CE Week #5: “Fox has surrendered its claim to credibility” Oct. 5th
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Perhaps you are familiar with an old saying: even a broken clock is right twice a day. I’ve found that maxim valuable as I wade through the recent hand-wringing and recrimination among journalists and their critics over the fact that most mainstream media were slow to pick up on the story of corruption at ACORN.
New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt (a former colleague) and Andrew Alexander, his counterpart at the Washington Post, are among those who have asked whether that laggard performance reflects an unfortunate deafness to conservative media. As one of my readers put it, “There is a lot wrong with ACORN, and Fox was the only channel talking about it.”
I might join this pity party if I thought Fox a credible news source. I do not. Consider just a few of the network’s and its hosts’ recent lowlights:
June 3 – In a column Bill O’Reilly says he never called murdered abortion doctor George Tiller “a baby killer.”
This is wrong. PolitiFact.com has documented 24 instances, just since 2005, of O’Reilly referring to the doctor as “Tiller the baby killer.”
June 10 – Glenn Beck asks, “Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We’re the only country in the world that has it.”
This is incorrect. Canada has it, as do 32 other nations.
June 18 – Sean Hannity says that under the cash for clunkers program, “all we’ve got to do is … go to a local junkyard, all you’ve got to do is tow it to your house. And you’re going to get $4,500.”
This is false. The program requires the car to be drivable and to have been registered for at least a year.
July 22 – Beck says the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.”
This is untrue. The claim is based on a textbook John Holdren co-authored in 1977 that analyzed and “rejected” such coercive means of birth control.
July 31 – Kimberly Guilfoyle claims the government will get total access in perpetuity to the computer of any participant in the cash for clunkers program who signs up at the government Web site, cars.gov.
This is inaccurate. FactCheck.org reports this claim is based on a security notice required of “car dealers” who access a secure area of the Web site.
Let me make this next point crystalline: Every news organization from CNN to CBS to Miami’s Herald to L.A.’s Times gets it wrong on occasion, and every single report risks reflecting the biases – political, racial, religious, class, educational, geographical, generational – of the reporter. This will be true until the day the news business is no longer run by human beings.
But Fox is in a class by itself. In its epidemic inaccuracy, its ongoing disregard for basic journalistic standards of fairness, its demagogic appeals and its blatantly ideological promotions it is, indeed, unique – a news source in name only. That’s not just an opinion: A 2003 study found Fox viewers more likely to be misinformed than those who get their news elsewhere.
Yet because this network that cries wolf, this network of birthers, terrorist fist bumps and tea party promotions, got it right for a change, mainstream media should wear sackcloth and ashes for their failure to take it seriously? No.
What missing the ACORN story suggests is a need for mainstream reporters to develop more sources among conservative activists and bloggers. But Fox forfeited any expectation of being taken seriously by serious people when it made itself an echo chamber less concerned with reporting news than with affirming the ideological biases of its viewers.
When faced with a broken clock, after all, the person who wants to know the time has two options: Try to guess when the reading is right …
Or get another clock.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His e-mail address is lpitts@miamiherald.com.
A. I learned a little about ACORN from this article. I had never heard of it before so I decided to look it up and found out it stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Mainly, I learned that FOX is an unreliable news source.
B. I’m not entirely surprised that FOX would be handing out false information to the public. I mean, how do we know when a news station is being honest with us? When we watch the news, we are expecting the truth. We want to know what is happening in the world around us. Like Leonard Pitts Jr. stated, FOX seems to be more concerned with affirming the ideas of their viewers than telling us what we really need to hear. The fact that news stations can get away with this kind of falsehood is what bothers me the most. After reading this article, I imagine many readers will be slightly more wary about which news station they choose to listen to. I believe that our news stations should reflect their viewer’s best interests but they should also maintain honesty in their stories. How can we, as the people of America, take a stand on politics and the government if we do not have the right information? The reality is the news will always be controversial and interesting whether FOX tells lies or not. Why make things up in the first place?
C. I would like to know how FOX news is getting away with misinforming their viewers.
A. Pitts claims that Fox News is an unreliable source and is flawed. It reports biased and untrue information that is un-credible and unreliable according to Pitts. He says despite the fact they caught the problem with ACORN they haven’t suddenly become credible, which is why no smart person listened to them. Pitts backs his information with studies and examples of Fox News screw ups and concedes that every news station gets it wrong occasionally but Fox is by far worse.
B. While they may have gotten it wrong a few times, they also get it right too. Pitts makes it seem that they are always wrong and rarely right but this is untrue, and like he said everyone gets it wrong sometimes. I don’t believe they are completely unreliable, and lying may be wrong but I don’t think that one person, or even a few, discredit the entire station. Most of his facts came from websites and who’s to say that those sources are reliable? They may not be so now it’s one unreliable source’s word against the other with no way to know who’s right. Fox does give some generally good information and I believe for the average person it’s not a bad station to watch. However I believe watching many news stations is best, to help reduce bias and get more accurate information.
C. I’d like to see how many times Fox got it right. They may not be as un-credible as Pitts claims. Also, I’m not clear on the whole ACORN thing and would like to learn more about the issue.
A. What did you learn by reading this post?
I learned that my dad loves reading “Leon Pitts”. Interesting…
B. Thank goodness somebody finally gave me a reason to hate Fox News that did not make me sound like a whiny, liberal, hipster. No offense to self-entitled hipsters. I would hate to give you more ammunition for your self indulgent, ranting blog.
My biggest beef with Fox News is not that they are mostly Conservative. In fact, there needs to be more balance when there is a clear liberal bias in the media. I have a problem with the fact that Fox News seems to have picked the most obnoxious, uninformed, radical people in politics and given them each an hour to scream their opinions (Amen! Kautzman). And that is what these anchors do, by the way: they don’t give facts; they give opinions. Fox News surrendered any shred of dignity they had when they replaced – oh, I don’t know – delivering the news for ratings garnering blow-hards.
C. What more do you want to know about the topic?
Well I know what news not to watch. Now I would like to know the best news program I can watch to get the unbiased facts.
A. I learned that the ACORN corruption coverage was belated among several credible news sources. I didn’t know that it was slow coming, even when the corruption was no longer a secret; I thought that when I heard about it the story had just broken.
B. I could go into this whole ACORN scandal thing and give my honest opinion on it but I suppose that wouldn’t really be focusing on the article at hand, this article talks about the inaccuracies of the Fox News Channel, something I am also well versed on. To anybody that is not a complete joke Fox IS a complete joke. It is a hilarious compilation of silly characters and sillier stories. Watching it brings me back to the good old days of first grade story time, where we tackled the issues of big bad wolves and magical fairy godmothers, you know, the fake and fictional stuff. The stuff that isn’t real. When I am in a bad mood Fox is where I go to a) get a good laugh or b) blow off some steam but writing angry emails that will never be read. Fox is stupid and I like how there is something out there that I can simply categorize without weighing the gray area. There is no gray area with Fox, they are simply stupid. Looking at the ACORN thing, I completely understand why no other news sources took Fox seriously and that makes me more confident in those networks as a whole, although I do wish they had other more conservative sources that they could have pulled from.
C. A question I have is kind of broad but don’t get me wrong, I do not intend to mock. Where the hell does Fox get their news? Like who are their sources and why do they continue to use them if these said sources provide false information time and time again?
A. After reading this article, I learned of the specific instances of news distortion presented by Fox. Though it is common knowledge that the news is incorrect once in a while, it was the first time I have heard of the instances concerning O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and Guilfoyle. It was also the first time I have heard that Fox is the only channel consistently following the issues concerning ACORN. I would have thought it was a large enough issue for most stations to follow thoroughly and not just produce a report every so often.
B. I think Pitts’ opinion of the inaccuracy of news is correct, but I disagree with his view that Fox is “in a class by itself.” I do not doubt Fox’s faulty facts, but face the truth: What media source does not frequently misinterpret or misstate facts, if only for the purpose of getting their point across more thoroughly? Though Pitts specifically targeted Fox, it is worrying to think about how much filtered news we are fed each day without even realizing it. Also, he stated that a poll found that “Fox viewers are more likely to be misinformed than those who get there news somewhere else.” Is that somewhere else supposed to include Internet sites of questionable sources? In addition, he stated that Fox has been the primary source faithfully following the ACORN case. When considering the other news stations that do not follow ACORN, I think it would be better to be misinformed once in a while rather than being uninformed. Lastly, he accused Fox of being more concerned with “affirming the ideological biases of its viewers.” This itself is a biased statement because there are indeed both biased liberal and conservative media outlets all over that float by unaccounted for. How would labels be stamped across such sources if they did not communicate news in a way that makes it biased? Though it is not right for media to skew facts, it is inevitable in the political world.
C. Is there any estimation of the percentage of news we hear each day that is false or misinterpreted by the source? How much of what we hear is true as opposed to false?
This is article is true yet surprising to me. News stations do get information wrong from time to time, but why just target FOX? I’m sure that FOX is not the only station that has been getting their facts wrong but at the same time FOX keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. I feel that maybe this article should have talked about some of the other stations that are guilty of doing the same exact thing, that way not only is FOX a targeted station but other viewers can be informed if their news is wrong or missing a key point. That’s why it is important to have more than one source to rely on.
I have a lot of questions for this article in particular. What is ACORN? I vaguely remember talking about this in class but I don’t remember all of the details. Also, why doesn’t the station manager or somebody talk to the trouble making shows on the network if they continually get their information wrong? It doesn’t make sense to just let them go on with their same routine because viewers will start catching on and the networks ratings will go down as a result.
A. I thought this article was really interesting. It seems that rarely “news” corporations are called out on their biased reporting. I did not know that Fox picked up the story about ACORN, while other sources were slow to report about it (this is probably because I avoid Fox News.) I thought the fallacies shown by Pitts, Jr. were really interesting and informative, proof that some of what is shown on the news is blatantly wrong. I also liked the author’s analogies to the broken clock.
B. It was nice to see someone actually call out Fox News, because if I ever happen to watch Fox for even five minutes I want to scream from their obnoxious anchors and guests. I agree that it is not a very legitimate news source, as far as having an even spectrum and unbiased news source. I also agreed that Fox is more worried about pushing ideological agendas that actually reporting news for the greater good of society.
C. I would like to know who actually watches Fox news, for example what is their target/main demographic. Also, I want to know how legitimate they are considered to be by their fellow news corporations, such as MSNBC. Also, are their standards in the news industry for bias? For example, how far can a news service push the limits?
Well apparently no news media is to be trusted. Click the Link or rather links http://www.drudge.com/news/125040/false-report-cnn-fox-news-spooks-dc
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0909/658325.html
http://wwww.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/11/780629/-CNN-Reports-FALSE-Security-Breach-StoryOmits-FALSE-Reporting-Angle-From-Own-Story
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910070003
Weird how both a conservative and liberal network can both be wrong at times isn’t it? Rather shocking. Well, the facts get smeared and the truth gets smeared and then we have people like this that write articles to do nothing but increase the left wing view and destroy the only conservative news station on television any more.
A. I learned that there are many documented facts that FOX and its components have gotten wrong. I also learned that a survey found that some FOX viewers are more uninformed than those who get the news from different sources. Also, Pitts describes how FOX spends too much time making their viewers’ opinions succinct, and in the process loses the ability to even report the stories.
B. What I can say certainly about FOX news is that it is the only news network my father will not refuse to watch. They claim left and right to be “fair and balanced,” but I don’t think that any of the media can advertise as either of those anymore. I do think Bill O’Reilly has a lot of good points, but he is also biased from time to time. An opinion is a bias, and I think every talk show host has an opinion. No matter what news you listen to, read, or watch, there is likely going to be an element of bias. In addition, I think that all news stations should spend more time covering the details, and not try to add anything more than fact into the process of reporting.
C. I would like to know what, specifically, Pitts means to suggest when he claims that FOX has an “ongoing disregard for basic journalistic standards of fairness.”
A. I hadn’t realized that Fox News was the only news network that covered the ACORN issue, but it doesn’t really come as a surprise because ACORN is a group that is supported by liberals while Fox is a conservative news network. They probably hopped on it as soon as the issue came up. Also, I hadn’t realized how misinformed the anchors and reporters who work for Fox are. I realized that a lot of the news was already skewed by their conservative viewpoint (and when is it not by any news source?), but it doesn’t help when their reporters don’t know what they are talking about.
B. It’s baffling that a main-stream news source is so grossly ill-informed. I don’t understand how they can be inaccurate so often if they’re supposed to be fact-checking when they research stories. Yes, other news sources get their facts wrong every once in a while, but they generally correct the mistake. Fox reporters, on the other hand, deny being wrong. Case-in-point: Bill O’Reilly. It’s hard for him to deny calling Tiller a “baby killer” when he has done it multiple times. And assuming that nobody had kept track of it, it is an undeniable fact that we live in a digital world. There are videos of everything. This just goes to show that you cannot rely on only one source for your news. Bias and misinformation being so prevalent, it’s no wonder Americans have no idea what’s going on.
C. I would like to see a comparison between the number of mistakes made by reporters from other news networks and reporters from Fox. Also, is Leonard Pitts, Jr. a liberal? It sure would seem like it.
A) I will tell you what I did not learn from this article: I did not learn that Fox news is an un-credible news source because anyone who is logical and educated would know this just from watching it. Although I was very aware of the blatant fabrications that have originated from that “news” channel, I enjoyed reading the individual examples of contributors giving clearly biased “news” that in some cases qualifies as propaganda.
B) I agree wholeheartedly with Leonard Pitts Jr. that Fox News is an un-credible news source which pounces on any opportunity they get to tarnish the image of the Democratic Party. I believe that overall there is a slight liberal bias in the media but Fox is just so absurd and so biased that it can hardly be regarded as legitimate. I don’t find it surprising at all that people who watch Fox news were found to ne miss-informed because they are fed nothing but bias with a clearly conservative agenda.
C) What I would like to know is what conservatives who watch the channel think of it. I want to know if they are willing to admit the undeniable agenda-oriented reporting. I know my grandparents watch it and say “it is the only place where you can get the other side”, but I refuse to believe that any other channel is as blatantly lenient towards one side as Fox.
A. I already knew that Fox news is an unreliable source of information. However, this was mostly personal opinion and backed up by only the few stories I had read. I now know exactly how unreliable they are, with the quotes from O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, and Guilfoyle compared to actual facts and statistics.
B. I agree with the author that Fox news should not be taken seriously. The network abounds with some of the poorest excuses for journalists I have ever seen. Their sensationalist headlines make it obvious that they intend to entertain and enflame just as much, if not more, than they intend to inform. While it is disappointing to me that allegedly “liberal” networks were slow to pick up the stories of corruption in ACORN, it doesn’t really surprise me that Fox began running the story at first notice. Fox has a clearly conservative agenda, and while other networks may have a liberal one, I would argue that none make their agenda as painfully obvious as Fox does. It is sad that there are so few news sources that will report on anything of interest, across the board, and that instead you either have to search for a reliable source (which in my opinion tend to be foreign) or read two takes on one story and try to balance them yourself.
C. I am interested to know the ratings and number of viewers for each network. I’ve heard that Fox is the most watched news channel, but I’ve never seen the numbers. I think it would be interesting to see how many Americans get their news from which sources, and how that could affect their views.
The first thing to consider if fox news is really bias and just pushing there agenda is the American media, or even the international media, as a whole. As I tried to state earlier “All news is biased. Case closed.”
Since the media is fueled by people, it is quite fallible, and subject to inherent bias.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/broadcast_news/bw_bias_in_the_news.cfm
It is even susceptible to personal or corporate prejudice than other institutions because the media has a myriad of agendas and goals that it seeks to fulfill, not highest on the list being to give Joe Six-Pack the tried and true news. Therefore, it is key to this debate to consider the base level of bias that exists within the media in general, and then ask ourselves: “Does Fox News simply meet with our expectations of bias, or does it exceed them so much as to warrant separate labeling and censure?
The second consideration must be of the definition of “bias” itself,I quote it here:
“Influence in an unfair way; a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.”
In order for Fox to be truly and unadulteratedly biased, it must prevent its viewers access to objective consideration of an issue or situation. To label a media outlet as having this much power scapegoats the laziness of the American public on a news station that exists primarily to earn ratings, and robs citizens of their agency and obligation to seek out truth. Fox, nor CNN, nor the Washington Post, nor the New York Times, nor any other media outlet prevents any citizen from objectively assessing the world around them.
Surveys across the board show that the American public is well aware of the doubt that they should place in even “the most trusted news source” (a logo that CNN has touted since its inception). A 2005 poll showed that two-thirds of the American public disagreed with the statement that “the news media try to report the news without bias.” 42% of those polled strongly disagreed with the statement.
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
Bottom line: American citizens are clearly aware of the inherent bias in media. They have an obligation as free, first world citizens to correct inherent bias by seeking their information from multiple sources.
Hence, the above goes to show that Fox News is not actively preventing anyone from accessing an objective viewpoint. If they were the only news station, or one of a few in a tightly controlled oligarchy of media, then maybe.
In conclusion, Fox News, in properly weighed consideration, does not deserve censure or label outside of any other American media entity.
In Response to Dillon Fischer: Everyone knows that FOX has a conservative bias. What you and everyone else seem to be forgetting is that news networks like CNN spend more time trying to convince people like you not to watch FOX than they do actually spreading news. Also, in Pitts’ article, I noticed that he listed a group of people he deemed incorrect. However, he listed COMMENTATORS. Their job is to give their opinions, not straight up facts. Pitts said nothing about those who do show only facts, like Megan Kelley or Shepard Smith. Also, the list of innacuracies are minor exagerations over what really happen (remember, in a commentary where that is the job of the commentator). Rediculously liberal groups like CNN and MSNBC have traditionally lower ratings because they rarely have conservative guests on the air. FOX, on the other hand, always strives to have an equal number of conservative and liberal guests per year. While they do have an agenda, they are much less fond of flaunting it around town than CNN.
I also noticed a few inaccuracies in Pitts’ article. For example, he said that John Holdren does not support compulsory abortions or sterlizations of drinking water. However, a direct quote from his book “Ecoscience” shows that: “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society”. His books are full of quotes like these, and they tread a fine line between describing and condoning these policies. The next time you want to look at one news media for “falsities”, check to make sure you aren’t the one full of baseless facts.
“Fox Has Surrendered its claim to credibility”
Comment to Kyle Hicks
Good luck finding unbiased facts Kyle. Every news channel, radio talk station, and newspaper is biased. Even this article is taking things out of proportion. For example, when Sean Hannity says that under the cash for clunkers program, “all we’ve got to do is… go to a local junkyard, all you’ve got to do is tow it to your house. And you’re going to get $4,500”, anyone who listens Sean Hannity knows he has a kind of sarcastic sense of humor. He wasn’t actually saying you could do that, rather criticizing the cash for clunkers program.
This is not to say Fox doesn’t get some inaccurate information every once in a while. Everybody does, and as a more conservative person I’m fine with saying that Fox isn’t perfect. So in order to get accurate information I suggest you read lots of different articles, and watch a variety of news stations to find out what is correct information. Otherwise, you never know when you’re being told false information.
In response to Jenna Alaskar. To answer your question I went through reports over Fox New’s sources. Time and again Fox stated that they used people with different outlooks for interviews i.e. conservative and non-conservative. However if Fox News chose these people to give their opinions, then cannot Fox chose people that will give the information that Fox wants the public to hear? In the numbers Fox choose more Republicans and conservative then Democrats and non-conservative. So here’s an interesting list of interviews “http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=136″.
In response to Sarah Fullmer in response to me:
I realize that it is impossible to read, watch, listen, etc. to any news without hearing some bias, and I do already try and get my information from a variety of sources, but I was more asking: Is there a source that actively tries to be unbiased? Is there a program that favors defending facts rather than opinions?
In Response to Devon Preedy: ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN is dedicated to forming organizations committed to social and economic justice. They work to allow people to play a more active role in our democratic system. There are over 400,000 thousand families that participate in about 75 cities across the United States. Since ACORN was founded in 1970 they have reached many milestones. In 2000, ACORN registered 100,000 new voters. In 2007, ACORN began to organize in India. Since this recent video scandal, ACORN has become more determined to continue their work and not back down.
I am surprised that you are not suprised that FOX is lying and providing false information. You, and other like you, show little faith in our broadcastings ability to preform the truth.
In addressing your statements, the newscasts lie to begin with because our nation has become so needy for information as soon as possible. When America wants information, and we have an abundance of ways to recieve it, everyone wants to be the first to broadcast it. This leads to false information being provided because the reporters don’t take the time to double check their stories. I know this isn’t right, but it’s what happens. Plus, they want to have the “best” stories (yes, true or not).
In addressing your question, stations such as FOX get away with providing this information greatly because the public is uniformed the information is false. We do except to hear the truth, as you said. Tell me, did you know that FOX broadcasted all the untrue statements mentioned above before reading this article? Probably not. If the public doesn’t know the information is false, how is anyone suppose to fix it?
In response to Bree Ferris:
I’d like to argue on Part B of your blog. It’s nothing too huge, but something that was bothering me.
You stated: “Pitts makes it seem that they are always wrong and rarely right but this is untrue, and like he said everyone gets it wrong sometimes.” Pitts never stated anything like this. Yes, he admits that no single thing can be accurate 100% of the time. What he’s aiming at, however, is how FOX has allowed itself to become so unreliable, both with its blatant lies about previous stories and statements and with its facts. Every news station is going to have something unattractive about it, whether it’s how the male anchor of Channel 4 news can hardly read the telepromter to save his life or whether it’s the reliability of FOX.
In response to Dillon Fischer:
You were wondering what the ratings were for FOX News and other more reliable news sources. Fox news has an average of 1,365,000 viewers on an average day. Other news sources have a noticeably smaller number of viewers from CNN’S 460,000 to CNBC’S 180,000. All news stations vary from day to day on the number of viewers, but FOX seems to beat all the other stations. I believe that the reason so many people watch Fox is due to the fact that cable is not required to watch it and many people do not realize exactly how unreliable the station is.
In response to Alex Price, in response to me:
No, I am not forgetting that CNN has a liberal bias. In fact, if you read my first comment, I admitted that other channels have a liberal bias and that when I want reliable news I look at the story from both sides or get it from a foreign source. The claim that they spend more time trying to convince “people like me” to not watch Fox than they do spreading news is really a pointless exaggeration, as nearly anyone in this class can quickly pull up the CNN website and see a news source full of headlines that don’t even mention Fox.
Yes, they are commentators. On a news channel. They are supposed to comment on factual news stories, not twist, exaggerate, and simply create stories out of thin air to better serve their own opinions. I agree that the inaccuracies and exaggerations aren’t major, but they are certainly significant enough to embarrass any news channel and reveal their conservative agenda.
You make a good point with the equal number of liberal and conservative guests. I never thought of that in relation to their ratings. However, I think their treatment of these liberal guests is telling of their journalistic standard:
Bill O’Reilly cuts Jane Hall’s mic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRCS_qshV0
Bill O’Reilly cuts mic of retired Army Colonel Ann Wright:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/767AF74A7B0B498B9BD2A2D27544700F/bill-o-reilly-cuts-the-mic-on-.aspx
Hannity cropping liberal comments and taking them out of context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP14yxx8wEE
A compilation of Fox’s common strategy of yelling over and cutting the mics of their guests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkFU4MtubU
Fox may host a large number of liberal guests, but their treatment of them is hardly fair or balanced. They are more interested in yelling at them, to their audience’s delight, than they are in listening to them and debating the facts.
Thanks for the quote; I am aware of John Holdren and his book, Ecoscience, in which he analyzes the problem of overpopulation. That quote does not say, “Since the Constituion allows it, we should definitely enact population control laws immediately.” He is analyzing the problem that, on our current track, we will be faced with overpopulation in the future. I don’t see anything wrong with asking the hard questions and facing reality. I suggest checking that your personal convictions don’t impede rational thought. The very thesis of your argument is obviously flawed.
In response to Justin Fritz-
Fox New is being deemed un-credible because of faulty information. The author is showing that Fox has no credible sources and feeds the public inaccurate information. All news stations are bias and we get that but Pitts is trying to point out that Fox is way out there and is not reliable. As for Americans knowing that Fox isn’t a good source of information is debatable. There are many people out there who believe everything he or she is told because the source claims they are reliable when they may not be.