Mind Control of MSNBC, FOX and The Net

[IndependntLogic]

OP - part of the 62-million idiots who voted for Obama and he's calling us "Sheeple?"

Fucking laughable...

LOL! Wanna know how to spot an idiot? This idiot has SEEN my posts on Obama (The view is clear: He sucks) and writes this.
Why? Wanna bet he's a sheeple who scored a 21+ and believes he thinks for himself?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why Frank, thank you! I didn't expect anyone to come in and prove the point of my post so quickly!
1. Nothing on the issues.
2. Nothing to support or counter the topic.
3. A post which is EXACTLY as I predicted in the last sentence!

You da man, baby! (lemme guess: you'r 22+ out of 24? It's okay, we knew).

I believe in personal responsibility. Not becuase Fox tells me to. Becuase it works for me.
I beleive regulations costs jobs. Not becuase the right tells me so...but becuase I have expoerienced it..and it is also economic logic.
I believe in a womans right to choose. Not becuase of the "when life begins debate" but becuase I am a conservative and I dont feel I have the right to tell ANYONE what they can and cant do

I beleive in gay marriage...but that is becuase i find girl on girl really hot to watch....nah....I believe it in for the same reason I believe in freedom to choose....although I really do find girl on girl really hot to watch.

I know very few people that believe in what they do becuase "they are supposed to believe that way"...

And as for me? I get blasted by conservatives on here nearly as often as I do by the liberals.

You sound like a reasonable, independent thinker to me!
The only thing I would dissent with is that you lump ALL regulations together. Here's an example of where you might change that tone:
Used to be gas stations could store a few thousand gallons of gas in a huge tank above ground. But they kept blowing up and killing people and stuff. So in the 40's or 50's (I forget), they regulated gas stations to make the feeder tanks below ground and with certain levels of requird insulation etc...

And the underground tanks solved the problem presented by the overhead tanks, but the best of them, after they have been there so long, leaked contaminating the ground around them and all too often mutually shared aquifers. So that problem was dealt with by a requirement that the underground tanks be replaced when they reached a certain age.

Now fast forward to say a 60 Minutes program dealing with pollution from underground fuel storage. Will we get an honest presentation that the risk and problems do exist from time to time, but regulations are in place requiring the tanks to be tested for leaks and aging tanks are required by law to be replaced? Therefore, the problem of leaking tanks is minimalized to an acceptable level? Or will they find one falsified report and present it as a major problem that the oil industry is covering up?

We never know. The old saw 'buyer beware' should include to always take news programming with a healthy skepticism until you can verify from other sources.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Try RealClearPolitics.com, they have a number of columns and opinions from both left and right. You might not agree with somebody's conclusion, but at least you can see their logic and/or facts they used to support their thesis.

They also have the only polls I trust at all. The biased pollsters like Rasmussen on the Right or NBC on the Left, will show HUGE biased in campaigns for a year. Then in the last hour, they all adjust their final polls so they can later say how "unbiased" they were.
RCP combines them all for a much more accurate picture.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I believe in personal responsibility. Not becuase Fox tells me to. Becuase it works for me.
I beleive regulations costs jobs. Not becuase the right tells me so...but becuase I have expoerienced it..and it is also economic logic.
I believe in a womans right to choose. Not becuase of the "when life begins debate" but becuase I am a conservative and I dont feel I have the right to tell ANYONE what they can and cant do

I beleive in gay marriage...but that is becuase i find girl on girl really hot to watch....nah....I believe it in for the same reason I believe in freedom to choose....although I really do find girl on girl really hot to watch.

I know very few people that believe in what they do becuase "they are supposed to believe that way"...

And as for me? I get blasted by conservatives on here nearly as often as I do by the liberals.

You sound like a reasonable, independent thinker to me!
The only thing I would dissent with is that you lump ALL regulations together. Here's an example of where you might change that tone:
Used to be gas stations could store a few thousand gallons of gas in a huge tank above ground. But they kept blowing up and killing people and stuff. So in the 40's or 50's (I forget), they regulated gas stations to make the feeder tanks below ground and with certain levels of requird insulation etc...

And the underground tanks solved the problem presented by the overhead tanks, but the best of them, after they have been there so long, leaked contaminating the ground around them and all too often mutually shared aquifers. So that problem was dealt with by a requirement that the underground tanks be replaced when they reached a certain age.

Now fast forward to say a 60 Minutes program dealing with pollution from underground fuel storage. Will we get an honest presentation that the risk and problems do exist from time to time, but regulations are in place requiring the tanks to be tested for leaks and aging tanks are required by law to be replaced? Therefore, the problem of leaking tanks is minimalized to an acceptable level? Or will they find one falsified report and present it as a major problem that the oil industry is covering up?

We never know. The old saw 'buyer beware' should include to always take news programming with a healthy skepticism until you can verify from other sources.

True enough. It was just the only example I could think of - the point being there ARE regulations that are GOOD. How about requiring that passenger planes be inspected on a regular basis? Would that be a better example?
Again, my point is not that all regs are good, it's that not ALL regs are bad.

 

[Foxfyre]

Try RealClearPolitics.com, they have a number of columns and opinions from both left and right. You might not agree with somebody's conclusion, but at least you can see their logic and/or facts they used to support their thesis.

They also have the only polls I trust at all. The biased pollsters like Rasmussen on the Right or NBC on the Left, will show HUGE biased in campaigns for a year. Then in the last hour, they all adjust their final polls so they can later say how "unbiased" they were.
RCP combines them all for a much more accurate picture.

Another site that unbiased analysts have declare one of the more balanced on the internet is suprisingly Drudge. He is pretty right of center libertarian personally, but his website includes links to the most left of the left and the most right of the right as well as links to almost all of the better read columnists that are all over the political spectrum. A UCLA study even concluded that the website itself is slightly tilted left.

And Drudge and his staff must have one of the best news noses in the business as it is no secret that EVERY major news organization or service in the country goes to Drudge first thing in the morning and periodically during the day as he so often has a story ahead of everybody else.

 

[BDBoop]

"If you're on the far right or the far left of politics, you know what you've done now. That's right. You've gone too far."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDM_96X40BU]Richard Jeni A Big Steaming Pile Of Me CLIP - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wiseacre]

You sound like a reasonable, independent thinker to me!
The only thing I would dissent with is that you lump ALL regulations together. Here's an example of where you might change that tone:
Used to be gas stations could store a few thousand gallons of gas in a huge tank above ground. But they kept blowing up and killing people and stuff. So in the 40's or 50's (I forget), they regulated gas stations to make the feeder tanks below ground and with certain levels of requird insulation etc...

And the underground tanks solved the problem presented by the overhead tanks, but the best of them, after they have been there so long, leaked contaminating the ground around them and all too often mutually shared aquifers. So that problem was dealt with by a requirement that the underground tanks be replaced when they reached a certain age.

Now fast forward to say a 60 Minutes program dealing with pollution from underground fuel storage. Will we get an honest presentation that the risk and problems do exist from time to time, but regulations are in place requiring the tanks to be tested for leaks and aging tanks are required by law to be replaced? Therefore, the problem of leaking tanks is minimalized to an acceptable level? Or will they find one falsified report and present it as a major problem that the oil industry is covering up?

We never know. The old saw 'buyer beware' should include to always take news programming with a healthy skepticism until you can verify from other sources.

True enough. It was just the only example I could think of - the point being there ARE regulations that are GOOD. How about requiring that passenger planes be inspected on a regular basis? Would that be a better example?
Again, my point is not that all regs are good, it's that not ALL regs are bad.

Most righties don't want to get rid of ALL regs, just the ones that are unneeded, too expensive, or could be handled a different way. IOW, it's gotta be worth the cost, and a lot of them aren't.

 

[Vast LWC]

I agree that Alan Colmes is a good example of dishonestly presenting the other side. He is so clueless and has no real argument but only spews sound bites for his point of view and he is a generally unappealing person in general, that he would make anybody debating him look good if they were only reciting the phone book.

You can't say that, however about Charles Krauthammer, Gretchen Carlson, Megan Kelly, John Stossel, and others who are not only bright, attractive, personable, and appealing and who do their homework and come up with different conclusions than a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity come up with. Many times the opposition has swayed my point of view and I pronounced Bill or Sean or whomever wrong on that one.

It is exactly that phenomenon that is fueling Fox's impressive ratings. On any given day and almost any given hour, Fox ratings will exceed ALL the other cable news sources COMBINED. That is because you CAN get the information you need from Fox and the others are way too obvious in their pre-selected bias making it hard to trust their conclusions.

But don't even get me started on the networks who if they want a "Christian" perspective will present us with a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or some other extremist person that nobody would think of as objective--the intent of course is to turn the audience's opinion AWAY from such perspective--or they put up some other looney tune, extremist, or unlikable type to present the 'opposing' point of view.

And sometimes the editing of content among both network and cable is so dishonest as to make a body scream.

Charles Krauthammer is the man behind the "Reagan Doctrine" and was recently (2009) lauded by Politico thusly: "Krauthammer has "emerged in the Age of Obama as a central conservative voice," a "kind of leader of the opposition"

Gretchen Karlson and Megyn Kelly are true conservatives, and are hosts of VERY conservative Fox News shows.

John Stossel is a Libertarian.

So, the only person who even comes close to providing a non-Fox-sanctioned point-of-view on that list is John Stossel, and even he is just there to appeal to the Libertarian side of the conservative crowd, and then dismissed to prove a point.

What you're basically saying is that FoxNews is "fair-and-balanced" because they also have commentators that are slightly less radical than the usual people they have on.

And, I hate to tell you this, but MSNBC does the exact same thing.

They do it to make it look like they have a shred of credibility, but they don't. They're both the exact same animal. FoxNews just does what they do a bit better than MSNBC, but they adhere to the exact same playbook.

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

They have a solid base of watchers that never strays, because FoxNews always tells them what they want to hear.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the underground tanks solved the problem presented by the overhead tanks, but the best of them, after they have been there so long, leaked contaminating the ground around them and all too often mutually shared aquifers. So that problem was dealt with by a requirement that the underground tanks be replaced when they reached a certain age.

Now fast forward to say a 60 Minutes program dealing with pollution from underground fuel storage. Will we get an honest presentation that the risk and problems do exist from time to time, but regulations are in place requiring the tanks to be tested for leaks and aging tanks are required by law to be replaced? Therefore, the problem of leaking tanks is minimalized to an acceptable level? Or will they find one falsified report and present it as a major problem that the oil industry is covering up?

We never know. The old saw 'buyer beware' should include to always take news programming with a healthy skepticism until you can verify from other sources.

True enough. It was just the only example I could think of - the point being there ARE regulations that are GOOD. How about requiring that passenger planes be inspected on a regular basis? Would that be a better example?
Again, my point is not that all regs are good, it's that not ALL regs are bad.

Most righties don't want to get rid of ALL regs, just the ones that are unneeded, too expensive, or could be handled a different way. IOW, it's gotta be worth the cost, and a lot of them aren't.

Nobody wants to get rid of ALL regulations except maybe the most extreme anarchists--think the most looney of the Ron Paul supporters.

As you both pointed out some regulations secure our rights and promote the general welfare by protecting us from hazards when we have no way of knowing that such hazards exist such as a poorly maintained commercial airliner that flies cross country. It is not reasonable that every passenger have the skill or know how to do this themselves and it would be a royal pain for the states to have to check every airliner themselves. So a central authority looking over interstate airline traffic makes sense. The Federal government would not need to do this themselves though--a private firm would likely do a much better job in fact--but a federal regulation that it be done is in the interest of the general welfare.

Ditto for food inspection of products crossing state lines or coming into the country from other places etc. I have no problem with requirements for honest labeling and advertising though sometimes that can get ridiculous. Is it really necessary to state that one should not hit themselves in the head with the toaster to avoid a liability suit for negligence if somebody should do that? Sometimes it gets that ridiculous.

The federal government has no business dictating regulation that should be left to the states, local communities, homeowners' associations, etc., however. Anything that can be done as efficiently and effectively by the states and/or cities and/or private sector should be left to those entities to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that Alan Colmes is a good example of dishonestly presenting the other side. He is so clueless and has no real argument but only spews sound bites for his point of view and he is a generally unappealing person in general, that he would make anybody debating him look good if they were only reciting the phone book.

You can't say that, however about Charles Krauthammer, Gretchen Carlson, Megan Kelly, John Stossel, and others who are not only bright, attractive, personable, and appealing and who do their homework and come up with different conclusions than a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity come up with. Many times the opposition has swayed my point of view and I pronounced Bill or Sean or whomever wrong on that one.

It is exactly that phenomenon that is fueling Fox's impressive ratings. On any given day and almost any given hour, Fox ratings will exceed ALL the other cable news sources COMBINED. That is because you CAN get the information you need from Fox and the others are way too obvious in their pre-selected bias making it hard to trust their conclusions.

But don't even get me started on the networks who if they want a "Christian" perspective will present us with a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or some other extremist person that nobody would think of as objective--the intent of course is to turn the audience's opinion AWAY from such perspective--or they put up some other looney tune, extremist, or unlikable type to present the 'opposing' point of view.

And sometimes the editing of content among both network and cable is so dishonest as to make a body scream.

Charles Krauthammer is the man behind the "Reagan Doctrine" and was recently (2009) lauded by Politico thusly: "Krauthammer has "emerged in the Age of Obama as a central conservative voice," a "kind of leader of the opposition"

Gretchen Karlson and Megyn Kelly are true conservatives, and are hosts of VERY conservative Fox News shows.

John Stossel is a Libertarian.

So, the only person who even comes close to providing a non-Fox-sanctioned point-of-view on that list is John Stossel, and even he is just there to appeal to the Libertarian side of the conservative crowd, and then dismissed to prove a point.

What you're basically saying is that FoxNews is "fair-and-balanced" because they also have commentators that are slightly less radical than the usual people they have on.

And, I hate to tell you this, but MSNBC does the exact same thing.

They do it to make it look like they have a shred of credibility, but they don't. They're both the exact same animal. FoxNews just does what they do a bit better than MSNBC, but they adhere to the exact same playbook.

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

They have a solid base of watchers that never strays, because FoxNews always tells them what they want to hear.

Krauthammer is the only true conservative of the three. Carlson maybe the second most conservative but she is by no means hard core. Stossel not at all. Kelly only in some areas but she veers left of center on many issues, maybe more than she veers right on. To rank her as VERY conservative only means you have not paid much attention to the lady or sat in on her commentaries.

You would have to actually watch the shows I watch with these people going toe to toe with O'Reilly to appreciate how good an opposing argument they can put out there.

 

[daveman]

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

All conservatives? Really? All of them?

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any TV news, except for the local stuff every now and then.

So does that mean I'm not a conservative? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your bigoted and ignorant blanket statement.

 

[Synthaholic]

Kill your TVs, folks.

Here's another idea. Watch as much FOX as you do MSNBC (or vice versa). Watch Univision (if you speak Spanish), read sources that are outside the norm. The Hong Kong Standard, Times of India, Munich Times, London Telegraph, Moscow Times and more, are all available in English and free online.
Step outside the box for a bit.
Of course, there are people who prefer to believe that only one media source, in only one country in the entire world, is right about evrything. Think about that idea.
Same applies to websites.

That is the key. You're actually pretty safe watching Fox because they are pretty meticulous in providing both points of view in controversial issues. O'Reilly for instance, if he can't find a bonafide liberal to fuss with him, will put on the beautiful and very popular Megyn Kelly or one of the other top guns at Fox who will argue against his position. And sometimes you side with the opposition; sometimes with Bill. But in any case, you come away knowing what the opposing sides of the argument are.

You will also find that done to a lesser extent on CNN which doesn't always try to be fair and balanced and you won't find that much at all on MSNBC.

But since I trust Conservative sources more to have their facts right and at least to know what the facts are, I do also make sure I'm on the right track by checking in with several leftist writers that I admire. Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, William Raspberry when he was still alive, Molly Ivans when she was alive, were/are great sources to get a well researched and well articulated leftist point of view. Even Maureen Dowd, the leftwing compliment to Ann Coulter , has her moments and I appreciate her take on some things. There are a number of others that I read at least now and then.

Sooner or later we all pick a side and that's okay. But it isn't okay when it isn't an informed bias but is simply a kneejerk response to the prejudice and bigotry against certain people or concepts that has been brainwashed into us.

I believe William Raspberry is still alive.

 

[Synthaholic]

OP - part of the 62-million idiots who voted for Obama and he's calling us "Sheeple?"

Fucking laughable...

LOL! Wanna know how to spot an idiot? This idiot has SEEN my posts on Obama (The view is clear: He sucks) and writes this.
Why? Wanna bet he's a sheeple who scored a 21+ and believes he thinks for himself?

The view is not clear, and he does not suck.

 

[Synthaholic]

True enough. It was just the only example I could think of - the point being there ARE regulations that are GOOD. How about requiring that passenger planes be inspected on a regular basis? Would that be a better example?
Again, my point is not that all regs are good, it's that not ALL regs are bad.

Most righties don't want to get rid of ALL regs, just the ones that are unneeded, too expensive, or could be handled a different way. IOW, it's gotta be worth the cost, and a lot of them aren't.

Nobody wants to get rid of ALL regulations except maybe the most extreme anarchists--think the most looney of the Ron Paul supporters.

As you both pointed out some regulations secure our rights and promote the general welfare by protecting us from hazards when we have no way of knowing that such hazards exist such as a poorly maintained commercial airliner that flies cross country. It is not reasonable that every passenger have the skill or know how to do this themselves and it would be a royal pain for the states to have to check every airliner themselves. So a central authority looking over interstate airline traffic makes sense. The Federal government would not need to do this themselves though--a private firm would likely do a much better job in fact--but a federal regulation that it be done is in the interest of the general welfare.

Ditto for food inspection of products crossing state lines or coming into the country from other places etc. I have no problem with requirements for honest labeling and advertising though sometimes that can get ridiculous. Is it really necessary to state that one should not hit themselves in the head with the toaster to avoid a liability suit for negligence if somebody should do that? Sometimes it gets that ridiculous.

The federal government has no business dictating regulation that should be left to the states, local communities, homeowners' associations, etc., however. Anything that can be done as efficiently and effectively by the states and/or cities and/or private sector should be left to those entities to do.

The United States certainly has the right and the business telling you that you cannot pour your old paint and chemicals into that stream that runs through your property, which feeds into a river that spans multiple states.

 

[Vast LWC]

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

All conservatives? Really? All of them?

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any TV news, except for the local stuff every now and then.

So does that mean I'm not a conservative? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your bigoted and ignorant blanket statement.

No, Daveman, I don't want to retract anything.

The term "all" is statistically appropriate, if there is a margin of error of -/+ of only a few percentage points.

In addition, one can certainly make a blanket statement of "All" when expressing one's opinion about such a group. It's called hyperbole, and it can be used to make a (mostly) valid point.

And besides, my "bigoted statements" generally apply to radicals on both ends of the spectrum. Just because Liberals watch a larger variety of channels, doesn't mean they watch a larger variety of programming.

You can find pretty much the same liberal-themed message on PBS and MSNBC, for instance, though I would say that Liberal types turn to printed news sources more, if only to preserve their assumed aura of "intellectualism".

 

[daveman]

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

All conservatives? Really? All of them?

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any TV news, except for the local stuff every now and then.

So does that mean I'm not a conservative? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your bigoted and ignorant blanket statement.

No, Daveman, I don't want to retract anything.

Gasp.

The term "all" is statistically appropriate, if there is a margin of error of -/+ of only a few percentage points.

True. Now let's see some numbers, comparison of total Fox News viewers to number of conservatives.

You did the research, right?

In addition, one can certainly make a blanket statement of "All" when expressing one's opinion about such a group. It's called hyperbole, and it can be used to make a (mostly) valid point.

Well, at least you didn't use the words "nuance" and "context".

And besides, my "bigoted statements" generally apply to radicals on both ends of the spectrum. Just because Liberals watch a larger variety of channels, doesn't mean they watch a larger variety of programming.

You can find pretty much the same liberal-themed message on PBS and MSNBC, for instance, though I would say that Liberal types turn to printed news sources more, if only to preserve their assumed aura of "intellectualism".

You'd have had better luck retracting.

 

[IndependntLogic]

OP - part of the 62-million idiots who voted for Obama and he's calling us "Sheeple?"

Fucking laughable...

LOL! Wanna know how to spot an idiot? This idiot has SEEN my posts on Obama (The view is clear: He sucks) and writes this.
Why? Wanna bet he's a sheeple who scored a 21+ and believes he thinks for himself?

The view is not clear, and he does not suck.

LOL! Okay, this happens once in a while. Now that I'm am getting fired upon by both the Yankees and Confederates, I better 'splain.

Warrior is the blithering idiot to which I referred. He has seen a lot of my post (and usually gets his panties in a little bunch every time) and knows that MY view of Obama is negative. Not "THE view". Obviously there are a lot of people who like him. Not me.

But because the OP describes warrior to a tee, he got his little panties in a bunch and had to do what he's been taught: Label anyone saying anything he dislikes, as a "Liberal" or "OBamabot" or whatever the whackjobs are currently using.

There are a lot of independent thinking, intelligent Conservatives here. Then there is Crusader Frank, Warrior, Oreo et.al.

But you boy Barry has done a terrible job where it counts most: Domestic policy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's another idea. Watch as much FOX as you do MSNBC (or vice versa). Watch Univision (if you speak Spanish), read sources that are outside the norm. The Hong Kong Standard, Times of India, Munich Times, London Telegraph, Moscow Times and more, are all available in English and free online.
Step outside the box for a bit.
Of course, there are people who prefer to believe that only one media source, in only one country in the entire world, is right about evrything. Think about that idea.
Same applies to websites.

That is the key. You're actually pretty safe watching Fox because they are pretty meticulous in providing both points of view in controversial issues. O'Reilly for instance, if he can't find a bonafide liberal to fuss with him, will put on the beautiful and very popular Megyn Kelly or one of the other top guns at Fox who will argue against his position. And sometimes you side with the opposition; sometimes with Bill. But in any case, you come away knowing what the opposing sides of the argument are.

You will also find that done to a lesser extent on CNN which doesn't always try to be fair and balanced and you won't find that much at all on MSNBC.

But since I trust Conservative sources more to have their facts right and at least to know what the facts are, I do also make sure I'm on the right track by checking in with several leftist writers that I admire. Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, William Raspberry when he was still alive, Molly Ivans when she was alive, were/are great sources to get a well researched and well articulated leftist point of view. Even Maureen Dowd, the leftwing compliment to Ann Coulter , has her moments and I appreciate her take on some things. There are a number of others that I read at least now and then.

Sooner or later we all pick a side and that's okay. But it isn't okay when it isn't an informed bias but is simply a kneejerk response to the prejudice and bigotry against certain people or concepts that has been brainwashed into us.

I believe William Raspberry is still alive.

By golly, I am delighted to say that you are right. I had read that he had retired awhile back and his regular column did disappear and I missed it terribly. And then I read somewhere that he had passed on and I just assumed that he had retired because he was ill. But after checking it out I found him alive, apparently in good health, and still active on the speakers' circuit. Here is vintage Raspberry presented last year to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. If ALL liberals were more like him, I would be tempted to convert.
William Raspberry Remarks on Civil Rights - C-SPAN Video Library

 

[Foxfyre]

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

All conservatives? Really? All of them?

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any TV news, except for the local stuff every now and then.

So does that mean I'm not a conservative? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your bigoted and ignorant blanket statement.

Exactly. I certainly don't get even most of my news from Fox News, but I do catch programs here and there, usually while I'm working and usually when there is especially breaking news so I'm pretty familiar with the flavor and slant of all the primary figures on Fox. But when you figure that most Americans tilt right of center on most issues, and Fox gets a relatively small market share when compared to share when there were only three networks that dominated all the news, it is pretty obvious not all conservatives watch Fox.

Nor do only liberals watch the other cable news channels. I check in on all of them from time to time and I am about as modern American conservative as it gets.

But the left does get apolectic about Fox don't they? Apparently they think it isn't fair that Fox is so successful and they only have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS to turn to for their point of view to be emphasized.

 

[IndependntLogic]

And the only reason FoxNews is more popular than any other news show out there is that all conservatives will religiously watch Foxnews, while the rest of the political spectrum watches the various other news programs out there.

All conservatives? Really? All of them?

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any TV news, except for the local stuff every now and then.

So does that mean I'm not a conservative? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your bigoted and ignorant blanket statement.

Exactly. I certainly don't get even most of my news from Fox News, but I do catch programs here and there, usually while I'm working and usually when there is especially breaking news so I'm pretty familiar with the flavor and slant of all the primary figures on Fox. But when you figure that most Americans tilt right of center on most issues, and Fox gets a relatively small market share when compared to share when there were only three networks that dominated all the news, it is pretty obvious not all conservatives watch Fox.

Nor do only liberals watch the other cable news channels. I check in on all of them from time to time and I am about as modern American conservative as it gets.

But the left does get apolectic about Fox don't they? Apparently they think it isn't fair that Fox is so successful and they only have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS to turn to for their point of view to be emphasized.

Oh c'mon you two. Really. You're both smart enough to know that Liberals don't record Hannity or O'Reilly when they're out of the house. Conservatives don't look forward to Rachel Maddow.
The overwhelming majority of people who watch and consider FOX the "objective" source of news (which it's obviously not), are Conservatives. Duh.
The overwhelming majority of people who watch and consider MSNBC the "objective" source of news (which it's obviously not), are Liberals.

You guys are seriously trying to dispute that? Really?

I'm going to negrep myself just for having read your posts!