Why do you guys even think there was a "market" for Fox anyway? Because the majority of people were tired of the way the "real" media was handling things. Why were they tired? Because the "real" media is biased. So Fox came along and exploited the biases of the other half of the country.
It's laughable and in some ways sad and pitiful, that some cling to the belief that the likes of CNN and MSNBC may be a little bit biased, it was nowhere near as bad until big bad Fox came along and made them do it. I don't think they really believe it though. They're just saying what they were told to say by the likes of Move On and Media Matters.
Actually, as I and others have made abundantly clear, it is Barbara Streisand who sets the agenda.
salon.... that's funny. I'll go dig up something from freerepublic or worldnet daily. Or CNSNews.
So basically you have no ability to rebut what he said. And would you really like to suggest that the professional credentials or behavior of salon (or more accurately greenwald) compares with freep or wnd? Really? Cuz we can do some side by side and all enjoy the giggles if you want.
CINCINNATI -- Chad Ochocinco is used to making news. Now, he's trying to break some.
The Cincinnati Bengals receiver is planning to form his own social news network on Twitter, using his player contacts around the league to develop news about other teams. The idea grew out of his partnership with Motorola, which will provide the technology.
He's dubbed the venture OCNN, for the Ochocinco News Network. He will try to compete with mainstream media to tell fans what's going on with NFL teams.
Yes - Chad Johnson is a news man, just like Roger Ailes.
Why do you guys even think there was a "market" for Fox anyway? Because the majority of people were tired of the way the "real" media was handling things. Why were they tired? Because the "real" media is biased. So Fox came along and exploited the biases of the other half of the country.
It's laughable and in some ways sad and pitiful, that some cling to the belief that the likes of CNN and MSNBC may be a little bit biased, it was nowhere near as bad until big bad Fox came along and made them do it. I don't think they really believe it though. They're just saying what they were told to say by the likes of Move On and Media Matters.
Perhaps you should consider how people on the ideological fringe consider objective fact to be biased, since it contradicts their fringe world view. I don't think you have any evidence that the "majority" of people were tired of the way the media was handling things. Yes, there is a market on the ideological fringe of the right wing for a news station that reinforced their fantasies about politics in this nation. I think you'll find, however, that a very large majority of this country finds Fox News to be ridiculous.
Fox doesn't represent half of this country. It has, at most, 3 million viewers at a time. Last time I checked, this country has over 300 million people. So Fox represents, at most, 2 to 3% of the political views of this country, and most of it is the far-right fringe that is going to think anything based in fact is biased, since their world view is not based in fact, but on an ideology. The fact that there is a market for Fox means nothing about whether there is actual bias in the rest of the "mainstream" media. All it proves is that there is a market for a channel that reinforces people's already skewed perception of this world.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
salon.... that's funny. I'll go dig up something from freerepublic or worldnet daily. Or CNSNews.
Does it not have a point? Or are you just going to cheaply attack the source?
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
Perhaps you should consider how people on the ideological fringe consider objective fact to be biased, since it contradicts their fringe world view. I don't think you have any evidence that the "majority" of people were tired of the way the media was handling things. Yes, there is a market on the ideological fringe of the right wing for a news station that reinforced their fantasies about politics in this nation. I think you'll find, however, that a very large majority of this country finds Fox News to be ridiculous.
Fox doesn't represent half of this country. It has, at most, 3 million viewers at a time. Last time I checked, this country has over 300 million people. So Fox represents, at most, 2 to 3% of the political views of this country, and most of it is the far-right fringe that is going to think anything based in fact is biased, since their world view is not based in fact, but on an ideology. The fact that there is a market for Fox means nothing about whether there is actual bias in the rest of the "mainstream" media. All it proves is that there is a market for a channel that reinforces people's already skewed perception of this world.
Now you are dismissing Fox's ratings, are you saying the same 3 million people watch Fox all day long? Or are you just repeating something you read off a website, and really didn't understand what you were repeating? Fox's ratings are exceptional, a wise man probably wouldn't use that call their viewership fringe.
Consider your argument, if Fox viewership is the fringe, what does that make you and the channels you watch? Plus 2/3 million viewers is a huge number, considering people who watch cable news tend to be politically involved and registered voters and more informed. The voting population of the United states is not 300 million (obviously), so even if the 2-3% number you tried to get away with meant anything, it would still be an influential amount of voters.
By the way - the date is wrong - a clear fake. Go ahead - try to spin your way out of that Mr. Top.
I would say judging from this thread, the reading issue belongs primarily to you. Just out of curiosity, what are you going to defy me to do next? LOL.
You know what? We should make you the official MOTOWN SPORTS PROOF READER. You are so much smarter than all of us. I mean, what is an internet chat board without that one proof reader that alway cries about spelling when his/her larger point is proven wrong, or when they are 'defied'? So thanks for giving me the opportunity to fix the date billy boy.
You screwed it up again Chevy. If you need help just ask, we're all friends here.
Nope. It is suppossed to be tomorrows date Mr. Defied. I did find a song for you though, it should be your theme out here. I love the lyric "Little Willy, Willy wears the crown, he's the king around town"
Now you are dismissing Fox's ratings, are you saying the same 3 million people watch Fox all day long? Or are you just repeating something you read off a website, and really didn't understand what you were repeating? Fox's ratings are exceptional, a wise man probably wouldn't use that call their viewership fringe.
Consider your argument, if Fox viewership is the fringe, what does that make you and the channels you watch? Plus 2/3 million viewers is a huge number, considering people who watch cable news tend to be politically involved and registered voters and more informed. The voting population of the United states is not 300 million (obviously), so even if the 2-3% number you tried to get away with meant anything, it would still be an influential amount of voters.
If you'll notice, 3 million is exactly 1% of the population. I gave you 2-3% (which equals 6-9 million) because I already assumed that not all 3 million would be watching at the same time. So your "discovery" of my "oversight" is nothing groundbreaking. In fact, it is not a discovery at all. Nice try, though.
As far as the voting population goes, ratings aren't calculated based on registered voters; therefore, some of that 3 million that watches Fox during peak periods are not registered voters. So that part of your argument remains flat. Even if 10% of the voting population ended up watching Fox, that would still make them a fringe element of society. Even 15%. Heck, even 20%. To draw conclusions about what "the majority" of people think based on the thought process of Fox News viewers, as Oblong did, is clearly absurd.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
Sometimes I hear how dangerous FOX is because of 'their lies' and so on and so forth. Now its "they don't matter" because 'only 1% of the population' watches them. So which is it? Fox is a big threat, or Fox is insignificant? And if they are so insignificant, why does Obama have to wage war against them? Liberals are all over the place on this topic.
If FOX, the cable leader, is so insignficant, then I suppose the rest of the media is completely insignficant. But we all know that isnt the case. But tonight is a "Fox doesnt matter" night. For something so insignificant, liberals out here spend an aweful lot of time trying to bash FOX.
SO -- since 13% of Americans are black, does that make them a fringe element of society?
I don't define "fringe" by someone's appearance, so, no.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
Sometimes I hear how dangerous FOX is because of 'their lies' and so on and so forth. Now its "they don't matter" because 'only 1% of the population' watches them. So which is it? Fox is a big threat, or Fox is insignificant? And if they are so insignificant, why does Obama have to wage war against them? Liberals are all over the place on this topic.
If FOX, the cable leader, is so insignficant, then I suppose the rest of the media is completely insignficant. But we all know that isnt the case. But tonight is a "Fox doesnt matter" night. For something so insignificant, liberals out here spend an aweful lot of time trying to bash FOX.
I don't think Fox is as much of a problem as most liberals do. Yes, Fox explicitly lies to its audience to make them feel better about believing in a conservative ideology, but this audience is seeking out these kinds of lies, and would seek them out from an alternative source if they didn't exist (such as AM radio). The only danger that Fox news really plays is when the viewers of Fox start repeating the lies to the non-viewers of Fox, nobody tries to debunk them because they think the lies are so ridiculous that no one would actually believe them, and rumors and such get started.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
No. You define fringe based on their politics. Seems to me billee was defining it by the 13% figure and a group.
Your self righteousness stinks this whole place up sometimes couga. It must be hard to kiss one's own ***, but I bet you can do it.
If you really find the people here to be so self-righteous, smelly, stupid, and dishonest why do you come by? Really - why come by? Is it just to tell other people what asshats they are? And how they are self-righteous?
Or are you part of some new public Opus Dei splinter group?
I don't think Fox is as much of a problem as most liberals do. Yes, Fox explicitly lies to its audience to make them feel better about believing in a conservative ideology, but this audience is seeking out these kinds of lies, and would seek them out from an alternative source if they didn't exist (such as AM radio). The only danger that Fox news really plays is when the viewers of Fox start repeating the lies to the non-viewers of Fox, nobody tries to debunk them because they think the lies are so ridiculous that no one would actually believe them, and rumors and such get started.
Did you hear the one about Obama's thesis? Well, let me tell you, FoxNation says Obama wrote "The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
Can you believe that socialist crap? Sure you can - if you listen to Fox.
Did you hear the one about Obama's thesis? Well, let me tell you, FoxNation says Obama wrote "The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
Can you believe that socialist crap? Sure you can - if you listen to Fox.
Remember when Fox made themselves a megaphone for the Swift Boat Liars for Truth? That's real journalism right there. Or when Fox began promoting Tea Party protests? Another sign that the mainstream media is biased for not promoting the same protests.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
I've said it before & I'll say it again. It's not a question of whether anyone is biased. Everyone is biased. The question is what bias is the best bias with which to be biased?
__________________ 2010 AAT: Brent DlugachAll-Time AAT:Charlie Maxwell09-10 AAP:John Kuester
If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball & saving an infant’s life, she'll choose to save the infant without even considering if there are men on base.
~ Dave Barry
Did you hear the one about Obama's thesis? Well, let me tell you, FoxNation says Obama wrote "The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
Can you believe that socialist crap? Sure you can - if you listen to Fox.
Did they debunk that? I had heard it earlier this week. I found it hard to believe that this could have been hidden during the election. I think I heard Rush talking about it.
I don't think Fox is as much of a problem as most liberals do. Yes, Fox explicitly lies to its audience to make them feel better about believing in a conservative ideology, but this audience is seeking out these kinds of lies, and would seek them out from an alternative source if they didn't exist (such as AM radio). The only danger that Fox news really plays is when the viewers of Fox start repeating the lies to the non-viewers of Fox, nobody tries to debunk them because they think the lies are so ridiculous that no one would actually believe them, and rumors and such get started.
When you grow up you are going to find yourself very disappointed with the world.
Did you hear the one about Obama's thesis? Well, let me tell you, FoxNation says Obama wrote "The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
Can you believe that socialist crap? Sure you can - if you listen to Fox.
a) Isn't "the fox nation" essentially a message board? So here, you have a message board, linking to a post from another blog. Which you don't mention in your quest to tar Fox News.
b) You fail to mention that the offending message was taken down when it was discovered (within hours) to be a fake -- which you must have known since you didn't link to it directly.
__________________
I hate Sydney Crosby
2010 Adopted Tiger -- DH (hopefully) Carlos Guillen
Previous adoptees: Gerald Laird (2009), Zach Miner (2008), Dusty Ryan (2007),
I've said it before & I'll say it again. It's not a question of whether anyone is biased. Everyone is biased. The question is what bias is the best bias with which to be biased?
And I disagree. Everybody is biased but that does not mean they are biased to the same extent. We have always had yellow journalism - we have not always had major Hearstian voices.
Is FOX News “an arm of the Republican Party” as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says?
Democratic and Independent voters beg to differ. A national survey shows that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are Democrats or Independents as are 50% of those who watch it “several times each week” or more.
Overall, the survey showed that 21% of all American voters watched FOX News every day and 18% watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39% watched the station several times each week or more.
• Among Democrats, 17% watched it several times each week or more
• Among Independents, 46% the station several times each week or more
• And among Republicans, 55% tuned in several times each week or more
The survey indicated that 11% of all American voters watched CNN “just about every day” and 20% watched several times each week or more.
Combined, 31% watched CNN several times each week or more.
For MSNBC, the totals were 10% watched just about every day and 8% watched several times each week. Combined, 18% watched MSNBC several times each week or more.
These data, seen against the backdrop of the recent storm of White House criticism, casts the Administration attacks on FOX News in a different perspective. Could it be that the Obama Administration is concerned about FOX News not because it is “an arm of the Republican Party” but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?
That the two top spokespeople for the Administration this Sunday (Emanuel and Axelrod) both chose to attack FOX News shows how obsessed this thin-skinned president is with his coverage. It is truly amateur hour at the White House from the top down.
These data come from a national telephone survey taken by the Global Marketing Research Center in Melbourne Florida during the week of October 13-16, 2009. The survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters. 36% of the respondents said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans while 32% said they voted for more Republicans. 24% said they voted equally for each party.
The survey was funded by the League of American Voters.
__________________
It is remarkable how much a pinch of malice enhances the power of an idea or an opinion. Our ears, it seems, are wonderfully attuned to sneers and evil reports about our fellow men. - Eric Hoffer
Did they debunk that? I had heard it earlier this week. I found it hard to believe that this could have been hidden during the election. I think I heard Rush talking about it.
Yeah - its debunked. It went back to a web page that was tagged as satire and claimed Joe Klein as the original source. Klein never heard of any such paper.
a) Isn't "the fox nation" essentially a message board? So here, you have a message board, linking to a post from another blog. Which you don't mention in your quest to tar Fox News.
b) You fail to mention that the offending message was taken down when it was discovered (within hours) to be a fake -- which you must have known since you didn't link to it directly.
Was it a post on their message board or a message that they put up? I'd assumed the latter but don't know. Thats one of the reasons one shouldn't delete one's mistakes - simply correct them. If it was the former then I agree - it has nothing to do with Fox.
Was it corrected? Apparently not.
Fox seems to make a lot of honest mistakes that they then learn are mistakes and - rather than correct and apologize for - simply stop repeating. On their news shows. The opinion people are of course free to continue.
The message is pretty clear. Fox broke some stories that the administration didn't like. The rest of the media lagged behind and some even admitted that they were not as diligent as they should have been. So the administration has to come and say "Don't follow those guys, they are not real.". What they really mean is "Don't follow those guys, they do stuff that's embarassing to us and then you follow up with it and it makes them even more credible and makes us look like the utter fools that we are. We don't want to be like Jimmy Carter. Next thing you know they'll get Dana Carvey back on SNL and he'll be doing that "Oh please don't make a one termer! Please dont' make me a one termer!"
The message is pretty clear. Fox broke some stories that the administration didn't like. The rest of the media lagged behind and some even admitted that they were not as diligent as they should have been. So the administration has to come and say "Don't follow those guys, they are not real.". What they really mean is "Don't follow those guys, they do stuff that's embarassing to us and then you follow up with it and it makes them even more credible and makes us look like the utter fools that we are. We don't want to be like Jimmy Carter. Next thing you know they'll get Dana Carvey back on SNL and he'll be doing that "Oh please don't make a one termer! Please dont' make me a one termer!"
I find this plausible.
__________________
“Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” - MLK 1959
The message is pretty clear. Fox broke some stories that the administration didn't like. The rest of the media lagged behind and some even admitted that they were not as diligent as they should have been. So the administration has to come and say "Don't follow those guys, they are not real.". What they really mean is "Don't follow those guys, they do stuff that's embarrassing to us and then you follow up with it and it makes them even more credible and makes us look like the utter fools that we are.
Exactly.
__________________ I'm an Ohioan by birth, but I'm a Chicagoan at heart. I'm Live from Comerica Park! May 18th, 2010.
Thanks. Obviously I'm half joking with the latter part but I really do think they are reacting to the stories Fox broke and the other outlets finally covered. Marginalize Fox and then those types of stories will be treated as if they came from World Net Daily.
Adding to the Fox News v. White House feud today is a dust-up over an interview with pay czar Ken Feinberg. Turns out, it was a sort of miscommunication, but the White House adds that if they had left Fox out it would be a case of "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
The version Fox has pushed all day is that the network was excluded from an interview roundtable with Feinberg yesterday, and that bureau chiefs from ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN came to Fox's defense.
TPMDC dug into it, and here's what happened.
Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).
But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.
The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.
Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.
TPMDC spoke with a network bureau chief this afternoon familiar with the situation who was surprised that Fox was portraying the news as networks coming to its rescue.
"If any member had been excluded it would have been the same thing, it has nothing to do with Fox or the White House or the substance of the issues," the bureau chief said. "It's all for one and one for all."
A Treasury spokesperson added: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."
But the White House isn't backing down from its feud with Fox.
"This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
An administration source wondered if the networks were annoyed Fox disclosed logistical negotiations since they are treated as off the record, but the bureau chief did not view this in the same light as discussions about, for example, the president going to Iraq.
As for the ongoing battle, Earnest said: "The president and other high ranking officials and people like Ken Feinberg have done interviews with Fox in the past and will do them in the future."
Last edited by sinister porpoise; 10-25-2009 at 04:16 PM.
When you grow up you are going to find yourself very disappointed with the world.
That's all you can come up with?
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
Is FOX News “an arm of the Republican Party” as White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says?........
Funny how the Nielsen ratings contradict this poll.
__________________
"Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff
2007 AAT: Lester Oliveros
2008-2010 AAT: Francisco Martinez
Remember when Fox made themselves a megaphone for the Swift Boat Liars for Truth? That's real journalism right there. Or when Fox began promoting Tea Party protests? Another sign that the mainstream media is biased for not promoting the same protests.
Ask any Naval Officer about this story. I worked with those young men. No Lt or Ens was authorized to leave his command to personally pursue the enemy combatants. He had a minimum of 3 patrol boats he was responsible for. History can be written in the mind of the penman, but being there as a witness to operations, gives extreme credence in my mind to suport that campaign to damage Kerry.
__________________ What I received has no receipt or price tag. I can't take it back and I can't give it away. It's mine and always will be.
Funny how the Nielsen ratings contradict this poll.
You still don't understand, the same people don't watch the channel 24/7. I noticed you missed that poll in your response to me. The Nielsen ratings in no way contradict this poll, get it, they aren't related, the ratings give you a snapshot of viewers within a certain timeslot, they don't say the same people are watching the channel 24/7 7 days a week.
Go back to your web site where they told you to use that argument, and find out what your next move is when people don't accept the Nielson ratings for an hour of programming as the total viewership for the channel.
Here is a quote on attacking sources from earlier in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCouga
Does it not have a point? Or are you just going to cheaply attack the source?
Linear Mode
