FOX News destroys CNN and MSNBC In Ratings

[jillian]

My question is why would anyone watch cable news? They all suck. Commercials, flawed analysis, pundits, it's awful. Online is so much better.

They're all flawed. But Fox has been proven to only give one side of the equation. Most people know the "fair and balanced" tag is a joke.

As for why people watch it, slightly more than CNN in the greater scheme of things, it's easy to watch and spoon feeds its viewers all the information they WANT to see.

There have also been studies which have proven that Fox viewers are the most ill-informed, though not the ONLY ill-informed of news viewers.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

So there ya go.

 

[Dr Grump]

Dr Grump Wrote:
I'm not trying to belittle other(s), Grumpy. Just you. By clipping my post to inaccurately represent my statements you have proven yourself to be - at best, unable to master the cut-and-paste without drastically changing people's statements or at worst, guilty of deliberately altering someones quote in order to win points in an anonymous message board. Neither speak well of you.

I did neither. Your statement was hardly changed at all, let alone "drastically". First of all, I have already stated that I thought your original post was ambiguous. Once that had been cleared up I then asked you to prove your "fact" (your words, not mine), that most of these new viewers are getting their news from Fox. I note you have avoided doing that either 1) because you can't prove it 2) Your initial statement was posted without much thought. Either doesn't bode well for you. Either prove your point, or don't.

Additionally, by pissing and moaning over little issues like this - you have added absolutely nothing to this thread...making it nothing more than a "Hey look, Dr. Grump is getting incredibly upset over something he claims to care nothing about. So much so that he needs to misquote people to try to prove his point while still adding nothing to the conversation and then whine when they call him on it.

I'm hardly pissing and moaning. I'm just writing on a messageboard. If anybody seems to have their panties in a wad, it seems to be you. Where have I said I don't care about the thread? (hint: I haven't). This seems to be more about "Grump has caught Gem with her pants down and she's trying (unsucessfully) twist her way out of trying to explain her assertion so has resorted to personal insults". How quaint.

Bottom line, if you think that FoxNews is irrelevant because such a ridiculously small amount of Americans watch it thats great.

I think both Fox and CNN have their agenda's. I think they are barely on the radar of most television news junkies going by their ratings.

However a great number of people disagree with that opinion.

As is their want.

You might have done better in this thread if you hadn't started out with the condescention and belittling you have claimed to not like. Rather than your first ridiculous thread - where you offerred nothing but sarcasm and derision...

It was a post, not a thread. Maybe if somebody other than RSR had posted the article sarcasm might not have been my first option, but he and I do have previous form, which is taken into consideration when I post. You don't like it? Too bad. You get that on messageboards.

You could have discussed the fact that the number of news-savy individuals in this country is so minute compared to non-news-savy individuals that it really isn't worth the time. Instead, you posted pointlessness and went downhill from there.

Again, I'd love you to prove those numbers are minute. I don't think you can, which is why you have gone off on the tangent you have. If my post was so pointless why are we three pages into this thread?

 

[jillian]

Again, I'd love you to prove those numbers are minute. I don't think you can, which is why you have gone off on the tangent you have. If my post was so pointless why are we three pages into this thread?

There is an irony to that, isn't there?

The funny thing is that reading these threads, you'd think the vast majority of folk in the U.S. were pro-Bush, "neo-conservatives". Interestingly, only 1/3 of the country support Bush and his policies at last glance. So, if a fair percentage of those supporters, on balance, prefer Fox news, it certainly makes sense and certainly isn't indicative of much else. And even there, in the entire universe of viewers, it's not even really a drop in the bucket.

The greater issue is why these folk love the concept of all sources, except their approved ones, failing?

 

[Dr Grump]

My question is why would anyone watch cable news? They all suck. Commercials, flawed analysis, pundits, it's awful. Online is so much better.

I don't mind those shows with pundits as long as there are even numbers. Take the McLaughlin Group of PBS. They have left and right pundits. I don't mind that. It gives both views of the argument and allows you to see where both sides are coming from. Outsida that, I prefer straight news to be straight news.....

 

[dilloduck]

Manu..read your original post. I am not pissed at anything, just jawing on a messageboard.

Dillo

I am not afraid of Bush, Christians or Fox...:tongue1:

So 'Dr Grump' is just a fake persona that you created to "jaw" on messageboards and doesn't represent what you really feel or think about issues at all?

 

[red states rule]

They're all flawed. But Fox has been proven to only give one side of the equation. Most people know the "fair and balanced" tag is a joke.

As for why people watch it, slightly more than CNN in the greater scheme of things, it's easy to watch and spoon feeds its viewers all the information they WANT to see.

There have also been studies which have proven that Fox viewers are the most ill-informed, though not the ONLY ill-informed of news viewers.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

So there ya go.

Watch the Sunday shows and you will see the libs outnumber the conservatives usually 3{1

Only on Fox News will you see an even number of libs VS conservatives. I am watching Inside Washington. Charles Krauthammer is alone against 4 libs (I include the very liberal host Gordon Petterson) That is fair and balanced according to the liberal media

 

[jillian]

So 'Dr Grump' is just a fake persona that you created to "jaw" on messageboards and doesn't represent what you really feel or think about issues at all?

Actually, yes. The name is a goof. (Read what he has underneath)...not to mention the fact that "grump" has nothing to do with "fear". lol...:sleepy1:

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, yes. The name is a goof. (Read what he has underneath)...not to mention the fact that "grump" has nothing to do with "fear". lol...:sleepy1:

ok--I guess I have to do a "Prince" thing here. Does the poster known as "dr. grump" actually put his real self into these posts or (as he has insinuated here) just use the persona Dr. Grump to "jaw' on message boards?

You know--say a bunch of stuff and then say "aw shucks, I didn't really mean it. I was just kidding" when confronted?

 

[Annie]

This from the guy telling me to be more honest...how about following your own advice...



Kathianne claimed it was fair and balanced first...it is hers to prove, not mine...



Which was the point of the thread, right? Again, you tell me to be honest. Go look in the mirror...

I've posted this before. There are problems with the study, but it's probably the best out there right now:


http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

 

[Eightball]

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's an accurate sampling used to reflect these numbers then it probably reflects a more general and larger summary of the U.S. population's interest or choice for a news source.

It's probably much more accurate than some of the highly touted pre-election political polls.
*
If cable viewers are choosing these venues with these percentages, why wouldn't the general populous reflect similar patterns and roughly similar percentages?

Are cable viewers more conservative or more desireous of Fox's type of news product?

I think that this reflects that the American populous is not as liberal as the mainstream media would want you to believe. I would think that these news numbers reflect a more right-of-center type of political/ethical majority-reflection in the general American populous.

 

[cygonaut]

Fox News, conservative radio talk shows, the 700 club, and all the anti-liberal psy-ops have failed miserably.

The GOP-led congress has only a 25% approval. Bush, less than 40%.

What's wrong?

 

[red states rule]

Fox News, conservative radio talk shows, the 700 club, and all the anti-liberal psy-ops have failed miserably.

The GOP-led congress has only a 25% approval. Bush, less than 40%.

What's wrong?

Then how do you explain away the success of Fox News, Rush, and Sean

Meanwhile the terrible showing of CNN, MSNBC, and Dead Air America losing stations as well as their flagship stations

 

[Dr Grump]

ok--I guess I have to do a "Prince" thing here. Does the poster known as "dr. grump" actually put his real self into these posts or (as he has insinuated here) just use the persona Dr. Grump to "jaw' on message boards?

You know--say a bunch of stuff and then say "aw shucks, I didn't really mean it. I was just kidding" when confronted?

??? What makes you think I don't put myself into these posts? Where did I insinuate that I was just kidding? How come you and Manu insist on putting words into my mouth and state things that I apparently say that I obviously haven't? My "jawing" comment is that wasn't getting all "pissed" as Manu said. I'm not all het up as some obviously are on this board. That was my ONLY point.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've posted this before. There are problems with the study, but it's probably the best out there right now:


http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Ta.

 

[manu1959]

They're all flawed. But Fox has been proven to only give one side of the equation. Most people know the "fair and balanced" tag is a joke.

As for why people watch it, slightly more than CNN in the greater scheme of things, it's easy to watch and spoon feeds its viewers all the information they WANT to see.

There have also been studies which have proven that Fox viewers are the most ill-informed, though not the ONLY ill-informed of news viewers.

http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf

So there ya go.

yes fox is awful....how many of their reporters failed to report what was going on in iraq before the war so they would not get thrown out of the country? oh wait none that was cnn....how many fox reporters forged documents to trap gwb....oh wait none...that was network news....how many oh their reporters embraced hezbollah and were taken on a propoganda tour of lebanon....oh wait none that was cnn.....

when israeli citizens are kiled which great bstion of the left reports it....oh wait none....they are taking tours of lebanon along with the un saying what animals the israelis are......

 

[Dr Grump]

how many fox reporters forged documents to trap gwb....oh wait none..

No Network News reporters forged anything...

 

[dilloduck]

how many fox reporters forged documents to trap gwb....oh wait none..QUOTE]

No Network News reporters forged anything...

LOL oh ya--they were tricked

 

[Annie]

how many fox reporters forged documents to trap gwb....oh wait none..

No Network News reporters forged anything...

Themselves, no proof of that. Used forged documents? Yes. Mary Mapes was the one immediately sacrificed. Danny boy just recently dumped.

 

[Dr Grump]

LOL oh ya--they were tricked

So it seems...

 

[Dr Grump]

Themselves, no proof of that. Used forged documents? Yes. Mary Mapes was the one immediately sacrificed. Danny boy just recently dumped.

Certainly looks like it...I read an article by Mapes in Vanity Fair. She felt their downfall was not double checking the source and should have gone after Bush's avoidance of Viet Nam (her words paraphased by me, not my words) rather than his NG record....