Jon Stewart is an entertainer and should not be considered authoritative on any matter. Having said that, all media is biased and none should be considered credible on their own. One should consider all sources and obtain first hand information when evaluating an issue. Media outlets offer second and third person accounts of events even when broadcasting video or audio of a portion of an event or set of statements.

My opinion is that Fox News has lost no more credibility than any other media outlet has - they have all stayed the same with me.
Permalink | Report

The O'Reilly Factor, unless this has changed, is the most watched cable news shows in the U.S. So, to answer the second part of your question, yes.
Permalink | Report

They don't have much credibility with me, but it is clear that they have a lot of credibility with millions of Americans. I suspect that their ratings will grow now that the Democrats are in power, just as MSMBC's ratings grew the longer the Republicans were in power. FOX shills for the Reps and MSMBC shills for the Dems. If I want mostly unbiased news, I watch CNN. It is interesting that on election day, they were the most watched cable news channel. When something vitally important is happening now, most people change the channel to CNN.
Permalink | Report

Loaded question. I'm always floored by the number of people on this bandwagon. Fox may be right-slanted, but their NEWS COVERAGE is the same slap-together hard-line bull that every other new source pumps out. They all draw from the same well, they all report the same garbage, and they all do a half-assed job of it. I know this because I was a journalism student and because I've spent time comparing Fox to other sources. I even get Fox's and MSNBC's email headlines and news stories to see how they compare. Know what's interesting? They're almost exactly the same.

Fox's bias is in its ANALYSIS, which is NOT news. The opinions of Bill O'Reilly, hypocritic as they may be (I have a lot of respect for Stewart, but no matter how you cut it, the man is a comedian searching for comedy), are still just opinions. They are not news. Whatever O'Reilly says comes through the O'Reilly filter. You watch to hear what O'Reilly thinks. That's why his name is on the show.

Fox's actual news coverage, the headlines and news stories, are more often pulled from the general pool of stories in which all the anchors are standing around with all the writers from the newspapers and all the AP reporters, waiting for the "story" at whatever press conference, taking the same notes and pretending like they're doing their jobs. The problem with today's journalism isn't Fox News' bias, its this 24-hour instant gratification no-intelligence reporting that grabs the surface comments and hurries home. They ALL do that. Just make sure we get the dirt on Joe the Plumber...

Fox is no better or worse than any other organization. They choose to be up front about how they feel about the news, which is sort of nice, in a way. But side-by-side, this doesn't color their coverage any more than anyone else's.

Also, what does one producer's child porn conviction have to do with reporting the news? Did anyone notice an abundance of pro-child porn news on Fox?

Like I said before: loaded question.
Permalink | Report

Since it's not possible to lose something you never had to begin with, I don't think Fox News has lost any credibility.

As for the producer getting busted for child porn, I find it's pretty unreasonable to hold an entire company responsible for the non-work related actions of a single employee. Sure, the guy's a foul excuse for a human being, but there are countless other things to criticize NewsCorp for, such as the bias and hypocrisy shown in the links that were initially provided.

Trying to pin this producer to Fox News as some sort of indication of what the rest of the company is like is pretty sleazy in and of itself and is really just an exercise in schadenfreude.
Permalink | Report

Guilt by associations is not any reason to paint a news organization as not credible, other wise ABC, NBC, CNN, MSN and all the rest would not be credible. Many of there workers have been arrested for crimes.
How many producers are at Fox, Do you know. On bad apple dose not mean the entire organization is bad.
Source(s):
Common since.

Permalink | Report

This question and the answers crack me up. Asking if a news show has credibility but using a comedy show hilighting a pundit show does not really address the "News" component of the question.

It's basically all shlock but FOX has as much credibility in the news department as any of them.

My younger brother was getting really depressed a couple of years ago and decided to see what would happen if he stopped watching the news for one month. After a month he found that he was no longer stressed out an depressed. He still got his news online and in print so he wasn't a total ostrich but he felt so much better that he rarely watches the news anymore.

Not a bad idea.

I go to MegasimpleNews.com now to watch my news videos - I can pick out the clips I want to see and I don't have to wait to hear what the teleprompter readers have to say about any of the issues and I don't have to sit through all the commercials. It's great.
Source(s):
http://www.megasimplenews.com

Permalink | Report

I trust Fox News more than any other news site for balanced news. There are stories on Fox News that I never find on other sites when I look for them. Of course the pop culture articles are unnecessary, but if I want to keep up on all the news, it's Fox News.

For instance, did you hear about Obama slamming Biden on any other news site?
Source(s):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/10/did-obama-throw-biden-bus/

Permalink | Report

Sure they are creditable. Any time they start a segment with "AP is reporting that...". They are at least creditable to the end of that sentence.

I think that overall their reporting on things is highly slanted but they are reporting new things; not just waiting to hear it from some other source. So if you know the slant then you can make it creditable. It must more important what you do with the information than whether or not the original source is slanted.

If you see something said by O'Reily and then go repeating it like it's gospel then your an idiot. You should always check multiple sources. Life is no different than the high school reference paper everyone had to write. If you have only one source you FAIL.
Source(s):
High School English

Permalink | Report