When Fox starts to put out shows like NOW with Bill Moyers, Meet the Press, and even 60 Minutes (So they goofed on one of what, thousands of stories? Still a pretty accomplished show) I'll consider them a legitimate news source.

The fact of the matter, is that ratings do no equal quality. Quite frankly, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all are pretty low on the quality meter.

News has just been going further and further downhill for the past decade.

Kudo's to them on getting higher ratings. However, I don't know many liberal's who are concerned about this. I'm certainly not, and technically I'm one of those fansy pants elitist liberals O'Rielly hates.

Prime time on the big three cable news channels are bad anyways. I'm too busy watching reruns of CSI on Spike TV to tune into them anymore. Matthews has just lost his edge. O'Rielly gives me the creeps. Paula Zhan I've never cared for.

Personally, I watched the debates on PBS and CSPAN. I got sick of the pundits really quick, and quite frankly, got sick of everyone cutting away from some damn good speeches on both sides.

Have a good one, this should be an interesting thread.


I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

I heard John Stewarts viewers learn more......

Fox is appealing to a niche audience. That's why they're winning. They're openly right wing and hoo-ah america lovers.

All the other news channels at least try to keep it objective. Personally I'll take Larry King over O'Reilly any day. NewsNight with Aaron Brown over Brit Humes Special Report.

The only one i can stomach is Shepherd Smiths show. Although i do enjoy MSNBC's hardball.

There are a lot of things I don't like about Fox News, but frankly the only time I'm not watching it is when I'm sleeping, out of the house or watching Formula One. I like Greta van Susteren, Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace, and Neil Cavuto. I miss Tony Snow.

I watch Hannity and Colmes, but I have to hit the mute button a lot, because I just don't like all that bickering. There are three people who show up on Fox a lot whom I cannot stand and I always mute for: Ellis Hennican , Geraldine Ferrara, and Susan Estrich.

I've been watching the news for a long time and I have never seen a news agency as "fair and balanced as Fox. They present all sides of the issue. All sides are represented. I don't know why that is not evident and I really believe that it is evident and that is why the left hates Fox so much. It has been a one side world of news for so long, they resent "balanced" when they see it.

Bill Moyers has what has to be the most biased program on the planet, now that Baghdad Bob is out of business.

Fox is appealing to a niche audience. That's why they're winning. They're openly right wing and hoo-ah america lovers.

Fox is not anti-America and that is what is most irksome to many.




[edit on 04/9/29 by GradyPhilpott]

How about that? I dunno..... how about 'Congratulations America! you officially have more idiotic opinion sponges than ever before! Here, have a cookie.

Originally posted by Nerdling
All the other news channels at least try to keep it objective.

Yeah right, with the exception of talk radio and fox news, the media is incontestably liberal.

So what? McDonalds is king of all restaraunts. Also, free news is worth what you pay for it: Nothing.

LOL

As far as the media being liberal thing goes:


Look at who calls the shots in "media" today. I don't mean anchors, I mean owners and CEOs.

Look up a few companies, who runs them, and then check to see if they have donated to the RNC or other republican causes/cannidates. It's all public record.

Outisde of Hollywood, who unfortunatly are the most visible, the fact remains that most of those who actually run media are staunch supporters of the right as far as donations go.

Conservative, neocon, whatever... labels are not what I'm concerned about. If you support the right, you support the right, whenther you are conservative or whatever. You support the left, you support the left liberal or whatever.

I think most adults get their news, and learn their issues from reading (newspapers, books, etc.) and watch cable news, as a supplement to the way they learn the issues. It seems Fox viewers aren't that intellectually curious. They don't seem like critical thinkers. They would rather stare at the tv all day, re-enforcing what they believe, instead of going somewhere else to form an opinion. So, Fox would get higher ratings than other news channels, because only Fox viewers are the only ones who make their decisions based on one source. Most people don't stare at CNN or MSNBC all day, they may even watch both, so their numbers would be less.

See what you liberals dont get is that the reason that FOX news is winning is that when "regular" folks watch it they see both sides presented. Most of the big names on FOX are right leaning I would agree. BUT Hannity and Colmes is a great example of watching the liberal argument just fall to pieces time and time again. These folks who watch this see the logic and form the opionions. FOX gives the balanced view and it seems with Bush leading in most polls, people seems to realize that the "Bushies" are the better choice for the nation.

California is a great example, I live here and the only ones who are for this shot are the "leftists", and yes they are all in LA, SF and the land of the freaks..........

Originally posted by edsinger
See what you liberals dont get is that the reason that FOX news is winning is that when "regular" folks watch it they see both sides presented. Most of the big names on FOX are right leaning I would agree. BUT Hannity and Colmes is a great example of watching the liberal argument just fall to pieces time and time again. These folks who watch this see the logic and form the opionions. FOX gives the balanced view and it seems with Bush leading in most polls, people seems to realize that the "Bushies" are the better choice for the nation.

California is a great example, I live here and the only ones who are for this shot are the "leftists", and yes they are all in LA, SF and the land of the freaks..........

I'll be amazed if you can define the word 'liberal' in the context in which you use it.

O'REILLY: A guy over at "Newsweek," Evan Thomas, one of the editors over there, said 80 percent in the elite media favors Kerry. That doesn't surprise you, does it?

BUSH: Not really.

O'REILLY: Do you have any theory on why college professors, pinhead press people -- and I'm in one of those, by the way I'm a pinhead press -- why they go into the liberal realm?

BUSH: No, I really haven't...

O'REILLY: Because you went to Yale and Harvard.

BUSH: I did.

O'REILLY: And they're all pinhead liberals over there, right?

BUSH: I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing why professors feel the way they feel.

O'REILLY: You just want to get out of the class. I was the same way. I don't care what you think. All right. Do you think you got any preferential treatment getting into the Air Guard during Vietnam?

This says to me, that O'Reilly is trying to discredit the opinions of those with educations. Trying to tell his viewers, don't listen to 'smart people', listen to me, I'll put everything in black and white for you. Fox will simplify the issues for you, don't listen to those 'foriegn policy experts' or those 'economists'. They are just 'liberal pinheads'. And if you try to learn more, go to school, or disagree, you'll be a 'pinhead liberal' too.

It's a sad excercise in the lowest common denominator and the glorification of ignorance, and what you need to control the masses.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I'll be amazed if you can define the word 'liberal' in the context in which you use it.

You are absolutely right! The term liberal has been hijacked by the marxist just as the Democratic Party has. The term is absolutely meaningless, except as a euphemism for leftist or marxist or communists or rat or weasel or flip-flopper, or scoudrel, or whoremonger, or liar or....

Originally posted by curme

This says to me, that O'Reilly is trying to discredit the opinions of those with educations.

Bill O'Reilly is only one commentator out at least a couple of dozen who regularly appear on Fox. He does happen to have one of the most popular shows on television and he is a controversial figure. Frankly, I think he's mellowed in the last year or so and I like that a lot.

He does try to present a balance view, but he does let his Irish get the best of him. It's not good journalism when he does that, but it is good theatre.

I was on the bus with a woman in her seventies who told me that she hated Bill O'Reilly, but she watched him every night. I think she sums up why Fox gets good ratings. They deliver what folks are looking for.

One thing about O'Reilly is that he is scared to death of the gay lobby and if you watch him enough he prances around that issue with great finesse. He won't get caught out the way Dr. Laura did.

Both 'liberal' and 'conservative' are euphamisms for Good and Bad. The people who employ these terms have no capacity for political thought beyond those descriptors of themselves and their opponents. Politics and government can never be as simple as those concepts, but that's what civilian political discourse has degraded to: Me good, you bad. Ultimately, the terms are meaningless.