Dumbed down Americans

[grunt11b]

YouTube - ‪How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters‬‏

That is the only reason he won, most of the ones that voted for him are so ignorant. It's sad really, the constitution needs to be amended to where people like this that have no clue about the candidate should not be allowed to cast a vote without answering some simple questions about both candidates. It should also be amended to where if you do not pay taxes you do not get to vote, you should not be allowed to vote where tax payer money is going to be spent if you are not a tax payer yourself.

 

[MaggieMae]

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

I sometimes am privileged to work with the AWANA group here in Albuquerque that provides extra curricular activities to almost all homeschooled kids. Four hundred of those kids participate at my church alone and there are groups all over town. You won't find a more mature, well rounded, well educated, and solidly grounded bunch of kids anywhere on the planet. They are all terrific.

I haven't noticed any bigots among any of them, I suspect though, if you looked hard enough, you might find a bigot somewhere.

Almost all of these kids do go on to college and they major in real subjects. They are my hope that we won't totally lose the country to a lost brainwashed or uneducated generation.

My comment was intended as an insult, a retort to the insult by Soggy. Nothing more. That said, I'm sure there are home-schooled children especially in the South who are taught history that favors southern supremecy, etc. Consider that the State of Texas has chosen to revise history several times.

 

[MaggieMae]

Anthony Weiner is our 1st national Pervert--so no surprise here-- If he wasn't in congress he would be one of those mall runners in a trench coat.

Sarah Palin can get the left wing media and liberals panties so tied up in a wad--that she can't sneeze without getting this type of attention. At least she did create 100 private sector jobs over this. Better than Barack Obama has done--LOL. The Washington Post is now looking for 100 deligent readers to go through these 22,000 emails.

Palin brings the attention to herself intentionally; she begs for the attention. Are you kidding?

how is that germane? she has not been in office for what, 2 years? has she declared herself as a candidate?

has anyone asked for say romneys and pawlentys e mails?
do you even know if anyone has?


and, where are then; obama's Illinois state rep. and senatorial emails?

and mm are you sure you are not being told what to watch ala palin by the nets?

How is it germane? Why, when Palin knows that she garners media attention, did she choose to take her stardom to New Hampshire? Does she want Obama to get beaten or not? It would be one thing if it had been OBAMA visiting New Hampshire. That would have been explainable. Palin is a ******* spoiler for you guys, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll stop making excuses for her behavior and drooling all over her.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

Soggy in NO. I've never once seen him post anything of value. Insults only, period, frequently racist.

Ah. Thanks for the reply. So he was home-schooled, eh? I was never home-schooled nor were/are my kids, but I know a few who are and they generally do very well academically and socially. And since Soggy has never rep'd me, please say whatever you want about him.

Ironically, Soggy often acts like he hasn't been schooled at all. But to all of you who interpreted my comment as all-inclusive:

 

[MaggieMae]

It's the new cowbell

People want more weiner. Personally I think it's the usmb gals.

ooooh dude........you're

Yo ... is that jesus on that toast !?

Re your avatar:

I would edit that to say: I'd be a baseball player. Oh wait... Capitalism!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

How touching.

Maggie Mae started an eponymous thread.

Seriously, only a narcissistic sociopath like you would draw that conclusion. Please stop stalking me unless you have something real to say. Why you could even post one of your [in]famous unverifiable graphs pointing to percentages of liberals v. conservatives who are dumbed down.

 

[Foxfyre]

Precisely my point. For a while they had Hannity and Colmes on (I'm guessing that was their attempt at balance)...a more partisan country and Colmes is suddenly gone. Theres a rise in conservatism supposedly in the country; hence Morning Joe is on MSNBC. Headline News had the incouragable (sp?) Glenn Beck on for a while. Decisions are made on how many eyes are going to show up; little else; either that or all of the greatest journalists in broadcasting seem to be passable for models all of the sudden.

We get the media we want. Blaming the fourth estate for an ill informed public is like blaming the dealer for someone's crack addiction.

I agree, so whats with the repeated fox bashing( not you oin general)? there's plenty for the left, whats the point?

Fox does very little news; mostly it is opinions in news wrapping. Just like MSNBC. Opposite sides of the same coin.

What I think Fox did to draw such fire is the whole "Fair and Balanced" BS; implying that others are neither fair or balanced. They probably never overtly said that but the implication was there. Much like a discussion we had earlier today about Rick Perry...who never said he was for succession however, he was quick to point out that an agreement in 1845 (prior to reconstruction) gave Texas the right to succeed whenever it wants. That isn't the case since reconstruction. Again, he didn't overtly say he was for it but why even go there if it's off the table? Why call yourself "Fair and Balanced"? Was there--prior to the first airing--an indication that they wouldn't be fair or balanced?

Anyway, thats what I think. They--as well as MSNBC--is so slanted that I dismiss either one as a serious news source. I too turn toward NPR, Reuters, and a few others.

And here you demonstrate that you likely don't watch Fox to obtain an objective opinion, but are most likely picking up your information from conservative-hating, leftwing promoting websites and such.

Study after study has shown that Fox does a reasonably good job of reporting all sides of every issue. And they have far more straight news programs, peppered with interviews from people almost always representing both perspective of an issue if there are two perspectives, and I defy anybody to pinpoint any ideological bias from the program hosts. They do a damned good job of keeping it real and they don't allow dishonest spin without challenging it.

In your defense, there are those who see any objective reporting of a conservative person or concept who isn't trashing that person or concept as being ideologically biased. So you could be actually watching Fox and resenting that they aren't bashing people or concepts that you resent. Such people generally don't see how ideologically biased they themselves are.

 

[MaggieMae]

I disagree. The media could return to doing its intended job which is to inform and educate the American people without bias and without prejudice.

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.

If it would be that, unscrupulous politicians would be far less able to deceive and manipulate the people and we would again start electing people who would be far less likely to expect to be able to do that.

Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.

When most of the mainstream media sets itself up as the promotion agent for the left, and when there is dedicated effort to destroy or demonize the one prominent media outlet that does not do that, we will not have a well informed electorate.

That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

You're absolutely correct that C-Span is where people need to get their unbiased information. I religiously listen to Washington Journal and it's encouraging the number of people who call, Twitter and E-mail their comments concerning the topics and guests. Most are biased toward one political preference, but at least they've tuned in.

I've posted a few videos of round-table debates on C-Span covering the most important issues of the day as opined by both sides of the aisle, but never got much, if any, response. I was tempted to post this exchange from last Friday on job creation, but since it's nearly an hour long, I knew no one here would check it out anyway.

U.S. Job Creation - C-SPAN Video Library

The C-Span archives is the best resource anyone could ask for if they are serious about educating themselves in the world of politics.

 

[MaggieMae]

CNN reported this morning that the most visited sites on the Internet were for information on:

1. Anthony Weiner

2. Sarah Palin's emails

I hope it's just because it's Sunday morning.

cto

ols-master

Scary site. We were warned that the "information highway" could eventually implode by giving us too much information and the ability to intrude on our very private lives. Well here we are. But I wonder what will happen if Stutnex, Conflicker or some other massive virus capable of infesting every computer operation on earth shuts the whole thing off.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.



Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.





That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

the tide turned for network news in the mid to late 70's, they were turned into profit centers......its been down hill from there.

however there is no denying that journalism is a vocation that attracts folks whom identify with the 'left' more so than right, so in effect there has always been a tilt. Up until the 80's they had just done a much better job at employing or benchmarking discretion and objectivity.

the nets just made that more apparent. I'd say fox was just reacting to what was already extent and decided to appeal to the viewer whom they felt had no where else to go if they wanted to...

Exactly right Traj. They saw a huge vacuum and filled it with almost unprecedented success. You can add up the ratings for all the other cable news groups combined, and Fox eclipses them all. Why? Because despite its faults, it does competently inform its listeners of the events of the day.

And you're also right about those going into journalism tilting left of center. They come out of journalism schools at universities that tilt left of center. They don't know they're left of center--they think they are centrists--because they aren't given opportunity to consider any other perspective than the left one.

And then those who will hire them and mentor them as they get on into their careers are also likely to be leftists who give the better stories, opportunities, face time, etc. to those who please them and that would be those who are leftists. So like conservative professors generally find an unwelcoming environment in most universities these days, conservative or even fully objective journalists are not finding welcoming environments in most news organizations.

I always question the mysterious belief that university professors, journalists, political science graduates, MSM, etc., are deemed "leftist." If that's truly the case, could it be that they're on to something you guys just don't see? With the kind of odds you give them, that they are here among us in great numbers, I'd say yes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

I sometimes am privileged to work with the AWANA group here in Albuquerque that provides extra curricular activities to almost all homeschooled kids. Four hundred of those kids participate at my church alone and there are groups all over town. You won't find a more mature, well rounded, well educated, and solidly grounded bunch of kids anywhere on the planet. They are all terrific.

I haven't noticed any bigots among any of them, I suspect though, if you looked hard enough, you might find a bigot somewhere.

Almost all of these kids do go on to college and they major in real subjects. They are my hope that we won't totally lose the country to a lost brainwashed or uneducated generation.

My comment was intended as an insult, a retort to the insult by Soggy. Nothing more. That said, I'm sure there are home-schooled children especially in the South who are taught history that favors southern supremecy, etc. Consider that the State of Texas has chosen to revise history several times.

What does that have to do with homeschooling kids though? Parents who homeschool their kids do so because of the inefficiency, incompetence, inadequacy, or corruption of the public school system. I think to a man or woman, those parents homeschooling their kids would find it much easier to send their kids to a good school. But when there are no good schools available to them, they homeschool.

And statistics show that those homeschooled kids overall are being educated much better than public school kids and are also achieving better than the parochial and private schooled kids. That should not be despised, denigrated, nor insulted, but it should be a wakeup call to take a new look at government schools and to rethink what we are doing to kids with them.

 

[MaggieMae]

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Good post, however I would like for you to name a single show on MSNBC that has anything but a far left host.

MSNBC is known more for its political news commentary than being a News/Commentary outlet such as CNN. MSNBC's foray into 99% opinion wasn't by accident.

MSNBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MSNBC was launched on July 15, 1996. The first show, which was anchored by Jodi Applegate, broadcast a lineup of news, interviews, and opinions.[17] During the day, rolling news coverage continued with The Contributors, a show that featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, as well as interactive programming coordinated by Applegate, John Gibson, and John Seigenthaler. Stories were generally longer and more detailed than the stories running on CNN at the time. NBC also highlighted their broadcast connections by airing stories direct from the NBC network affiliates, along with breaking news coverage from the same sources.[18]

By the start of 2002, MSNBC continued to trail both Fox News and CNN. With the success of Fox News Channel, MSNBC tried to emulate the Fox News Channel's emphasis on opinion hosts.[19] The Project for Excellence in Journalism found in 2007 after a seven year survey of cable channels that "MSNBC is moving to make politics a brand, with a large dose of opinion and personality."[20]

 

[auditor0007]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

The media puts out whatever sells the most advertising. Stupid Americans eat up stupid shit, so it sells more advertising. It doesn't say much for us.

 

[MaggieMae]

Exactly right Traj. They saw a huge vacuum and filled it with almost unprecedented success. You can add up the ratings for all the other cable news groups combined, and Fox eclipses them all. Why? Because despite its faults, it does competently inform its listeners of the events of the day.

And you're also right about those going into journalism tilting left of center. They come out of journalism schools at universities that tilt left of center. They don't know they're left of center--they think they are centrists--because they aren't given opportunity to consider any other perspective than the left one.

And then those who will hire them and mentor them as they get on into their careers are also likely to be leftists who give the better stories, opportunities, face time, etc. to those who please them and that would be those who are leftists. So like conservative professors generally find an unwelcoming environment in most universities these days, conservative or even fully objective journalists are not finding welcoming environments in most news organizations.

Precisely my point. For a while they had Hannity and Colmes on (I'm guessing that was their attempt at balance)...a more partisan country and Colmes is suddenly gone. Theres a rise in conservatism supposedly in the country; hence Morning Joe is on MSNBC. Headline News had the incouragable (sp?) Glenn Beck on for a while. Decisions are made on how many eyes are going to show up; little else; either that or all of the greatest journalists in broadcasting seem to be passable for models all of the sudden.

We get the media we want. Blaming the fourth estate for an ill informed public is like blaming the dealer for someone's crack addiction.

I agree, so whats with the repeated fox bashing( not you oin general)? there's plenty for the left, whats the point?

It's hard not to bash Fox when someone fiercely defends it as being "fair and balanced." It is not. At least MSNBC admits it leans left.

 

[MaggieMae]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

But the quandry is that the media is out to make money and they cover what the idiots want.
If they cover intelligent stuff their viewership goes down.
Just look at the Fox viewership numbers for instance.

Did it ever occur to you that Fox's numbers are so high because that organization covers the news in a way that separates itself from the others? Did it ever occur to you that the viewers of Fox News look to that organization to get away from the typical tripe of other news sources?
Is it so impossible for you to believe that since Fox does not tow the liberal media line that Fox News is what people who take their news seriously are looking for?
Look, the ratings numbers do not lie. If Fox news was the decadent lying short seller of news that the Left says it is, Fox News would have gone out of business long ago.

Fox is where right-leaning people go for their news, because they are more apt to hear what will justify their own political leanings. Same with MSNBC. And Fox and MSNBC accommodate their respective audiences.

 

[Flopper]

Did it ever occur to you that Fox's numbers are so high because that organization covers the news in a way that separates itself from the others? Did it ever occur to you that the viewers of Fox News look to that organization to get away from the typical tripe of other news sources?.

Yes, Fox News does separate itself from the others. They swing to the right just as far as MSNBC swings to the left. Viewers of Fox News look to the organization to delivery right wing rhetoric to reinforce their beliefs, not that dull news on the other channels. Yep, Fox News deliveries that daily dose of Glenn Beck to charge up those right wing batteries.

This is where you libs run into a road block.
You claim the people of the US reject conservatism and that your side is the popular side. Your side in your opinion is deserving of the majority on Capitol Hill because you believe your way is better. You also claim the conservative movement is dying.
That said, how do you explain the high ratings of Fox news is our side is in such a minority?
If anything Fox News swings away from the typical liberal drivel we get from the alphabets.
Fox News is most watched because that news organization is getting it right.
I see that you are another one in a long line of liberals who are incensed over the very existence of a competing news organization that refuses to tow the typical liberal line of the main stream media.
Your problem and that of the political Left is you believe Fox News has no right to exist.
As far your side is concerned Fox News takes the "real story" and pulls it away from the rightful presenters( those with your point of view) and presents it in a way that makes the viewer decide his or her opinion on the events of the day. This is difficult for your side to deal with and if you had your druthers ,you'd just rather not deal with it.
So your side goes on it's daily crusade to impugn Fox News.
News Flash. It's not working. FNC's ratings keep rising while the MSM evening national news casts, their news magazine shows and their Sunday AM political shows keep losing viewers.
The bottom line is the country has had it with Obama's attempt to push the country too far to the left. That is why FNC counts many people who label themselves as "independent" as loyal viewers.
Like it or not, believe it or not, The USA is basically a conservative country.
We are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Always have been. Always will be.
There is no room for radical liberalism or radical conservatism.
Before you react to that last sentence....Ask yourself why just before every mid term and presidential election Evangelical Conservatives and Bible Thumping rightists are always threatening to sit out elections. Answer. These people are unwelcome in the mainstream conservative movement. Reason.....They frighten people.

Most viewers watch mainstream news on either ABC, NBC, CBS news. Fox News is the only right wing TV news channel so naturally it will have the highest ratings because it has no competition.

 

[MaggieMae]

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Good post, however I would like for you to name a single show on MSNBC that has anything but a far left host.

Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough.

Except to those on the far right, Joe is a rino. The program itself IS fair and balanced, with Pat Buchanan a regular, Peggy Noonan, Dan Senor (foreign relations advisor to GWB), Mort Zuckerman, among others not named, and just added...drum roll...Michael Steele...to its list of political contributors.

 

[MaggieMae]

I sometimes am privileged to work with the AWANA group here in Albuquerque that provides extra curricular activities to almost all homeschooled kids. Four hundred of those kids participate at my church alone and there are groups all over town. You won't find a more mature, well rounded, well educated, and solidly grounded bunch of kids anywhere on the planet. They are all terrific.

I haven't noticed any bigots among any of them, I suspect though, if you looked hard enough, you might find a bigot somewhere.

Almost all of these kids do go on to college and they major in real subjects. They are my hope that we won't totally lose the country to a lost brainwashed or uneducated generation.

My comment was intended as an insult, a retort to the insult by Soggy. Nothing more. That said, I'm sure there are home-schooled children especially in the South who are taught history that favors southern supremecy, etc. Consider that the State of Texas has chosen to revise history several times.

What does that have to do with homeschooling kids though? Parents who homeschool their kids do so because of the inefficiency, incompetence, inadequacy, or corruption of the public school system. I think to a man or woman, those parents homeschooling their kids would find it much easier to send their kids to a good school. But when there are no good schools available to them, they homeschool.

And statistics show that those homeschooled kids overall are being educated much better than public school kids and are also achieving better than the parochial and private schooled kids. That should not be despised, denigrated, nor insulted, but it should be a wakeup call to take a new look at government schools and to rethink what we are doing to kids with them.

I think home-schooling is fine, as long as the parents (or designated tutor) abides by the guidelines, and then only through grade 8. Thereafter, children enter adolescence/teens and are far more susceptible to their parents' influence, including their political preferences which absolutely has an influence on children because that happens anyway. But if their textbooks or "teachings/preachings" reinforce a political persuasion by omission or embellishment of historical fact, then we have a problem. In my opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, Fox News does separate itself from the others. They swing to the right just as far as MSNBC swings to the left. Viewers of Fox News look to the organization to delivery right wing rhetoric to reinforce their beliefs, not that dull news on the other channels. Yep, Fox News deliveries that daily dose of Glenn Beck to charge up those right wing batteries.

This is where you libs run into a road block.
You claim the people of the US reject conservatism and that your side is the popular side. Your side in your opinion is deserving of the majority on Capitol Hill because you believe your way is better. You also claim the conservative movement is dying.
That said, how do you explain the high ratings of Fox news is our side is in such a minority?
If anything Fox News swings away from the typical liberal drivel we get from the alphabets.
Fox News is most watched because that news organization is getting it right.
I see that you are another one in a long line of liberals who are incensed over the very existence of a competing news organization that refuses to tow the typical liberal line of the main stream media.
Your problem and that of the political Left is you believe Fox News has no right to exist.
As far your side is concerned Fox News takes the "real story" and pulls it away from the rightful presenters( those with your point of view) and presents it in a way that makes the viewer decide his or her opinion on the events of the day. This is difficult for your side to deal with and if you had your druthers ,you'd just rather not deal with it.
So your side goes on it's daily crusade to impugn Fox News.
News Flash. It's not working. FNC's ratings keep rising while the MSM evening national news casts, their news magazine shows and their Sunday AM political shows keep losing viewers.
The bottom line is the country has had it with Obama's attempt to push the country too far to the left. That is why FNC counts many people who label themselves as "independent" as loyal viewers.
Like it or not, believe it or not, The USA is basically a conservative country.
We are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Always have been. Always will be.
There is no room for radical liberalism or radical conservatism.
Before you react to that last sentence....Ask yourself why just before every mid term and presidential election Evangelical Conservatives and Bible Thumping rightists are always threatening to sit out elections. Answer. These people are unwelcome in the mainstream conservative movement. Reason.....They frighten people.

Most viewers watch mainstream news on either ABC, NBC, CBS news. Fox News is the only right wing TV news channel so naturally it will have the highest ratings because it has no competition.

The problemis that ABC, NBC, and CBS all have their own biases and will more often tilt left. But you're right that Fox News is the only news source that tilts right editorially but that doesn't stop those who want ONLY left wing bias demonstrated to be unrelenting in their attacks and criticisms of it.

Fox and ABC are the two most centrist news sources overall--ABC veers slightly left; Fox veers slightly right--but Fox does as good or better job in ANYBODY in being fair and balanced in their news reportintg no matter how much the leftwingers wish to deny that.

But re the competition--when you add ALL the other cable news sources together, Fox still beats all the others combined in almost every hour of every day. And even though I deplore the 30 to 60-second sound bite means of dispensing the news, Fox offers a lot of substance and they must be offering something the American people are hungry for.

And because whether they know it or not, the fact that most Americans are ideologically right of center means the other cable news outlets are having to abandon some of their uglier leftwing dogma in order to compete at all.

Nielsen ratings for this past Saturday:

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for June 11, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,231,000 viewers
CNN – 552,000 viewers
MSNBC –372,000 viewers
CNBC – 233,000 viewers
HLN – 307,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,699,000 viewers
CNN—824,000 viewers
MSNBC –947,000 viewers
CNBC – 241,000 viewers
HLN – 578,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day
FNC –316,000 viewers
CNN –147,000 viewers
MSNBC –107,000 viewers
CNBC –89,000 viewers
HLN- 135,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 696,000 viewers
CNN –199,000 viewers
MSNBC –259,000 viewers
CNBC – 121,000 viewers
HLN – 219,000 viewers

35-64 Total Day
FNC –586,000 viewers
CNN –233,000 viewers
MSNBC –185,000 viewers
CNBC –112,000 viewers
HLN- 178,000 viewers

35-64 Prime Time
FNC –1,197,000 viewers
CNN – 334,000 viewers
MSNBC –452,000 viewers
CNBC –117,000 viewers
HLN –301,000 viewers

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends –938,000 viewers (287,000) (529,000)
American Morning- 391,000 viewers (138,000) (189,000)
Morning Joe-335,000 viewers (126,000) (205,000)
Squawk Box-175,000 viewers (73,000) (102,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 225,000 viewers (138,000) (161,000)

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 1,902,000 viewers (420,000) (890,000)
Situation Room—703,000 viewers (135,000) (244,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews —530,000 viewers (117,000) (220,000)
Fast Money—230,000 viewers (76,000) (105,000)
Prime News—160,000 viewers (71,000) (76,000)

6PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report w/Bret Baier – 1,901,000 viewers (447,000) (900,000)
Situation Room—640,000 viewers (156,000) (265,000)
Ed Show —502,000 viewers (114,000) (222,000)
Mad Money—175,000 viewers (56,000) (93,000)
Prime News—202,000 viewers (57,000) (80,000)

7PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/Shepard Smith– 1,713,000 viewers (458,000) (885,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight–648,000 viewers (167,000) (303,000)
Hardball w/Chris Matthews—624,000 viewers (156,000) (275,000)
Kudlow Report —178,000 viewers (50,000) (96,000)
Issues– 369,000 viewers (153,000) (192,000)

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor—3,438,000 viewers (816,000) (1,492,000)
Campbell Brown—747,000 viewers (211,000) (359,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann –1,193,000 viewers (348,000) (568,000)
CNBC Reports—148,000 viewers (57,000) (84,000)
Nancy Grace –985,000 viewers (351,000) (508,000)

9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity–2,597,000 viewers (708,000) (1,165,000)
Larry King Live—826,000 viewers (168,000) (308,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –1,013,000 viewers (257,000) (451,000)
Marijuana Inc —357,000 viewers (197,000) (168,000)
Lou Dobbs- 358,000 viewers (117,000) (175,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On The Record w/Greta—2,044,000 viewers (565,000) (919,000)
Anderson Cooper 360—899,000 viewers (218,000) (335,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann—636,000 viewers (171,000) (338,000)
Money Chase: Inside HBS—217,000 viewers (109,000) (100,000)
Nancy Grace –421,000 viewers (203,000) (236,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O”Reilly Factor– 1,352,000 viewers (471,000) (700,000)
Anderson Cooper 360 —527,000 viewers (151,000) (229,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –350,000 viewers (100,000) (216,000)
Mad Money- 129,000 viewers (95,000) (70,000)
Showbiz Tonight– 503,000 viewers (226,000) (294,000)

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/06/12/cable-news-ratings-for-june-11-2009/20561/

And because most Americans aren't watching any news but taking their cues from ideologically biased and often incorrect internet sources, etc., you have idiots like you see on those Youtube videos.

 

[MaggieMae]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

The media puts out whatever sells the most advertising. Stupid Americans eat up stupid shit, so it sells more advertising. It doesn't say much for us.

Which was my initial point. Thanks. I decided this morning if Weinergate was still the top news story, I'd flip channels until I found one who wasn't even mentioning it. Same goes for Palin's emails. To me, to download all those pages would be tantamount to reading someone's Twitter page for an entire week where s/he tells me every time he takes a bathroom break.