lame stream media > Fox and friends

[JJ Husker]

Interesting take . . . (from back in 2009)

http://gawker.com/53...kyline=true&s=x

Interesting? I suppose. Factual? Hardly. I'm sure there is a point in there and that some zealots tune in simply to be affirmed by the likes of Hannity but, there is also something to be said for getting things presented from a different point of view. A couple of the conclusions jumped to in this article seem to be more wishful thinking from the left than anything else. Really, the more voters the GOP repels, the more zealots tune in to Fox News? Seems to be somewhat of a mathematical stretch. I mean where are all these zealots coming from? The moderates are all leaving and there is an endless supply of far right nutjobs to replace them? This must be a scary country if that is what one imagines. I think it much more likely that the country is slowly shifting to the left, some left views are becoming more the norm, and many people don't fully appreciate that shift. I might be a bit stubborn but, near as I can tell, some of my views are also shifting to the left but maybe just not as quickly. Is everyone who thinks some things are moving a bit too quickly and too far to the left a zealot? Seems like a misuse of the word to me.

[Vizsla1]

I had three channels we were watching at the same time in my living room. The biggest screen was saved for Meghan and the other large tv was split to MSNBC and local channel 8. Karl Rove looked like an idiot grasping at straws towards the end of Ohio. To answer the question about intregrity on the cable news channels. Yes, FOX by far has the most viewers. I have watched them all, and although I am slightly to the right of Josef Stalin, I can say that they do the best at present full stories. The other channels are very envious of their ratings and programming. They consistently beat all the others combined. That says something. For every story one would find about FOX misrepresenting a story, one will find 10 for the others. I just prefer my news unfiltered, warts and all, oh and delivered by hot women.

 

FOX Shep Smith has a highly rated show- he is far left guy among other things. In the coming weeks, one will need to watch the Libya Benghazi story and see how the networks cover it. Right now, most of the info is coming from FOX News and people say- oh its FOX. Try telling that to the Stevens family or the Woods family. In our lifetimes, that is about as important as a story can get about abuse of power. It is right in line with "Clear and Present danger" with Harrison Ford.

 

Writing of Woods family, read their thoughts on the meeting with Hillary, Biden and Obama. All three blamed a video and seemed very distant and in the case of Biden told Mr Woods "Did ur son always have balls the size of cue balls". Now, most stations will not report that, but we all remember the first week or two about the video (the director is still in jail mind u).

Just look it all up. Then look up code pink and the way the media handled Ms. Sheehan when her son died. Giant contrast, put pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[carlfense]

Interesting? I suppose. Factual? Hardly.

If you watch Fox News this should appear familiar.

[carlfense]

They consistently beat all the others combined. That says something.

Jersey Shore is (was?) popular.

 

For every story one would find about FOX misrepresenting a story, one will find 10 for the others. I just prefer my news unfiltered, warts and all, oh and delivered by hot women.

You say that you prefer your news unfiltered . . . and you watch Fox . . . that's awesome.

 

Their totally unfiltered election predictions were spot on.

[Vizsla1]

Carl- look at the polling. There are margins or error and samples. Now if your sample shows a plus x (lets say 5 percent) of one party over the other, doesn't it make sense when you don't have 50/50 even split to back out the excess? That was the point that idiot toe sucking Morris was making when he predicted a landslide.

 

As for FOX News, We mock what we don't understand

[knapplc]

Carl did look at the polling - just not Fox News' polling. Well, scratch that - he (and I, and several others here) did look at Fox News' polling - and laughed. The "democrat bias" they kept yammering about was shown to be 100% untrue by Nate Silver, for one.

 

You don't have to like the fact that Fox was inaccurate (at best) and misleading (at the most nefarious interpretation) over the last few months. But you must, if you're trying to be factual, agree that they were wrong. There's no two ways about it - the models they presented to the right-wing base were flat-out wrong. And they admitted as much last night while I watched.

[carlfense]

Carl- look at the polling. There are margins or error and samples. Now if your sample shows a plus x (lets say 5 percent) of one party over the other, doesn't it make sense when you don't have 50/50 even split to back out the excess? That was the point that idiot toe sucking Morris was making when he predicted a landslide.

I did look at the polling. For months. In fact I posted regular updates here about the polling. That's why I expected Obama to win and for Morris/Barone/Rove to be embarrassed. The polls were right. Fox News' regulars were wrong.

 

As for FOX News, We mock what we don't understand

Speak for yourself. I mock what I do understand.

[sd'sker]

I flipped back and forth between Fox, msnbc, and a couple major network channels last night just to see how the coverage varied but, the majority of what I watched was on Fox. I can't say they were off track with anything. Yes, the Rove tantrum about calling Ohio was a little strange but the fact is the network called it correctly and deservedly so. I don't think one person, Rove, going off on a tangent should discredit their coverage. Rove could've had a good point about which counties were still out in Ohio but he happened to be wrong. I think BB and MK shut him down pretty quickly even if the walk down the hall was a bit awkward. Overall, it seemed fair and balanced to me. The only channel that seemed out of whack was msnbc but, that is to be expected. If I have to watch someone covering something boring like an election, it might as well be Megyn Kelly- she's hot. Sure as heck beats the hell out of Maddow or Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews.

their coverage was fine. but should rove have been there in the first place? he helped bankroll romney's campaign to the tune of a hunded million dollars. no wonder he refused to believe ohio went to obama. hard to be impartial when you have so much of other people's money on the line.

 

also, i find it weird that you picked your news coverage over how hot the anchor is. i mean, you obviously have internet connection. there are better places than fox to go for hotties.

[zoogs]

What's wrong with Rove being there? ABC was interviewing a campaign strategist for Obama, I think. I mean you have these people who are very familiar with one side or another or very in support of them. They are precisely the guys you want there being interviewed and asked these questions I think, to get their reactions.

[sd'sker]

What's wrong with Rove being there? ABC was interviewing a campaign strategist for Obama, I think. I mean you have these people who are very familiar with one side or another or very in support of them. They are precisely the guys you want there being interviewed and asked these questions I think, to get their reactions.

they were not just interviewing him, he was one of the main commentators. i see your point and maybe i am being too nit-picky but he questioned the credibility of the network that employs him on live tv. they have him there as an 'expert', not as a romney strategist. there is a difference and it is hard to trust his credibility as an 'expert' when he has so much personally invested. they should have called it as it was and labeled him as a romney backer.

[carlfense]

What's wrong with Rove being there? ABC was interviewing a campaign strategist for Obama, I think. I mean you have these people who are very familiar with one side or another or very in support of them. They are precisely the guys you want there being interviewed and asked these questions I think, to get their reactions.

I'm fine with it so long as they fully disclose that he is not some neutral expert . . . that he is heavily invested in the Romney campaign.

 

I have more of a problem with them publishing opinion pieces from Rove like they are news instead of presenting them as they are: campaign propaganda.

[zoogs]

Oh , okay, you guys are probably right on this one. I didn't watch Rove on FOX anymore than that clip from election night. So I'm a bit unfamiliar with his overall role on the program.

[Michiganball]

Another Husker forum I read was asking people what channel they'd watch the election on. An overwhelming plurality responded FOX, the only fair and balanced one that presents both sides.

 

Can anyone make a case for that?

 

Granted, I will say certain liberal media outlets are unabashedly liberal, it's no surprise that they are offensive to conservatives. I loved that ABC guy talking about how Sandy was evidence of global warming as a fact, and wondering why nobody made it a campaign issue.

 

There is no case for that. Any network that actually will edit their show transcripts(FOX) when their hosts make fools of themselves is garbage. Rewriting history is a bit of a no no for me. Prime example was O'reilly's Malmedy massacre comments, not once but twice he got wrong regarding who massacred whom, yet on the web it all mysteriously changed. Good thing youtube has the original for posterity's sake.

 

In the end most networks lean in one direction or the other to a degree. Fox is the leader of garbage, followed by MSNBC on the opposite side of the spectrum. Balanced means low ratings, people want to hear their point of view no matter how poorly and illogical the information presented to them is.