Regarding Fox:
The Fox programs weren't grossly inaccurate, but, in almost every case analyzed, failed to introduce an opposing viewpoint. Their stories were often rooted in some sort of truth, but exaggerated to emphasize a single aspect of marijuana use. (Even if a clip had 100 percent factual integrity, we'd refuse to recognize it as total truth if it lacked voices from the other side.) In most cases, this single aspect was the dangers of marijuana. In the four clips analyzed, zero guests were hosted who adamantly defended the potential benefits of marijuana legalization. In all four, however, there were guests (or hosts) who made it particularly clear that they felt the states legalizing marijuana was a bad idea.
Furthermore, it was not solely the subject matter that forced us to question Fox's integrity. Word choice and tone often tainted their coverage of marijuana legalization. Often subtle, the demonizing language (scoffs, eye rolls, exaggerated words, sarcasm) jeopardizes the viewer's ability to fairly judge the subject matter.
In summary, Fox News used both language and sources (framing, gatekeeping) to alter their viewers' understanding of marijuana legalization and align it with their own. In doing so, they have become practitioners of truthiness.
Regarding Colbert and Stewart:
Through satire, Stephen Colbert and John Stewart present their ideas but fail to expand upon them. If you were to take a sentence from one of their clips, type it up and send it to someone unfamiliar with their role as comedians, this person would likely respond, "What? That isn't true."
Defining satire as truth or falsehood (or truthiness) is a difficult task. Do you take a sentence obviously with opposite meaning, and then determine if the opposite (and intended) meaning is true? And judge their credibility from that? It's hard to say.
However, regardless of truth, we found that Comedy Central's hosts encourage a more balanced discussion, whether intentionally or otherwise. They did not present their material in a final, definitive sort of way. They did not feign expertise. Even satirically, we found that the Comedy Central hosts were more likely to poke fun of both sides than the Fox hosts were to represent them.
In summary, we feel that Colbert and Stewart are not necessarily more or less truthful than Fox (they cannot be compared on a single linear plane because they are so different in presentation), but they are more likely to promote skepticism of the media's marijuana coverage and therefore encourage their viewers to seek the truth out on their own. In doing so, they are, in a roundabout way, practitioners of truth.
