Fox News

[Race Radio]

+1

I occasionally watch the O'Rielly factor for pure entertainment value. Surely no one takes this seriously?? I say that speaking as a conservative (by British standards). The O'Rielly factor wouldn't last two minutes over here, he'd be ripped to shreds! Its programs like this that form the impression in the rest of the world that Americans are stupid.

Less then one percent of Americans watch O'Rielly. Even less Brit's do. He is hardly driving that bus.

If you read the European press you would think that the only thing America produces is inbred fools. I have spent much of my life living overseas. I spend 3-4 months of the year in Europe. I can assure you American does not have a monopoly on morons.....although the Euro media pushes this myth relentlessly.

 

[The Hitch]

If you read the European press you would think that the only thing America produces is inbred fools. I have spent much of my life living overseas. I spend 3-4 months of the year in Europe. I can assure you American does not have a monopoly on morons.....although the Euro media pushes this myth relentlessly.

+ a million.

 

[redtreviso]

""Source: Reuters

Here's a novel idea: Fox Business Network should focus on covering business news.

At least that's what Kevin Magee, executive vice president of the News Corp-owned (NWSA.O) cable news network, is urging his staff to do.

Unhappy with Fox Business' focus on politics, Magee fired off a memo to employees reminding them that the network was not created to be a light version of its sister Fox News Channel.

"I've been asked to remind you all again that they are separate channels and the more we make FBN look like FNC the more of a disservice we do to ourselves," Magee said in the memo dated Oct. 5, carrying the subject line "Fox News and Fox Business."
""

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/idINIndia-59950020111017

 

[kielbasa]

btw, what "liberal media"?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2116/me...ial-race-barack-obama-rick--perry-herman-cain

"One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1. The assessments of the president in the media were substantially more negative than positive in every one of the 23 weeks studied. In no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the President positive in tone."

It would appear that even liberals are disappointed in him.

 

[kielbasa]

Should we start a separate thread about MSNBC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&list=PL273E9E983B540F80&index=10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM&NR=1

Gold (NSFW - unless you work at MSNBC ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bStCcEiOUEw&feature=related

 

[redtreviso]

Should we start a separate thread about MSNBC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&list=PL273E9E983B540F80&index=10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM&NR=1

Gold (NSFW - unless you work at MSNBC ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bStCcEiOUEw&feature=related

No.. Mrs. Greenspan has everything under control there.

 

[usedtobefast]

Should we start a separate thread about MSNBC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&list=PL273E9E983B540F80&index=10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM&NR=1

Gold (NSFW - unless you work at MSNBC ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bStCcEiOUEw&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

the current owner. these guys are real commies for sure.

 

[kielbasa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

the current owner. these guys are real commies for sure.

Why, is that supposed to shock me? Because there are supposedly no wealthy capitalists on the left? Uh, ...OK. You just became another example of lefties falling for their own propaganda.

Edit: Oh, I get it now. You believe that MSNBC is actually conservative because it's owned by Comcast. That makes perfect sense in the light of this thread.

 

[VeloCity]

It would appear that even liberals are disappointed in him.

It would appear that the "liberal media" only exists in the conservative's imagination.

 

[kielbasa]

It would appear that the "liberal media" only exists in the conservative's imagination.

And Foxnews bias... oh, never mind.

 

[VeloCity]

And Foxnews bias...

...has been admitted to by the guy who runs Fox. I thought we covered this already?

 

[frenchfry]

There are many ways to measure corruption, however, if you restrict it to the use of political office for personal monetary/financial gain the right seems to have done worse in the last, say, 30 years (we are talking about France).

Now for the second paragraph above : I often get irritated by Daniel Mermet ( I used to listen to him regularly when he had the 5-6 pm slot, less so now on the 3-4 pm slot) and turn him off.

For you people who do not listen to France-inter, most days he starts with a selection of messages left on his answering machine by his listeners. Considering that he is seen as left-leaning ( rightly so as far as I can tell) people who call in do it most of the time (I guess, messages are selected) to complain - often bitterly - about the current government, banks, finance, you name it.

Occasionnally you also hear the ranting of the opposite side about those left-wing complainers and against Daniel Mermet himself.

If I catch his program after that answering machine part, the content is often quite interesting although he does clearly give a preference to views from the left. The people he interviews tend to be knowledgeable and make sense. A comparison with the idiotic Fox news programs is therefore totally absurd.

Considering that his programme is only 5 hours a week out of 168 hours, giving 10 or 15 minutes to his audience to spill out their guts is not too big a price to pay to have a quality radio station. You get the distinct impression that those people never get a chance to be listened to, only on those 10-15 minutes per day.

Now I don't know if you consider Daniel Mermet to be a pseudo journalist or a pseudo leftist, but I have heard him speaking from India and from many other places in the world (Bolivia, Lebanon, Cuba ...) where he was doing what seemed to be a rather good job talking to the common people as well as more influential ones.

Of course Daniel Mermet goes balistic whenever the topic is BHL (Bernard-Henri Levy), but that's another story.

Your assessment a bunch of clowns spouting garbage aimed at an audience of cretins. Virtually no attempt at objectivity, and lots of manipulation of information to make a point. may occasionnally be accurate, but he also digs out topics that don't get aired anywhere else. On the whole I would give him passing grades and i would be thrilled to meet him in person.

It's true that once in a while his show presents an interesting subject and is relatively free of manipulation. Often though his guests are quite convincing and come across as objective but if you know anything about the subject matter they are effectively attempting to brainwash those who are listening. More subtle than Fox, but maybe even more dangerous. What really bothers me is that he perpetuates the "victim" mentality of anyone that isn't rich, while all along most of these victims just want to be rich like those who they attack.

The thing is that often I agree with the points Mermet and his band are making, this is what upsets me about the way he does it. I have even heard him state on his show that he makes no attempt to be objective, which I consider an unfortunate attitude for a show that is broadcast on public radio.

BHL, Jack Lang, Ivan Levaï and their elitist band of the gauche caviar are pathetic and get my blood boiling so they deserve what they get.

An anecdote, Mermet has a country home near where I live. My local bike shop owner told me he had a no-brand bike painted up as a Look, this from a guy that is constantly decrying the "brand" mentality. His pseudo left image that he is so careful to promote is just a front, he looks after himself first.

I'm not sure if you are implying that the "right seems to have done worse" with regards to corruption means the right is more corrupt or less. I would put it as a tie, but I am not sure we will ever know as the accounting on this kind of thing tends to be a bit opaque. Don't forget Elf (Roland Dumas still rakes it in from corrupt African dictators), Julien Dray (lifestyle of 1m+ on his 60K salary), Crédit Lyonnais, etc. etc. Corruption is part of the system, and they all line up to take advantage. I tend to be harder on the left, as while they are filling their pockets they pretend to be defending the underclasses. We assume the right are in it for the €€€ so aren't surprised when they are on the take.

David Douillet learned a lot from our friend Lance, skimming small change from kids to finance his high roller life style. Then the clown is named a minister - I think the press is going to have fun with this one!

 

[Anonymous]

...has been admitted to by the guy who runs Fox. I thought we covered this already?

Oh, I see. Because the brass at MSNBC, CNN have not admitted they are bias in their reporting then, of course, they are not.

 

[VeloCity]

Oh, I see. Because the brass at MSNBC, CNN have not admitted they are bias in their reporting then, of course, they are not.

If those networks were just as biased as Fox, then stands to reason that the viewers of MSNBC, CNN etc would be just as misinformed and misled as Fox viewers are, right? And wouldn't we be seeing a whole bunch of glowing stories about Obama at a time when he badly needs a boost?

No one is saying any network or news show is wholly objective and free of bias, but by their own admissions of bias and judging by how badly misinformed their regular audience is, Fox is clearly the worst of the worst.

 

[Race Radio]

Oh, I see. Because the brass at MSNBC, CNN have not admitted they are bias in their reporting then, of course, they are not.

The "All my friends are doing it" Excuse never worked with mom. I have no interest in watching biased "news" on either side of the spectrum. There are so many other sources of real reporting......Too bad none of them have hot anchor women like Fox does. It makes their babble much easier to tolerate

 

[kielbasa]

...has been admitted to by the guy who runs Fox. I thought we covered this already?

A successful businessman sees a market need and fills it. Rupert Murdoch saw that there was a need and he delivered. If the media had not been biased, Foxnews would not have been so successful.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You're the one who said that Fox wasn't pushing the GOP view. Clearly they are.

Yeah, it has been well established that truth does have a liberal bias. I feel for ya.

They're sure not getting the whole story from Fox News.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

"It was not a matter of partisan self-selection. Democrats who watched Fox, as well as Republicans, came away misled and misinformed."

I don't watch it. I like real news.

I watch foxnews for all the real news, especially The Leprechaun’s show. I usually do not have time to watch the hemorrhoid with eyes/ears, but will catch the wallbanger’s show.

At work I cannot get the golfer’s show on the AM radio so I stick with sports talk.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

+1

I occasionally watch the O'Rielly factor for pure entertainment value. Surely no one takes this seriously?? I say that speaking as a conservative (by British standards). The O'Rielly factor wouldn't last two minutes over here, he'd be ripped to shreds! Its programs like this that form the impression in the rest of the world that Americans are stupid.

No worries, we have been forming some impressions about the Brits also. Maybe not as blunt as your "Americans are stupid".

 

[VeloCity]

If the media had not been biased, Foxnews would not have been so successful.

And again, if "the media" (by which I assume you mean everything but Fox) were as biased as Fox, then viewers of MSNBC and CNN etc would be just as misinformed as are viewers of Fox. Which they're not.

So if the viewers of "the media" are more accurately informed than are the viewers of Fox, which one do you suppose is more biased?

 

[kielbasa]

And again, if the media were as biased as Fox, then viewers of MSNBC and CNN etc would be just as misinformed as are viewers of Fox. Which they're not.

Hahahahahahahaha

 

[VeloCity]

Hahahahahahahaha

You haven't been reading this thread, have you? We've also covered this before.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

 

[Anonymous]

You haven't been reading this thread, have you? We've also covered this before.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

It might be insightful to see how the questions of the study were phrased.. but when I read this;

MSNBC took some hits, but it was the daily viewers of Fox News who were significantly more misinformed about healthcare, climate change, and Barack Obama. They were 14 points more likely to mistakenly believe that "the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts," and 13 points more likely to erroneously believe that "the auto bailout only occurred under Obama," and 12 points more likely to hold the incorrect belief that "when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it." By 30 points, they mistakenly believed that "most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring."

[See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

And of course, they were 31 percent more likely to believe the Birther whopper that "it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States."

It was not a matter of partisan self-selection. Democrats who watched Fox, as well as Republicans, came away misled and misinformed.

alarm bells go off. I'm not convinced of man-made climate change even if most of the "experts" march in lock step. A good follow up question might be "what do you, Mr. Climatologist, stand to lose (your reputation, your grant money) if your theories are proved lacking?".... or "what financial incentive are you receiving to conduct your research?"... I can think of dozens more but I think you get my point.

Edit: USNEWS reporting on the study is, um, rich.

 

[kielbasa]

You haven't been reading this thread, have you? We've also covered this before.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

Hahahahaha 2

Where do I begin. Let's start with "Don't be so gullible, McFly". In light of this whole thread, that the bit about being misinformed about "climate change" gave me a chuckle. I suspect Foxnews viewers would also be most misinformed about "Das Kapital" and feminist theology. You people just swallow up this crap without question, don't you?

There are similar polls and studies showing just the opposite to be true, but the truly open-minded person doesn't give them the light of day and certainly doesn't brag about their one-sidedness. I bet Hitler came up with some astounding studies about the inferiority of Jews, gypsies, and blacks.

http://www.zogby.com/news/2008/11/18/zogby-poll-almost-no-obama-voters-ace-election-test/

 

[kielbasa]

This is kinda cool and may surprise some (since we're talking about being informed). Neil Degrasse Tyson on funding for science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk&list=PL273E9E983B540F80&index=22

 

[VeloCity]

alarm bells go off. I'm not convinced of man-made climate change even if most of the "experts" march in lock step.

Well you just keep on believing that. No amount of evidence will convince the closed minded.

A good follow up question might be "what do you, Mr. Climatologist, stand to lose (your reputation, your grant money) if your theories are proved lacking?"....

or "what financial incentive are you receiving to conduct your research?"...

Scott, again, none of this is new - it's all been covered a million times over. A simple 5-minute Google search will answer all of your questions.

What you should be asking is, what do we stand to lose if our theories are proven correct (which, btw, they largely have been)? Cause that's by far the more relevant question.

Edit: USNEWS reporting on the study is, um, rich.

A link of convenience. I don't really care one way or the other what that blogger has to say about it. Still, aren't you the one accusing others of not being open-minded toward differing viewpoints? Maybe you should practice what you preach instead of just dismissing it out of hand.