FoxNews worshippers

[rightwinger]

Why did fox cut away twenty minutes early when obama was schooling you rigty's? Why did they speak over his repsonses?

Fox fans are idiots.

Because Fox has to filter the news for its followers. They rely on Mother Fox to provide only the news a right wing conservative needs to hear

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Did you recognize this same phenomenon with George W. Bush?


Seems no matter how out of whack something is, the righties will defend it to the bitter end! Wait til Palin puts her foot in it again! Then we'll see some real water carrying!

I mean seriously.....

Who the hell gets outraged about someone badmouthing a news network? Unless it really isn't a news network

I only read the first page, but wow, they are really pissed off that you even asked this question. They don't bother trying to explain why they would defend FOX or the owners of FOX no matter what.....they just call you names and talk about chiggers, whatever they are....must be some trailor park southern thing....

It's brainwashing. That's the only way to explain it. They don't even WANT another news source. They believe, no questions asked, what FOX tells them. It's scary.

Think for yourselves people.

For idiots like rightwingernutjob and yourself, let me clue you in on some facts. The reason more people turn to Fox News is because they are the most fair and balanced of all the news outlets. For example, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.

And knowing you idiots have trouble with reading comprehension I've included these charts from Journalism.org.

Cable -- Three Different Networks, Three Different Perspectives | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

 

[rightwinger]

Note to wingnuts...

More people watch CBS, NBC and ABC than watch FoxNews

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Note to wingnuts...

More people watch CBS, NBC and ABC than watch FoxNews

You had to write yourself a note. Now that's funny!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The reason more people turn to Fox News is because they are the most fair and balanced of all the news outlets

Your charts seem to indicate that would be CNN.

. For example, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

And? McCain was a a 'RiNO', remember? The hard Right hated them both.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reason more people turn to Fox News is because they are the most fair and balanced of all the news outlets.

I think you are in error, LL, simply based on the fact that I have several of the stations on all day, and pretty soon one understands exactly on every station, including Fox, is going to spin a story or an event. The best way to understand the events of the day, week, month is to sample a wide-range of outlets and then be a responsible individual and use critical thinking skills.

This reminds me of a friend who visited the veep's entourage back in 2005 or 2006. One of the staff told my friend that the only 'voice' that the veep permitted around him was FOX. That says quite a bit about the man.

 

[Zona]

Why did fox cut away twenty minutes early when obama was schooling you rigty's? Why did they speak over his repsonses?

Fox fans are idiots.

Because Fox has to filter the news for its followers. They rely on Mother Fox to provide only the news a right wing conservative needs to hear

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The reason more people turn to Fox News is because they are the most fair and balanced of all the news outlets

Your charts seem to indicate that would be CNN.

. For example, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

And? McCain was a a 'RiNO', remember? The hard Right hated them both.

If you think so then you're an idiot. Thirty nine percent of CNN's coverage of Obama was negative, compare that to 61 percent negativity for McCain. How is that fair or balanced?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Mea Culpa.

I misread the last graph as 'McCain' instead of 'Media Overall'

Don't know how I managed that >.>


I'm curious as to how they measured 'positive' versus 'negative'

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The reason more people turn to Fox News is because they are the most fair and balanced of all the news outlets.

I think you are in error, LL, simply based on the fact that I have several of the stations on all day, and pretty soon one understands exactly on every station, including Fox, is going to spin a story or an event. The best way to understand the events of the day, week, month is to sample a wide-range of outlets and then be a responsible individual and use critical thinking skills.

This reminds me of a friend who visited the veep's entourage back in 2005 or 2006. One of the staff told my friend that the only 'voice' that the veep permitted around him was FOX. That says quite a bit about the man.

Exactly where was the error made? You think there is a more fair and balanced cable news outlet besides Fox? If so, then provide some evidence of it.

A study released this month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University found that Fox News Channel's evening coverage was more "balanced" than that of the broadcast networks.

Fox News Channel's coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly - 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates - 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative - 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

Read the study yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Mea Culpa.

I misread the last graph as 'McCain' instead of 'Media Overall'

Don't know how I managed that >.>


I'm curious as to how they measured 'positive' versus 'negative'

Not sure but I would guess "positive reporting" was all the good things that were said while "negative reporting" was the opposite.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And who decides what's positive or negative?

If they just reported the facts, then no such judgement could be made.

 

[uscitizen]

Mea Culpa.

I misread the last graph as 'McCain' instead of 'Media Overall'

Don't know how I managed that >.>


I'm curious as to how they measured 'positive' versus 'negative'

Not sure but I would guess "positive reporting" was all the good things that were said while "negative reporting" was the opposite.

so it would depend on whether the facts were positive or negative?

 

[uscitizen]

And who decides what's positive or negative?

If they just reported the facts, then no such judgement could be made.

It could indeed. Reporting that sarah was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it is a fact.
But also negative in the eyes of those supporting Sarah.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And a positive in the eyes of anyone who supports a balanced budget and a stable America.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And who decides what's positive or negative?

If they just reported the facts, then no such judgement could be made.

They rated all aspects of the campaign coverage the reportage, commentary, political ads etc... It doesn't take a genius to know what positive and/or negative statements consist of.

 

[uscitizen]

And a positive in the eyes of anyone who supports a balanced budget and a stable America.

A couple of those also supported Sarah.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Mea Culpa.

I misread the last graph as 'McCain' instead of 'Media Overall'

Don't know how I managed that >.>


I'm curious as to how they measured 'positive' versus 'negative'

Not sure but I would guess "positive reporting" was all the good things that were said while "negative reporting" was the opposite.

so it would depend on whether the facts were positive or negative?

I don't think "facts" was a criteria, it was simply the coverage as a whole.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

wait.... 'facts' weren't a criterion for the coverage?


That explains so much...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

hell, that explains why Obama is president