$7,500,000? No, more like $350,000. Fox was off by just $7,150,000.

So, the most watched cable "news" network, the network whom claims to be "fair and balanced" and carry with them the slogan, "We report. You decide.," committed yet another error the other day. It wasn't their first and certainly won't be their last. Why then have I decided to write about it, since it seems to be so commonplace? Oh, because not only was Fox wrong in their reporting, the disparity between their numbers and the actual numbers is staggering.

Fox "News" reported that the Wisconsin protests will cost up to $7.5 million dollars or to write the longer version, $7,500,000. It has since been reported that the total costs will be around $350,000. That's a difference of $7,150,000. $350,000 is just 4.7% of $7,150,000. In other words, Fox was off by, oh, just 95.3%. If I took an exam and received less than a 5%, keeping in mind that a failing grade in college is 59% or 54 percentage points higher than my hypothetical score, chances are I wouldn't be in school for much longer.

Since these real-life numbers have been released, I've heard Fox supporters spout the following two lines pretty regularly: 1) Fox was just reporting information that was already out there and 2) Whether it's $7.5 million or $350,000, it's still costing the tax-payers money.

If Fox wants to be known as a "news" network, shouldn't they then double-check their sources? What were those sources anyway? If this "news" network just reports what they hear being talked about or rumors and speculation, then how are they any different than a gossip magazine? A genuine news network will report facts and the only way they can verify these statements is to garner credibility through the quality of their sources and double-checking those very sources. If Fox wants to come forward about being a gossip network, then fine, I then have no problem with them reporting these horrendously inaccurate numbers. However, call it a hunch by the title of their network (Fox "News"), but I'm guessing Rupert Murdoch doesn't want his network to be known as a 24-hour gossip column. If my gut is accurate in that assessment, then I do have a serious problem with Fox reporting such drivel. It's difficult for me to understand, but some people actually tune into Fox rather regularly, listen to the commentary and believe what is being spouted. In that case, since Fox initially reported that the costs of the protests would be up to $7,500,000, chances are many of Fox's viewers believed this. It's a true journalist's responsibility to be thorough and credible in his/her reporting and Fox has been remiss of these very responsibilities.

With regard to the second comment, that isn't the issue here. Saying that it doesn't matter what the numbers are, it's going to cost tax-payers money is an informal fallacy known as a red herring. The point being made here isn't that it's right or wrong for tax-payers to be financially responsible for these protests. The point being made is how drastically different Fox's numbers were to the actual numbers. Again, this brings into question the credibility of this "news" network. It's not like this was a minor slip-up. It's not like a meteorologist predicted a high of 64 and the high reached 67. It's not like a person told a cop he/she was going 56 when they were really going 57. It's not like a husband telling his wife he'll be home at 6:30 and he doesn't arrive until 6:40. While all of these actual numbers are different from the speculated numbers, the margin of error is very small. With regard to Fox's numbers, they were 95.3% wrong. If they were to do this poorly on an exam, 4.7%, they'd be the laughing stock of the school. Out of 100 questions, they would have answered between 4 and 5 right, while getting between 95 and 96 wrong. This isn't about Fox being wrong. It's about Fox being laughably wrong and still contending they're a viable news source. Once again, they've proven themselves wrong on that front.