If Fox News and MSNBC never existed, how would politics change?

[Billy000]

The extremes. What if they didn't exist?

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

 

[Billy000]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

You'd be correct if Fox News wasn't so batshit crazy. It appeals to the simple mind. That's why it is so popular. MSNBC is so unpopular because it challenges people to think.

All this being said, MSNBC does actively try to promote the Democratic Party hence the bias.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

You'd be correct if Fox News wasn't so batshit crazy. It appeals to the simple mind. That's why it is so popular. MSNBC is so unpopular because it challenges people to think.

All this being said, MSNBC does actively try to promote the Democratic Party hence the bias.

Narc-Anon. They can help you.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

You'd be correct if Fox News wasn't so batshit crazy. It appeals to the simple mind. That's why it is so popular. MSNBC is so unpopular because it challenges people to think.

All this being said, MSNBC does actively try to promote the Democratic Party hence the bias.

MSNBC doesn't challenge people to think man. It's no better than Fox News. They're both entities that our founders would be ashamed of.

 

[Billy000]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

You'd be correct if Fox News wasn't so batshit crazy. It appeals to the simple mind. That's why it is so popular. MSNBC is so unpopular because it challenges people to think.

All this being said, MSNBC does actively try to promote the Democratic Party hence the bias.

MSNBC doesn't challenge people to think man. It's no better than Fox News. They're both entities that our founders would be ashamed of.

You know I agree in the sense that they shamelessly promote the Democratic Party and are unfair towards republican officials, but when it comes to discussing liberal issues, they are guided by factual information. I don't see the logic in putting them on the same level as Fox for sake of fairness. They just aren't on that level. Fox News is predatory and evil by comparison.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You know I agree in the sense that they shamelessly promote the Democratic Party and are unfair towards republican officials, but when it comes to discussing liberal issues, they are guided by factual information. I don't see the logic in putting them on the same level as Fox for sake of fairness. They just aren't on that level. Fox News is predatory and evil by comparison.

Liberals and factual information used in the same sentence. Really, Narc-Anon could help you.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

You'd be correct if Fox News wasn't so batshit crazy. It appeals to the simple mind. That's why it is so popular. MSNBC is so unpopular because it challenges people to think.

All this being said, MSNBC does actively try to promote the Democratic Party hence the bias.

MSNBC doesn't challenge people to think man. It's no better than Fox News. They're both entities that our founders would be ashamed of.

You know I agree in the sense that they shamelessly promote the Democratic Party and are unfair towards republican officials, but when it comes to discussing liberal issues, they are guided by factual information. I don't see the logic in putting them on the same level as Fox for sake of fairness. They just aren't on that level. Fox News is predatory and evil by comparison.

MSNBC is bad for the Democratic party man. I wish they would vanish. Conservatives have mastered the art of spewing partisan bullshit. We don't need to sink to that level. And, as is evident by MSNBC's ratings, Democrats don't respond to that crap.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The extremes. What if they didn't exist?

I must be hallucinating. Has Billy actually started a nonpartisan thread?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

If you don't think Fox News adds their own right wing spin you're blind.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

If you don't think Fox News adds their own right wing spin you're blind.

There's Fox NEWS and then there's Fox COMMENTARY. The News is actually judged to be the least biased of the various networks. The Commentary shows are what gives most liberals the fits.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

The far left’s hate campaign against Fox has been relentless; against conservative radio as well. Fox has better ratings than the also-rans combined, especially internationally, and Rush has a $360 million ten-year contract. Oh, he has a business jet that'll accommodate 70 people as part of his deal too. Somebody must be listening to Rush, huh? How's your hate campaign working out, losers?

Get a clue. The thinking world, the affluent world, the hard-workers and go-getters on this planet are sick of listening to a bunch of pathetic marxists bitch and whine while trying to shut down our First Amendment. It was against parasites like you that our Founding Fathers tried to protect us with a document you all loath with venomous contempt: the Constitution. Thank God for Fox. It really has been an icon of salvation for this country. Any entity that elicits the level of hate and contempt from the far left as Fox does, has got to be a wonderful thing.

And MSNBC? What is that? I'm not familiar with it. Is that a rapper? Or maybe a hate group?

 

[TheOldSchool]

The News is actually judged to be the least biased of the various networks.

You're pretty good at talking out of your ass. You should send your resume to Fox News.

 

[TheOldSchool]

And MSNBC? What is that? I'm not familiar with it. Is that a rapper? Or maybe a hate group?

It's a misguided attempt at appealing to ignorant dumbasses who lean politically left. Unfortunately the dumbasses are all on the right.

Oh well.

 

[Rotagilla]

the number of threads mentioning "fox" by desperate partisans is comical...almost as many as "sarah palin"..LMAO..they're terrified and pulling out all the stops...silly partisans.

 

[Rotagilla]

The problem isn't Fox News. Fox News arose because ALL of the media was blocking neutral and conservative viewpoints.

But to address your question as asked, if Fox News was erased, then the Left would once again have a total lock on setting out the terms of discussion.

You'd be correct if Fox News wasn't so batshit crazy. It appeals to the simple mind. That's why it is so popular. MSNBC is so unpopular because it challenges people to think.

All this being said, MSNBC does actively try to promote the Democratic Party hence the bias.

 

[dblack]

none

 

[Tuatara]

The far left’s hate campaign against Fox has been relentless; against conservative radio as well.

But Fox news has lied blatantly on several occasions. Are you not interested in truthful journalism?

Fox has better ratings than the also-rans combined, especially internationally, and Rush has a $360 million ten-year contract. Oh, he has a business jet that'll accommodate 70 people as part of his deal too. Somebody must be listening to Rush, huh? How's your hate campaign working out, losers?

How do ratings and the amount of money one makes determine the truthfulness and integrity of professional journalism?

Get a clue. The thinking world, the affluent world, the hard-workers and go-getters on this planet are sick of listening to a bunch of pathetic marxists bitch and whine while trying to shut down our First Amendment.

First of all, educate yourself on what a Marxist is. Certainly you are not part of the thinking world. Also explain how anyone is trying to shut down your first ammendmant.

It was against parasites like you that our Founding Fathers tried to protect us with a document you all loath with venomous contempt: the Constitution.

Ad hominems are a clear sign that your argument can't stand on it's own. You will again have to explain this instead of spouting out meaningless hate-filled slogans.

Thank God for Fox. It really has been an icon of salvation for this country. Any entity that elicits the level of hate and contempt from the far left as Fox does, has got to be a wonderful thing.

So speading hate is a good thing to you.

And MSNBC? What is that? I'm not familiar with it. Is that a rapper? Or maybe a hate group?

Your attempt at humour has been noticed. You're not funny.

 

[Rotagilla]

FOX!!!!!

 

[Rikurzhen]

The News is actually judged to be the least biased of the various networks.

You're pretty good at talking out of your ass. You should send your resume to Fox News.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs study showed:

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.
​

Another study:

So how could Fox have both the most balanced and the most anti-Obama coverage? Simple. It’s because the other networks were all so pro-Obama. CMPA analyzed every soundbite by reporters and nonpartisan sources (excluding representative of the political parties) that evaluated the candidates and their policies. On the three broadcast networks combined, evaluations of Obama were 68% positive and 32% negative, compared to the only 36% positive and 64% negative evaluations of his GOP opponent John McCain.

In fact, Obama received the most favorable coverage CMPA has ever recorded for any presidential candidate since we began tracking election news coverage in 1988. The totals were very similar–within a few percentage points–at all three networks. (These figures exclude comments on the candidates’ prospects in the campaign horse race, which obviously favored Obama.)

Meanwhile, Fox’s Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn’t fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both–and most balanced overall.

From Pew:

• Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

• Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

Roughly a quarter (24%) of the stories devoted to Democrats focused on personal topics, compared with only 13% of the coverage of Republican candidates.'

Policy stories, by contrast, made up much more of the coverage of Republicans (20%) than they did for Democrats (12%).

And there is some evidence the level coverage does have an impact on public awareness. A Pew Research Center survey from September finds that Clinton and Obama are far better recognized than their Republican counterparts. Fully 78% of Americans could name Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and 62% could name Obama. On the GOP side, 45% could name Giuliani as a candidate, while 30% could name Romney, 27% Thompson and 24% John McCain. Exposure in the press, in other words, may be vital to name recognition, which in turn influences polling and fundraising.

The volume of coverage is one thing. But in politics, not all coverage is equal, even if they spell your name right. What was the tone of the coverage each candidate received?

While Hillary Clinton may have gotten the most press, she did not get the most favorable. That distinction, among major candidates, went to Barack Obama.

On the other end of the ledger, Republican John McCain, the once possible GOP front runner, generated by a wide margin the most negative coverage of any serious contender.

How did individual candidates fare?

Tone of Coverage for Top Candidates Percent of All Stories
Positive	Neutral	Negative	Numberof Stories
Democratic Candidates
Hillary Clinton	26.9	35.4	37.8	294
Barack Obama	46.7	37.5	15.8	240
John Edwards	31.0	33.8	35.2	71
Republican Candidates
Rudy Giuliani	27.8	35.2	37.0	162
John McCain	12.4	39.7	47.9	121
Mitt Romney	34.1	35.2	30.7	88

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Like the media overall, the first 30 minutes NPR’s Morning Edition produced more stories about Democratic candidates than Republicans (41% vs. 24%). What was different was how little negative coverage Democrats received, especially compared with all other media. Stories about a Democratic candidate were more seven times more positive than negative: 41% positive vs. 6% negative. The majority of coverage, 53% of stories, was neutral.

Looking at specific candidates, stories about Barack Obama carried a clearly positive tone two-thirds of the time. Not a single Morning Edition story was negative. Furthermore, 43% of Hillary Clinton’s coverage was positive vs. 14% negative.

Stories about one of the Republican candidates was more evenly split in tone: 30% positive to 20% negative and 50% neutral. Similar to its public broadcasting counterpart, the NewsHour, NPR devoted more attention to lesser-known candidates. Mitt Romney, the candidate running third for the GOP nomination in most national polls, was the most covered Republican figure, tied with Mike Huckabee, a mostly unknown candidate at the time. Often considered the GOP front runner, Rudy Giuliani, only had one story devoted to him and John McCain had none.

NPR was also the one outlet where there was a marked difference between the total amount of airtime vs. total number of stories. While 24% of the campaign stories were about a Republican candidate, just 15% of the total airtime was spent on them. This suggests that stories about the Republican candidates were brief, creating an even greater gap in the total coverage of Republicans and Democrats.
​

One last point:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "News Night With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, CharlieGibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
​

I changed my mind, this is my last point, from Brookings Institution:

​

Tricked you, now this is my last point, from Public Policy Polling:

35% of Americans say they trust Fox News more than any other TV news outlet, followed by 14% for PBS, 11% for ABC, 10% for CNN, 9% for CBS, 6% each for Comedy Central and MSNBC, and 3% for NBC.



​