amulet

    I think the authors of the study have it right — most people seem to be able to fliter out the most obviously biased news, explaining (at least in part) why news is not seen as more fair and balanced. In fact, it is likely that viewers recognize the polarization of the media and increasingly tune in to the source that offends them least. — d.a.

  3. David Amulet

    I think the authors of the study may have it right; perhaps most people are able to detect when their news is biased and thus do not perceive their news sources as more fair and balanced than before. Not that there is any truly objective news, anyway … it is nearly impossible for anyone to avoid putting a persepctive/spin/POV on anything presented. In fact, viewers probably recognize what they are getting and increasingly will tune in to the source that least offends them. – d.a.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén