FOX News destroys CNN and MSNBC In Ratings

[red states rule]

Once again, FOX News has proved they are the #1 cable news network. So much for the baseless charge FOX News is biased, and people will grow tired of Fox News.

The people have chosen to get their news in a fair and balanced format. The liberal leaning cables networks continue to sink in the ratings.

Much like Air America trying to take on Rush and Sean.


http://newsbusters.org/node/6758

Fox News Demolishes CNN and MSNBC in July
Posted by Noel Sheppard on August 4, 2006 - 15:15.
Assume you were in an upper-management position at one of the many liberally-biased news outlets, and you read the above headline. Would it make you question what your organization was doing wrong, what Fox News is doing right, or what is wrong with America’s television news viewers?

Regardless of the answer, Variety released July viewer totals for the cable news outlets, and, once again, Fox News is completely destroying the competition. In fact, some of the numbers are pretty laughable (ergo, put your drinking vessels away!):

Despite FNC's declines, it still beat CNN handily in primetime, averaging 1.5 million viewers to CNN's 864,000; CNN still has a long way to go before it can be considered a serious ratings challenger.

FNC won every hour of each day over CNN for the 55th straight month. It was the No. 5-rated cable network in June, behind USA, TNT, TBS and Lifetime. CNN came in 24th, MSNBC 36th.

That deserves closer examination, doesn’t it? Fox has beaten CNN every hour of every day for 55 straight months?!? Yikes. And, FNC is the fifth-ranked network on cable? Yet, the chuckles kept coming:

"Van Susteren" was down the most of any cable news show in July, dropping 33% in total viewers and 32% in the 25-54 demographic, the most important for advertisers.

Nevertheless, "Van Susteren" still came out on top of CNN's much-promoted "Anderson Cooper 360," which added 49% in total viewers during the month. "Van Susteren" averaged 1.4 million viewers during the month compared with 970,000 for "AC 360."

Imagine that. With all the focus that has been given to Cooper, including a front-page feature story in Vanity Fair, he’s getting demolished by Greta. Now that’s entertainment. But, the chuckles weren’t done yet, for the article saved the most hysterical section for the end:

MSNBC also saw broad ratings gains over a much smaller base. "Hardball With Chris Matthews" was up 156% in July, but its 338,000 viewers made it a distant third to CNN's "The Situation Room" (716,000 total viewers) and FNC's "Big Story With John Gibson" (1.1 million).

"Countdown With Keith Olbermann" also was up, but a feud with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly didn't help his competitive position much. Olbermann finished third in the 25-54 demo and fourth in total viewers to Headline News' "Nancy Grace."

Isn’t that delicious? Olbermann actually got beat by Nancy Grace.

I don’t know about you, but I need some oxygen!

 

[Dr Grump]

HOLY FUCK!!! 1.5 million people watch Fox!!!! That's a whole 0.5% of the US population! That means 99.5% of the population DON'T watch Fox. For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 298,500,000 do NOT listen to Fox! Wow! By comparison a whole 0.3% (approx of course!) watch CNN. That means 99.7% of the population don't watch CNN! For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 299,100,00 people DON'T watch CNN. What does this mean? Absolutely NOTHING....

RSR! I hear your Momma calling!

 

[red states rule]

HOLY FUCK!!! 1.5 million people watch Fox!!!! That's a whole 0.5% of the US population! That means 99.5% of the population DON'T watch Fox. For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 298,500,000 do NOT listen to Fox! Wow! By comparison a whole 0.3% (approx of course!) watch CNN. That means 99.7% of the population don't watch CNN! For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 299,100,00 people DON'T watch CNN. What does this mean? Absolutely NOTHING....

RSR! I hear your Momma calling!

If it means nothing, why do libs constantly flip out over Fox News?

Why do CNN and MSNBC constantly insult them and the libs who appear on Fox News?

The bottom line is, Fox News is #1 in cable news

 

[Dr Grump]

If it means nothing, why do libs constantly flip out over Fox News?

Probably for the same reason neocons like yourself flip out over CNN...

Why do CNN and MSNBC constantly insult them and the libs who appear on Fox News?

Do they? Got links that show that those two channels CONSTANTLY insult them?

The bottom line is, Fox News is #1 in cable news

To which I say "So fucking what?" It seems ALL the cable news channels don't even pass the margin of error....

 

[dilloduck]

Probably for the same reason neocons like yourself flip out over CNN...



Do they? Got links that show that those two channels CONSTANTLY insult them?



To which I say "So fucking what?" It seems ALL the cable news channels don't even pass the margin of error....

You say that alot unless it's something that affects you ---selfish much?

 

[red states rule]

Here you go..........


http://newsbusters.org/node/4056

CNN Commentator Jack Cafferty Calls Fox News "Safe Haven" For Republicans
Posted by David Flanagan on February 16, 2006 - 14:19.
Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report today highlights a recent SFGATE.com article written by Matea Gold of the LA Times entitled Critics slam Cheney's interview choice. As predicted, the assualt on the Vice President, who waited approximately 24 hours before making an official announcement over the shooting incident this past weekend, has modified somewhat to include an assault on Fox News as well:

For days, the White House news corps has pounded the Bush administration, demanding to learn more about Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a hunting companion Saturday.

Cheney finally addressed the incident Wednesday, but the forum in which he chose to do so -- in an exclusive interview with Fox News host Brit Hume -- quickly became another source of contention.

But this was the pleasant portion of the article. Ms. Gold goes on to write that:

But some Democrats and competing broadcasters charged that Cheney chose to speak only with Fox News because of a perception that the cable channel is sympathetic to the Republican administration. They called for the vice president to hold a news conference with the rest of the media.

"Now that he feels forced to talk, he wants to restrict the discussion to a friendly news outlet, guaranteeing no hard questions from the press corps," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said in a statement.

On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

Did either of these folks see the interview with Brit before they offered these comments? This was no softball interview as Mr. Hume even strayed from the topic of the shooting at one point to ask the Vice President if he had indeed authorized Scooter Libby to leak classified information.

These comments, while predictable, strike me as those akin to ones made by someone regarding a controversial book who, upon being questioned, is forced to admit they never read the book. Do Senator Lautenberg and Mr. Cafferty ever watch Special Report w/Brit Hume?

The White House has been accused by Washington Post Op-Ed columnist and others of "arrogance." I disagree.

This has been, from the start, more a story of the arrogance of the media elites. Journalists from the major networks especially have been incensed. First they were offended by the 24-hour delay in the release of the information, then they were incensed over the fact they were scooped by a local Texas newspaper, and then they were incensed by Scott McClellen's refusal to answer questions about the incident.

Queue the David Gregory tirade.

The final and most horrific insult was the Vice President's decision to forgo an open-ended press conference in favor of one in-depth interview with Brit Hume of Fox News. Which gives both lefty bloggers and the traditional media some extra fuel for their fire.

What do bloggers think of Fox News in general? Here is a pointed comment made recently by Dave Hughes of DCRTV.com (DC Radio & Television News) in the Rants section of his blog:

2/14 - On his WMAL show today, Chris Core, talking about Dick Cheney's shotgun controversy, faulted the Washington press corps because it's always on the prowl "for scandal." OK, Chris, so isn't that what a reporter does? Look for news? And, yes, sometimes finding scandal? I guess what Chris wants is a press corps like Fox News - to do PR for the president and his administration. A whole army of White House butt-kissers like Carl Cameron. I will admit, Chris, that maybe it's a choice between two "evils." Still, I'd rather have a press corps that dishes out lurid scandal than one that feeds me government propaganda. Freedom of the press ain't always pretty.....

I agree wholeheartedly with the comment that "freedom of the press ain't always pretty....." At the same time, why does this philosophy not, apply to Fox News?

It does not, of course, because, you see, Fox News is nothing more than "government propaganda." Or, as Jack Cafferty put it, a "safe haven" for conservatives in general and Republicans in particular.

That is, until you watch Bill O'Reilly hammer away at administration officals over the Iraq War, or Brit Hume's "All-Star Panel" in heated debate, or even Hannity and Colmes during one of their heated debates. And if you'll remember, Alan Colmes has himself managed to arrange quite a few exclusive interviews with Democratic leaders, including Senator Clinton.

Fox News has kept it's focus more on what could be called "issues education." This "issues education" format is underscored by their motto, "we report, you decide." As the various sides debate, viewers can hear those arguments and make up their own minds. And to underscore that point, if you visit the Fox News website, you'll see, directly below the link to the video of the Cheney interview, a videotaped response to the interview by former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe.

Not convinced? Here's a thought; go see for yourself.

David Flanagan's


Journalists Jealous Cheney Went to FNC, Take Shots at Integrity of FNC & Brit Hume
Posted by Brent Baker on February 16, 2006 - 01:29.
Admitting he hadn’t seen the interview, at about 4:15pm EST Wednesday on CNN’s The Situation Room, Jack Cafferty charged that “it didn't exactly represent a profile in courage for the Vice President to wander over there to the F-word network for a sit-down with Brit Hume. I mean, that's a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde, ain't it?” Cafferty soon called FNC a “safe haven” for Dick Cheney and predicted “he's not going to get any high hard ones from anybody at the F-word network." CNN colleague Lou Dobbs opened his show by complaining: “Vice President Cheney finally talking about his shooting accident, but to only one news organization. Is that full disclosure or is it blatant news management?" Guest Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News called it “ridiculous” for Cheney to give “one interview to his favorite network.”And later, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann castigated Cheney for choosing the “more malleable cameras of Fox News" in place of a press conference.

Over on the broadcast network evening newscasts, NBC’s David Gregory, the most aggressive reporter in the White House press briefings, fired back at Hume, suggesting either Hume had an anti-White House press corps axe to grind or at least that Cheney chose him because of that opinion: "Speaking out for the first time, the Vice President chose to speak with Fox anchor Brit Hume, a former White House correspondent, he has been outspoken in his criticism of the White House press corps' coverage of this story." On the CBS Evening News, correspondent Jim Axelrod characterized FNC as a “friendly” venue: "The Vice President chose to make his first public comments on Fox News Channel's Special Report, a broadcast Mr. Cheney sees as friendly, and has turned to before.” One doubts reporters presumed Vice President Al Gore was going to friendly media when he sat down with ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. (Fuller transcripts follow.)

Axelrod also described Karl Rove as “President Bush's political enforcer” and asserted that “one Republican insider” claimed that in the hunting accident case “secrecy” had come to look “like conspiracy.”

On ABC’s World News Tonight, co-anchor Diane Sawyer revealed what animated the ABC News staff during the day: "You know, Elizabeth, listening to George [Stephanopoulos], I'm thinking of our conversation in the newsroom today about President Bush and his own hunting mishap."

Hiding FNC: Of the three broadcast network evening newscasts, only the NBC Nightly News showed their Cheney/Hume clips in full frame -- with the bottom left corner FNC logo displayed as well as the text and labeling across the bottom of the screen. Those who watched ABC’s World News Tonight or the CBS Evening News saw a zoomed-in blurry version of Cheney so ABC and CBS could eliminate the FNC logo, though both put “Fox News Channel” in small text in the top right of their screens. NBC version to right, ABC and CBS displays below in transcripts of those newscasts.

Some partial and full transcripts for the Wednesday afternoon, February 15 coverage of Cheney’s decision to sit for an interview, in his office, with FNC’s Brit Hume, a session taped at 2pm EST and which aired on the 6pm EST Special Report with Brit Hume. FoxNews.com has posted video and a transcript which show Hume covered every question you could expect a journalist to pose.

# CNN’s The Situation Room at about 4:15pm EST, as caught by the MRC’s Megan McCormack:


Wolf Blitzer, in DC: “What did you make of Dick Cheney’s interview today?”

Jack Cafferty, from New York City: "Well, I obviously didn't see it cause it hasn't been released in its entirety yet. But I, I would guess it didn't exactly represent a profile in courage for the Vice President to wander over there to the F-word network for a sit-down with Brit Hume. I mean, that's a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde, ain't it? I mean, where was the news conference? Where was the, where was the access to all of the members of the media? I, I don't know, you know. Whatever."

Wolf Blitzer: "You still think he needs to do a full-scale news conference in front of all the cameras, all the reporters and ask whatever they want?"

Cafferty: "That's never going to happen. I, but I mean running over there to the Fox network to, I mean, that's, talk about seeking a safe haven. He's not going to get any high hard ones from anybody at the F-word network. I think we know that."


# CNN’s 6pm EST Lou Dobbs Tonight

Lou Dobbs opened: “Tonight, Vice President Cheney finally talking about his shooting accident, but to only one news organization. Is that full disclosure or is it blatant news management?”

Dobbs refused to say “Fox News Channel” as he quipped: “Vice President Cheney chose to break his silence, not with the press conference or before the White House press corps, but in a one-on-one interview with a news organization whose location and identity we can't disclose tonight.”

In a mid-show guest segment, Michael Goodwin, the former Executive Editor of the New York Daily News, who is now a columnist, scolded: “I do think that the Vice President has acted foolishly here. I think that putting it out the way he did. And then acting today even, just giving one interview to his favorite network, I think is ridiculous.”

# MSNBC’s Countdown. Keith Olbermann opened, over a "Friendly Fire" graphic, by taking a shot at FNC:

“Good evening. The Vice President of the United States has accepted responsibility for the accidental shooting of a Texas attorney during a quail hunt. Our fifth story on the Countdown: Just 95 hours and 10 minutes after it happened. Not in a news conference nor in a written statement nor to a panel of interviewers from a variety of news organizations, but rather before the more malleable cameras of Fox News. Conducted this afternoon in Washington, D.C. and already in the immediate aftermath presenting several discrepancies about when the condition of the victim, Harry Whittington, could be safely established, about who decided to keep it quiet until morning and why, about whether Mr. Whittington was Mr. Cheney’s ‘friend,,’ his ‘good friend’ or just an ‘acquaintance’ of thirty years. The Vice President answered each of those three ways. I have those discrepancies, whether the Vice President's account holds water with gun and hunting experts and the analysis of John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal."

# ABC’s World News Tonight. Co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas led:

"Good evening. It was a different side of Dick Cheney we saw today when he spoke about the shooting accident that wounded his friend and brought unwelcome attention on his office. Cheney has received a lot of criticism for not telling the public about the incident earlier. Even many of his supporters have been perplexed by his silence. They say it's made this story bigger than it otherwise would have been. Tonight, the Vice President has taken back some of the control by speaking out. And we begin with our chief White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz. Martha?"

Following the Raddatz piece on the FNC interview and some q&a with George Stephanopoulos about whether Cheney succeeded in capping the story (probably), co-anchor Diane Sawyer revealed what animated the ABC News staff during the day:

"You know, Elizabeth, listening to George, I'm thinking of our conversation in the newsroom today about President Bush and his own hunting mishap."

Vargas: "That's right. He wrote about it in his autobiography in 1994. He shot a rare bird by accident on a hunting trip of his own. He says he didn't know what to do, but then decided to tell every single reporter who was accompanying him on that hunting trip. So, at least in that respect, you saw a very different way, a different version of how to handle this kind of crisis."

Sawyer: "Right, different incident but sharp contrast in the way it was handled."

# CBS Evening News. Anchor Bob Schieffer opened his newscast, as tracked by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:


"Well, he called it one of the worst days of his life. That is how the Vice President described the day he fired his shotgun and then watched in horror as his friend fell to the ground. After four days of silence, the Vice President finally spoke publicly about the hunting accident that left his friend, Harry Whittington, wounded and still in the hospital. Cheney's comments came in an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News. Jim Axelrod is at the White House tonight with our report, and he has some follow-up. Jim?"

Jim Axelrod began: "Well, Bob, CBS News has learned that it was President Bush's political enforcer, Karl Rove, who finally got the Vice President to speak publicly about his hunting accident. And Rove pushed Mr. Cheney hard, worried that the story was moving from distraction to political problem."

Cheney, on FNC: "It was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

Axelrod: "The Vice President chose to make his first public comments on Fox News Channel's Special Report, a broadcast Mr. Cheney sees as friendly, and has turned to before. For a tough guy, not known for emotion, Dick Cheney looked somber and shaken."

Cheney: "The image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind. I fired, and there's Harry falling. And it was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life."

Axelrod: "Four days later, most of the questions lingering concern why and when a private citizen, ranch owner Ann Armstrong, made the news public the Vice President of the United States had shot someone. Mr. Cheney was adamant today it was handled appropriately."

Cheney: "I thought that was the right call."

Brit Hume, Fox News Channel, to Cheney: "What do you think now?"

Cheney: "Well, I still do. I still think that the accuracy was enormously important. I had no press person with me. I didn't have any press people with me. I was there on a private weekend with friends on a private ranch."

Axelrod: "The hope among Republicans is the interview will finally tamp down the story. GOP pressure was mounting on Mr. Cheney to say something. When secrecy looks like conspiracy, one Republican insider told CBS News, that's a political problem."

Unidentified man: "He's doing extremely well."

Axelrod: "In Texas, doctors had good news today about Harry Whittington, the man Cheney accidentally shot. His heart is now beating normally again. He's making good progress four days after the accident."

Hume: "So did you run over to him or-?"

Cheney: "Ran over to him, and-"

Hume: "And what did you see? He was lying there?"

Cheney: "He was laying there on his back, obviously, bleeding. You could see where the shot had struck him."

Axelrod: "Among the details provided in the interview, alcohol. The Vice President says he had one beer, it was at lunch, and that was several hours before the hunting accident. Not an issue, says the Vice President. Bob?"

Schieffer: "Well, Jim, I know you said that Karl Rove was the one that convinced the Vice President to do this. I sort of go back to the days of Lyndon Johnson, and kind of imagine what he might have done had poor Vice President Humphrey gotten involved in something like this. Is there any evidence that the President himself got into this or talked to the Vice President about it?"

Axelrod: "Well, Bob, the history of these two men, of course, is that the President has allowed the Vice President to operate with a great deal of autonomy. Nothing to suggest that that changed, but, clearly, the President's most senior aides did get to the Vice President, delivered this news that the political damage was being done, and, clearly, that changed the calculus."

Bob Schieffer: "I want to turn now to Gloria Borger, who broke the story last night of how the way all this was handled has created a real divide between the President's people and the Vice President's staff. Gloria, we heard the Vice President describe this as one of the worst moments in his life. How is he holding up? He, after all, is not in the greatest of health."

Gloria Borger: "Well, Bob, one source who's very close to the Vice President told CBS News today that Dick Cheney has been in what he calls a 'state of meltdown' over this hunting accident. And another top White House aide also told CBS, quote, 'You can't imagine how upset the Vice President is.' In fact, he said, the Vice President is so upset that the Whittington family is worrying about Dick Cheney."...

# NBC Nightly News. Anchor Brian Williams, in Torino, started:


“Good evening. Tonight, after four days of blanket news coverage and mounting questions about a shooting that left a man hospitalized, today the Bush White House made an attempt at stopping the political damage by breaking four days of silence on the part of the Vice President. Today Dick Cheney sat down for a television interview. He is now taking full responsibility for the shooting, while others are still questioning the circumstances and the chain of events. Once again tonight we begin our reporting with NBC News Chief White House correspondent David Gregory.”

Gregory pretty much stuck to relaying what Cheney said in the FNC interview, but he couldn’t resist this dig at Hume:

“Speaking out for the first time, the Vice President chose to speak with Fox anchor Brit Hume, a former White House correspondent, he has been outspoken in his criticism of the White House press corps’ coverage of this story.”

 

[Dr Grump]

You say that alot unless it's something that affects you ---selfish much?

And you only offer one sentence posts...and?

 

[dilloduck]

And you only offer one sentence posts...and?

Sometimes. sometimes they are more than one sentence. Is there a 2 sentence limit or something?

 

[Annie]

Hey RSR, you forgot this one! FOX bothers the brilliant undersecretary of the UN. CNN got the interview. Dang, the only 'stealth' by the UN has been in uncovering their scandals and who's involved in them:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/07...ut_hes_really_insulting_rush_limbaugh_fox.php

Fox & Bolten Say UN Under Secretary Insults American People But He's Really Insulting Rush Limbaugh & Fox
Reported by Donna - June 07, 2006

Today on Fox News Live with Bill Hemmer a segment was done with correspondant Eric Shawn regarding remarks that UN Under Secretary General, Mark Mallock Brown had made.

From what Fox reported in this segment you would have thought that the American people were largely insulted, I heard two sources that were insulted, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

The following is my transcript between Bill Hemmer and Eric Shawn. Of course it was a Fox News Alert.

Bill Hemmer: After telling you about angry statements from the UN's number two man, Kofi Annan says he's standing by his statements from the UN Deputy.

Eric Shawn: Quite an explosive day at the UN. An undiplomatic attack on the American people. That's how U.S. UN Ambassador, John Bolten, views what the UN's number two man said in a speech. Under Secretary General, Mark Mallock Brown, accusing the Bush administration of not standing up to UN critics and claiming that it's Americans who are undermining the UN and it's efforts. Mallock Brown saying, quote, "Too much unchecked UN bashing and stereotyping going on."

Switch to video of UN Under Secretary, Mark Mallock Brown.

Mark Mallock Brown: Much of the public discourse that reaches U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to it's loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I meant by stealth diplomacy. The UN's role is in effect a secret in middle America. Even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Eric Shawn: Ambassador Bolten has now branded (this) as a quote, "Very grave mistake." The Ambassador believes he attacked the UN's largest supporter.

Switch to video of John Bolten.

John Bolton: Even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That fundementally and very sadly this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government by an international civil servant. It's just illegitimate.

Eric Shawn: Ambassador Bolten fears that Mallock Brown's comments will damage the UN itself and it's efforts at reform. As to (garbled), Kofi Annan's spokesperson, the Secretary Gerneral is standing by his comments and by the way, Bill, in the past Mr. Mallock Brown has praised Fox News.

Comments: Sure, he probably praised Fox News before he found out what they were truly like. Me thinks someone is being a bit sensitive here and I don't think it's the American people. I think it may be the parties of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. What did they think? That they could continually berate the UN and not hear anything back? It's about time someone with some backbone stood up to these supposed 'news' media who try and legislate across the airwaves from their studios.

 

[jillian]

Except you forgot something, Kathianne. Newshounds and Newsbusters have about as much credibility as the "sources" they tout.

Might be more compelling if the sites chosen to "disprove" a point were credible and not simply "yes-men" for a particular agenda.

In other words, those things have about as much credence for me as mediamatters would for you.

 

[Annie]

Except you forgot something, Kathianne. Newshounds and Newsbusters have about as much credibility as the "sources" they tout.

Might be more compelling if the sites chosen to "disprove" a point were credible and not simply "yes-men" for a particular agenda.

In other words, those things have about as much credence for me as mediamatters would for you.

Actually Jillian, when they use quotes from the transcripts, it's not a problem. Of course, with just a tad of a search, you should be able to find a source you put more credence in, if something came out of context, you'll be the one to take down their credibility, based on more than your take of their slant.

I regulary do so, when I see something posted that doesnt' 'seem right', even from 'reliable sources' such as NY Times, WSJ, ect., so can you. It's not unusual for someone debating to take a 'bit' of a story, leaving out the rest. On the other hand, if the source is mightily biased, you can find other sources, unless made up out of whole cloth, in which case, it probably is the source at fault.

 

[Gunny]

HOLY FUCK!!! 1.5 million people watch Fox!!!! That's a whole 0.5% of the US population! That means 99.5% of the population DON'T watch Fox. For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 298,500,000 do NOT listen to Fox! Wow! By comparison a whole 0.3% (approx of course!) watch CNN. That means 99.7% of the population don't watch CNN! For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 299,100,00 people DON'T watch CNN. What does this mean? Absolutely NOTHING....

RSR! I hear your Momma calling!

You libs crack me up. This is so obviously a backwards-assed argument designed to deflect from the facts it ain't funny.

 

[red states rule]

Except you forgot something, Kathianne. Newshounds and Newsbusters have about as much credibility as the "sources" they tout.

Might be more compelling if the sites chosen to "disprove" a point were credible and not simply "yes-men" for a particular agenda.

In other words, those things have about as much credence for me as mediamatters would for you.

Jilly, in most cases, Media Busters posted the actual words the liberal media used to attack Fox News and Conservatives

What is compelling is to see the libs and liberal media meltdown over Fox News. Much like Kieth Liberalmen of MSNBC giving a Nazi salute while wearing a Bill O'Reilly mask.

 

[Gem]

So the UN finds FoxNews important enough to comment on...but Dr. Grump doesn't feel its important at all. Well, I do think that the UN is generally corrupt and useless...so maybe I agree with Dr. Grump on this!

Then again...

If more and more people who pay attention to the news are turning to tv and internet rather than print...the fact that most seem to be getting their news from Fox would be absoultely important and relevant because it means that most people are getting the FoxNews version of news, rather than the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. version of the news.

Now if you like Fox...thats great. If you don't like Fox...then you might want to be concerned (or you could just write some drivel about how its not important...which makes no sense at all).

 

[Dr Grump]

the fact that most seem to be getting their news from Fox would be absoultely important and relevant because it means that most people are getting the FoxNews version of news, rather than the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. version of the news

So 0.5% of the population is most? Really. Wow! The US must be a lot less populated than I thought.

(or you could just write some drivel about how its not important...which makes no sense at all).

Maybe you could give me some "drivel" on why it is important that Fox gets 1.5 million people watching out of a possible 300 million (even take about under 15 year olds who couldn't care about the news and it is still insignificant), and how that small number makes sense?

 

[red states rule]

So 0.5% of the population is most? Really. Wow! The US must be a lot less populated than I thought.



Maybe you could give me some "drivel" on why it is important that Fox gets 1.5 million people watching out of a possible 300 million (even take about under 15 year olds who couldn't care about the news and it is still insignificant), and how that small number makes sense?

The fact is Fox news destroys the liberal cable networks (CNN and MSNBC)

Despite all the hit pieces done by the liberal media, Fox News continues to beat the "competition" by a huge margin.

If Fox News is so unimportant why does Kieth Liberman and the rest of liberl media display such hate toward Fox News?

Fox News, by the way, has an impressive list of libs on their shows.

 

[Annie]

So 0.5% of the population is most? Really. Wow! The US must be a lot less populated than I thought.



Maybe you could give me some "drivel" on why it is important that Fox gets 1.5 million people watching out of a possible 300 million (even take about under 15 year olds who couldn't care about the news and it is still insignificant), and how that small number makes sense?

As I've said to Jillian, it appears you are much brighter than what you post, but the problem is you assume that everyone here that is conservative is dumb. Not a good assumption.

You've 'clipped' Gem's post, some of us notice.

Be that as it may, bottom line, FOX has been shown to be more 'fair and balanced' than the networks, CNN, and MSNBC. While the overwhelming percentage of Americans watch network news or none at all, those that are 'influential' watch cable news. Of those that do, the majority are watching FOX. Not because they are conservative, but because it provides all sides of the stories, the vast majority of the time.

With all that said, the topic sucks. Most here, conservatives, watch FOX. The others here, mostly liberal, wouldn't for any reason. So it's moot.

 

[red states rule]

As I've said to Jillian, it appears you are much brighter than what you post, but the problem is you assume that everyone here that is conservative is dumb. Not a good assumption.

You've 'clipped' Gem's post, some of us notice.

Be that as it may, bottom line, FOX has been shown to be more 'fair and balanced' than the networks, CNN, and MSNBC. While the overwhelming percentage of Americans watch network news or none at all, those that are 'influential' watch cable news. Of those that do, the majority are watching FOX. Not because they are conservative, but because it provides all sides of the stories, the vast majority of the time.

With all that said, the topic sucks. Most here, conservatives, watch FOX. The others here, mostly liberal, wouldn't for any reason. So it's moot.

Not only Jilly, but also the unbiased Jack Cafferty at the unbiased CNN think only dumb people watch Fox News


http://newsbusters.org/node/6043

CNN's Cafferty: 'The Dumb Ones Watch Fox'
Posted by Megan McCormack on June 22, 2006 - 17:45.
What do you do when you’re a cable news network struggling to keep up in the ratings? Do you lure viewers away from your competitor with programming that they would want to watch, or alienate those same viewers by insulting their intelligence?

The latter seems to be the strategy for CNN’s Jack Cafferty. Shortly before 5pm EDT on the June 22 The Situation Room, Cafferty made this remark to substitute host John King after reading viewer responses to his question of the hour:

John King, substitute host: "Jack, I’m glad they always tell you exactly what they’re thinking."

Cafferty: "And, and they’re pretty smart, too."


King: "Yes they are, yes they are. Thank you very much–"

Cafferty: "The dumb ones watch Fox."

King [laughing]: "Ouch! Ouch, ouch, that’s going to bring some more e-mail."

Cafferty has not been shy to hide his contempt for Fox News, or the 'F-word network', as he referred to the channel in 2005. As Newsbusters reported in February of this year, Cafferty opined that Vice President Cheney's decision to do a sit-down interview with FNC's Brit Hume was "a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde." Apparently, Cafferty doesn’t believe that you make more friends with sugar than vinegar.

 

[theHawk]

HOLY FUCK!!! 1.5 million people watch Fox!!!! That's a whole 0.5% of the US population! That means 99.5% of the population DON'T watch Fox. For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 298,500,000 do NOT listen to Fox! Wow! By comparison a whole 0.3% (approx of course!) watch CNN. That means 99.7% of the population don't watch CNN! For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 299,100,00 people DON'T watch CNN. What does this mean? Absolutely NOTHING....

RSR! I hear your Momma calling!

Ummm it doesn't mean that only 1.5 million watch fox. That is the average per day. Not everyone tunes in everyday.

 

[red states rule]

Ummm it doesn't mean that only 1.5 million watch fox. That is the average per day. Not everyone tunes in everyday.

CNN and MSNBC wish they had the ratings Fox News has.

Same as Dead Air America sees the numbers for Rush/Sean and drools