Pew: Fox News mostly opinion

[Quantum Windbag]

How?

Cite some examples.

Based on the rhetoric you're spewing, you should be OVERFLOWING with examples.

Present them.

15% news reporting is the only example I need.

Yep, that's what I thought....you got nuthin....as usual.


Good show.

Yep, nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fox did get rid of Beck, but that doesn't necessarily make them "fair and balanced." And I've laughed at my fair share of people posting Huff Post or Mother Jones on here. Never ever see anyone bring up Maddow or Sharpton. Saw Schultz for the first time on here the other day and it was because of an interview not because he's a source of news.

Compared to MSNBC they are both.

Yea but look at MSNBC's ratings. I don't know why you're so concerned.

Who said I was concerned? I just like mocking idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All media now is mostly opinion. There is no news. What's your point?

It's just another excuse for a far right wing radical to attack and bash msnbc.

That's all.

I am actually bashing the people that attack Fox News, the ones like rdean that blame Fox News for the actions of Gordon Ramsey.

 

[California Girl]

Oh, for God's sake... don't like it, don't watch it.

This clusterfuck of a forum is a mirror of why our country is such a mess. No fucking backbone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's starkly interesting that the OP wants us to dissect a Pew study to which it offers no link, allowing only a cherrypicked graphic and plugging in its own narrative, so first off, the actual study is here. You're welcome.

What makes you think I wanted to discuss the Pew study? Are you making assumptions and trying to put thoughts in my head again? Didn't you learn not to do that the last time you tried?

As a side note it's revealing that the one graphic the OP did post was sourced not from Pew but from Breitbart, which indicates how deeply he dug, facetiousness intended.

I actually got it from HotAir, but thanks for proving you still can't read minds.

Pew study: Fox News reports three times more news than MSNBC « Hot Air

Usually when a link is withheld it's a sign that such a link might reveal too much that might undermine the poster's agenda. Indeed, reading the narrative shows it's a study that reveals a story about the money side of TV news and the global (d)evolvution of cable "news" networks:

You found something that undermined my agenda of mocking people like you? What was it?

>> Traditionally known for its attention to breaking news, daytime cable’s cuts in live event coverage and its growing reliance on interviews suggest it may be moving more toward the talk-oriented evening shows. This transition may cut the costs of having a crew and correspondent provide live event coverage. <<

That's the best you can do?

This describes a general contemporary trend among all sources, and more interestingly describes the historical approach Fox News took when it came online in 1996; at that time it was CNN, the pioneer in the all-news cable format, that defined it. But news is an expensive venture, maintaining bureaus in different parts of the world, flying talent and camera crews around, post production and editing all that, etc. Roger Ailes brought a new and cheaper approach: instead of dealing with all that, have talking heads in a studio talk about the news rather than take the trouble to report it -- giving birth to the O'Reillys and Hannitys et al that dominated the "prime" time slots and still does.

Wow, brilliant. The next thing you will be telling me that the president doesn't enforce laws.

Wait, you already did that, and got bitch slapped for it.

While that approach didn't help Fox as a news source, it did (and still does) help it as a business (read: profits and ratings), and the CNN model was now relatively, disadvantaged (from, again, a business standpoint, not a journalism one), as CNN was still doing straight news while Fox's news theater was sucking their viewers away. At this point it was decision time: did CNN and the fledgling MSNBC want to go after news, or profit? (the two are mutually antagonistic). As we know by now, they chose the latter, and the Pew study tells us that trend is showing no sign of abatement:

Fox News and Fox are two different organizations. News has always played second fiddle to entertainment because entertainment is where the money is. This is why the Big 3 never tried to do what CNN did, and why it wasn't until Ted Turner started charging people actual cash to watch stuff they could watch for free that anyone was able to make a go of a 24 hour news channel.

If you were half as smart as you think I am you would know that.

>> The format of daytime cable news has been transformed from 2007 to 2012. While MSNBC did see some uptick in live coverage during the day, the big decreases in that format at CNN and Fox leave daytime cable, once distinguished by its breaking news and non-ideological coverage, at least in structure, more like its opinion-driven evening counterpart.

The decrease in coverage of live breaking events has been accompanied by a big increase in interviews, which are now as prevalent in the day as in prime time. This shift means that a good deal of on-scene reporting has been replaced with interviews, which, although they may be live, are far less expensive to produce and do not require a correspondent or crew. <<

Do you mean the fact that Turner no longer has a monopoly on charging people for free content means it is harder to make a profit from owning a cable company to fund 24 hour news? Who'da think it.

The study goes on to note Fox's daytime shift in the same direction:

-- in other words, the Fox model is getting even more Fox-model.

Don't you mean that the "Fox Model" is becoming diluted by competition, so they are having to shift their focus from news to talk the same way other people did?

Blaming Fox News for the shift in the market is about as intelligent as saying the president is not responsible for enforcing laws.

Wait, you did say that.

Never mind.

Not included in the scope of this study was the subtler ways an otherwise factual news story can be swayed into opinion, such as Fox running a fair and balanced segment on a presidential campaign while a screen crawl reads "WILL OBAMA DESTROY AMERICA?"; such as story selection tailored to meet certain audience-Pavlovian criteria ("new black panthers", ACORN, Van Jones, Jeremiah Wright, etc); such as doctored graphics to make subliminal points; such as actual changing of facts by graphically changing the party affiliation of a politician in scandal or running misleading, staged or partisanly-edited video and even supplemented with outright fabrication-- none of which can be quantified in such a study since they're behind the scenes, not officially part of the program, and can be dismissed if caught as a "mistake".

Funny how you decided to use my agenda to, what was my agenda again?

Not to mention, yet again, that the entire time the admittedly opinionated commentators are running, Fox is displaying the ID graphic "Fox News" in the corner of the screen. That can't be quantified in a study either.

Isn't it wonderful that Cable News Network doesn't do the same thing?

The Pew narrative strongly suggests that cable TV, facing (as newspapers do) increasing competition from what it terms "digital sources outside of television that provide that kind of information on demand" sees this Ailes approach as inevitable, if the goal is ratings (profit) rather than news reporting:

Which explains why news was so pure when there were only three networks, they never cared about money or ratings.

Wait.

Doesn't matter, we still had newspapers, and we know they never concerned themselves with anything as droll as profits and circulation.

Damn.

What was your point again?

>> The failure of CNN to solve its nagging prime-time issues has led some observers to assert that in the current cable climate, a channel that chooses not to be overtly liberal or conservative is doomed in the ratings battle. <<

Somebody out there thinks that CNN is not overt about their politics?

And there lies the actual thrust of the Pew study; the increasing commercial basis of what used to be news. We might call it a philosophy of "Ailes for what goods ya".

Because, as I have already demonstrated, news never used to worry about their ratings, which explains why we never knew that Cronkite was the most trusted man in America, because that would have been all about money.

Funny how much forest there is to see when you stop glaring at a single tree. Especially one that a used news salesman like Breitbart just led you to at the outer fringe of the parking lot.

Funny how you think you had a point.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I'm a rightie, and you're full of shit lumping me in with such a self-contrived group.
I listen to NPR and watch Pubic TV more than anything. They are still tools of the Left, but much improved over the decades.

No they aren't. I tell you what, go dig up the podcast from Morning Edition this morning as well as PBS News Hour and tell me exactly where there is a liberal bias. I listen EVERY DAY to NPR / PBS news, so I'll know if you're lying. Go ahead. I'll wait (forever).

 

[Pogo]

It's starkly interesting that the OP wants us to dissect a Pew study to which it offers no link, allowing only a cherrypicked graphic and plugging in its own narrative, so first off, the actual study is here. You're welcome.

What makes you think I wanted to discuss the Pew study? Are you making assumptions and trying to put thoughts in my head again? Didn't you learn not to do that the last time you tried?

Oh I dunno, the OP reference to, quote, "the annual Pew Report' ... the graphic you selected that was clearly labeled, "Source: Pew Research's News Coverage Index" ... little clues like that tell us what the thread is pseudo-about, although in truth there can only be two reasons not to link the basis of your point, (a) abject sloppiness or (b) it would have a deleterious effect on the agenda you wanted to push. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed (b). Perhaps that was overgenerous. Point taken.

And no, I've never learned a damn thing from your endless torrent of posts. That's why I tend to ignore them. This was about the thread, and not (hope you're sitting down, this will be harsh) not about you.

As a side note it's revealing that the one graphic the OP did post was sourced not from Pew but from Breitbart, which indicates how deeply he dug, facetiousness intended.

I actually got it from HotAir, but thanks for proving you still can't read minds.

Don't need to. I can read the URL, and its name is: (three Ws)breitbart.com/mediaserver/EDE3217F97674CCF9E948D16FD29E59B.png. Oopsie.

Of course, having left no link you can claim you found it under a rock, but since the URL is where it's hosted, we know where you went for it and more to the point, where you didn't go to find it -- the original source. Busted.

Usually when a link is withheld it's a sign that such a link might reveal too much that might undermine the poster's agenda. Indeed, reading the narrative shows it's a study that reveals a story about the money side of TV news and the global (d)evolvution of cable "news" networks:

You found something that undermined my agenda of mocking people like you? What was it?

Well, it was the amazing revelation (amazing to narcissists like yourself that is) that the above was about not you but the missing link, why it may have gone missing and what was in there to make it inconvenient. Sorry, maybe we can analyze your obsession with attention in some psychological thread. Not the topic here. We can only fix the thread; we can't fix you.

>> Traditionally known for its attention to breaking news, daytime cable&#8217;s cuts in live event coverage and its growing reliance on interviews suggest it may be moving more toward the talk-oriented evening shows. This transition may cut the costs of having a crew and correspondent provide live event coverage. <<

That's the best you can do?

That's a direct quote from the study you failed to link. What, you don't like the colour?
Hey, you brought the study up; I'm delving into what it actually says, since you didn't bother --for reasons we've already covered.

This describes a general contemporary trend among all sources, and more interestingly describes the historical approach Fox News took when it came online in 1996; at that time it was CNN, the pioneer in the all-news cable format, that defined it. But news is an expensive venture, maintaining bureaus in different parts of the world, flying talent and camera crews around, post production and editing all that, etc. Roger Ailes brought a new and cheaper approach: instead of dealing with all that, have talking heads in a studio talk about the news rather than take the trouble to report it -- giving birth to the O'Reillys and Hannitys et al that dominated the "prime" time slots and still does.

Wow, brilliant. The next thing you will be telling me that the president doesn't enforce laws.

Wait, you already did that, and got bitch slapped for it.

Sheesh -- the wanker fantasies of the narcissistically fixated...
Uh, before you cream all over your mirror, go reread the irrelevant thread. When you learn to read English, go check out what we call the "Constitution" on that. Nice try at tossing red herrings into a point you can't handle. Predictable too.

So after a pathetic flailing attempt to shunt the point off to parts unknown, my actual analysis of this particular history stands unmolested. Fair enough.

While that approach didn't help Fox as a news source, it did (and still does) help it as a business (read: profits and ratings), and the CNN model was now relatively, disadvantaged (from, again, a business standpoint, not a journalism one), as CNN was still doing straight news while Fox's news theater was sucking their viewers away. At this point it was decision time: did CNN and the fledgling MSNBC want to go after news, or profit? (the two are mutually antagonistic). As we know by now, they chose the latter, and the Pew study tells us that trend is showing no sign of abatement:

Fox News and Fox are two different organizations. News has always played second fiddle to entertainment because entertainment is where the money is. This is why the Big 3 never tried to do what CNN did, and why it wasn't until Ted Turner started charging people actual cash to watch stuff they could watch for free that anyone was able to make a go of a 24 hour news channel.

If you were half as smart as you think I am you would know that.

I infer from that last line that I am guilty of overestimating your intellect. Granted, point taken again. I shall be more careful.

"Entertainment" (commentary) is profitable; news is not. That's what I've been saying not only in this post but as long as I've been posting anywhere on the internet. If you tore yourself away from the mirror for two minutes you would know that. And no, Fox and Fox News are not "two different organizations" any more than Toyota and Camry are.

>> The format of daytime cable news has been transformed from 2007 to 2012. While MSNBC did see some uptick in live coverage during the day, the big decreases in that format at CNN and Fox leave daytime cable, once distinguished by its breaking news and non-ideological coverage, at least in structure, more like its opinion-driven evening counterpart.

The decrease in coverage of live breaking events has been accompanied by a big increase in interviews, which are now as prevalent in the day as in prime time. This shift means that a good deal of on-scene reporting has been replaced with interviews, which, although they may be live, are far less expensive to produce and do not require a correspondent or crew. <<

Do you mean the fact that Turner no longer has a monopoly on charging people for free content means it is harder to make a profit from owning a cable company to fund 24 hour news? Who'da think it.

No, I don't mean that.
Firstly, *I* don't mean anything; that's the study being quoted again, which is why it's set apart with arrows, a paragraph break and a different font color. Perhaps if you weren't so busy smearing Brylcreem (or whatever liquid that is) into your head, you might have caught at least one of those clues.

Again this will all become clearer when you (a) learn to read English or (b) stop gazing at your own reflection long enough to read what someone else is saying. There's nothing in either the passage above, or my intro to it, implying anything whatsoever about what Ted Turner (who long ago sold out to Time Warner anyway) has to pay for carriage. Not a damn thing. It's analysis of how these news channels are changing their approaches.

If that analysis is not convenient... tough shit.

The study goes on to note Fox's daytime shift in the same direction:

-- in other words, the Fox model is getting even more Fox-model.

Don't you mean that the "Fox Model" is becoming diluted by competition, so they are having to shift their focus from news to talk the same way other people did?

No, I mean what I said; that the format of faux news that Fox invented, generally shunted to the evening prime time where it will make the most money, is now infiltrating its so-called "straight news" dayparts of the daytime. That line of demarcation is becoming more fuzzy. In other words it's remarkably similar to the tree-point about MSNBC you tried to single out of this forest, yet you never got around to mentioning the same devolution on Fox. An oversight I'm sure. Or the effect of buying links from the used news dealer on the Dimbart lot.

Blaming Fox News for the shift in the market is about as intelligent as saying the president is not responsible for enforcing laws.

I've said nothing about a "shift in the market" (or about the President enforcing laws). In the post in general, I opined on a shift in how a cable "news" channels, in general, have devolved; a shift in objective. And in this devolution, Fox Noise has been the leader, unquestionably. Nay, the inventor. I even illustrated how it did that, just in case anyone's attention to their own posts might be distracted away long enough to read it.

Now, as to why a CNN or Fox or any news corp would choose that path, I didn't really go into that but I have posted in countless other places that the CNNs and MSNBCs going that route do so at the expense of their own integrity. Simply put, they're all in the gutter. They fell in with bad companions, so to speak. That doesn't make Fox "responsible" for the lowering of standards on other channels; they still had the free will not to go there. It just means it was Fox's idea to go there. In effect, CNN and MSNBC made (make: present tense) the same mistake many posters on this forum do: they saw something on Fox Noise and thought it was something worthy of imitation.

To the current point above, yes I think Fox can be "blamed" for its own decisions on how it evolves its dayparts. Who else would be responsible? Perhaps that's one of the obscure powers of the POTUS in your "special" version of the Constitution too

We'll cut this here and split into Part Two. Such is the noise level.

 

[Pogo]

Not included in the scope of this study was the subtler ways an otherwise factual news story can be swayed into opinion, such as Fox running a fair and balanced segment on a presidential campaign while a screen crawl reads "WILL OBAMA DESTROY AMERICA?"; such as story selection tailored to meet certain audience-Pavlovian criteria ("new black panthers", ACORN, Van Jones, Jeremiah Wright, etc); such as doctored graphics to make subliminal points; such as actual changing of facts by graphically changing the party affiliation of a politician in scandal or running misleading, staged or partisanly-edited video and even supplemented with outright fabrication-- none of which can be quantified in such a study since they're behind the scenes, not officially part of the program, and can be dismissed if caught as a "mistake".

Funny how you decided to use my agenda to, what was my agenda again?

Non sequitur.
I believe your agenda had something to do with picking cherries, missing links and navel-gazing.
Maybe you could write this stuff down in a notebook or something. The memory is the second thing to go...

Not to mention, yet again, that the entire time the admittedly opinionated commentators are running, Fox is displaying the ID graphic "Fox News" in the corner of the screen. That can't be quantified in a study either.

Isn't it wonderful that Cable News Network doesn't do the same thing?

Non sequitur. It's neither wonderful nor abominable; it just is. And yes Virginia, there is a subliminal difference between a logo splash that says "CNN" or "MNSBC" and one that reads "Fox News". It's amazing the things you figure out once you learn the language. Fox is the only one running the word "news" in on the screen. That ain't going away. Again, just another example of what was beyond the scope of what can show up in this study, because it's not easily quantified and the methodology doesn't indicate that such was attempted.

Oh I forgot -- you wouldn't know that because you went to a used news lot for this.

The Pew narrative strongly suggests that cable TV, facing (as newspapers do) increasing competition from what it terms "digital sources outside of television that provide that kind of information on demand" sees this Ailes approach as inevitable, if the goal is ratings (profit) rather than news reporting:

Which explains why news was so pure when there were only three networks, they never cared about money or ratings.

Wait.

Wait for what? I'm ready. Well, catch up when you are -- the alphabets always cared about money and ratings, but they all knew those ratings weren't coming from the news department. They ran news largely because as the owners of the airwaves, we the people demand that they operated those stations "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" as a condition of a broadcast license. And presenting news and public affairs programming carries a lot of weight at license renewal time.

So all those network news programs "back in the day" with all their field reporters and foreign news bureaus were heavily subsidized by the real money makers of each network, i.e. Gilligan's Island and Love Boat and the Addams Family. That's where the money to do news came from, because you don't make money doing news.

Years later an international tabloid rag magnate proved that you can however make money doing fake news. But I think we covered that. And since we're talking about cable channels that are not on the air, those FCC license guidelines do not apply anyway, so the comparison is moot.

Doesn't matter, we still had newspapers, and we know they never concerned themselves with anything as droll as profits and circulation.

Damn.

What was your point again?

I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with newspapers. Or ADD.

>> The failure of CNN to solve its nagging prime-time issues has led some observers to assert that in the current cable climate, a channel that chooses not to be overtly liberal or conservative is doomed in the ratings battle. <<

Somebody out there thinks that CNN is not overt about their politics?

Non sequitur. Did yet another point sail over your head, or are you ducking?

And there lies the actual thrust of the Pew study; the increasing commercial basis of what used to be news. We might call it a philosophy of "Ailes for what goods ya".

Because, as I have already demonstrated, news never used to worry about their ratings, which explains why we never knew that Cronkite was the most trusted man in America, because that would have been all about money.

Oh yeah. There was that 'demonstration'.

Funny how much forest there is to see when you stop glaring at a single tree. Especially one that a used news salesman like Breitbart just led you to at the outer fringe of the parking lot.

Funny how you think you had a point.

Even funnier how you thought you could take them on unarmed. This is gonna leave a mark.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's starkly interesting that the OP wants us to dissect a Pew study to which it offers no link, allowing only a cherrypicked graphic and plugging in its own narrative, so first off, the actual study is here. You're welcome.

What makes you think I wanted to discuss the Pew study? Are you making assumptions and trying to put thoughts in my head again? Didn't you learn not to do that the last time you tried?

Oh I dunno, the OP reference to, quote, "the annual Pew Report' ... the graphic you selected that was clearly labeled, "Source: Pew Research's News Coverage Index" ... little clues like that tell us what the thread is pseudo-about, although in truth there can only be two reasons not to link the basis of your point, (a) abject sloppiness or (b) it would have a deleterious effect on the agenda you wanted to push. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed (b). Perhaps that was overgenerous. Point taken.

In other words, you assumed because you found my actual point to subtle. I didn't discuss the report because it is saying the exact same thing it has been saying for years. I did, however, enjoy mocking a few idiots. The fact that I managed to catch you in the mocking, while unintentional, is enjoyable.

And no, I've never learned a damn thing from your endless torrent of posts. That's why I tend to ignore them. This was about the thread, and not (hope you're sitting down, this will be harsh) not about you.

You never learn, yet you follow me around like a puppy dog. Interesting.

The thread is about idiots that think that they are smart enough to discern something about news despite their actual biases. It isn't about the changing way old school media presents the news.

I guess that makes this thread about you.

Don't need to. I can read the URL, and its name is: (three Ws)breitbart.com/mediaserver/EDE3217F97674CCF9E948D16FD29E59B.png. Oopsie.

Let me explain how the internet works.

Somebody posts something, someone else sees it, someone passes it on, someone else writes something about it, on and on forever. Since I do not read Brietbart, I get the stuff at least second hand. The fact that Brietbart started it does not mean I got it from them.

That makes you wrong, period.

Of course, having left no link you can claim you found it under a rock, but since the URL is where it's hosted, we know where you went for it and more to the point, where you didn't go to find it -- the original source. Busted.

Wait, didn't you just bust me from getting it from the original source?

Well, it was the amazing revelation (amazing to narcissists like yourself that is) that the above was about not you but the missing link, why it may have gone missing and what was in there to make it inconvenient. Sorry, maybe we can analyze your obsession with attention in some psychological thread. Not the topic here. We can only fix the thread; we can't fix you.

If the link was missing, how did you trace it back to the source? Could it be because someone put a link in the picture, thus eliminating the need for me to post a link? Especially since I didn't quote any of the language from where I got the picture, and the picture itself was from a different source?

That's a direct quote from the study you failed to link. What, you don't like the colour?
Hey, you brought the study up; I'm delving into what it actually says, since you didn't bother --for reasons we've already covered.

I did not fail to link to the study, I wasn't talking about the study, nor did I quote from it, thus I had no need to link to it. All that is required, by law, is a reference to to original source. I did that.

You are probably confused because you just learned that the president enforces laws.

Sheesh -- the wanker fantasies of the narcissistically fixated...
Uh, before you cream all over your mirror, go reread the irrelevant thread. When you learn to read English, go check out what we call the "Constitution" on that. Nice try at tossing red herrings into a point you can't handle. Predictable too.

Why? Is there something in there that contradicts what I said?

Didn't think so.

So after a pathetic flailing attempt to shunt the point off to parts unknown, my actual analysis of this particular history stands unmolested. Fair enough.

Your analysis? Did I blink and miss something?

I infer from that last line that I am guilty of overestimating your intellect. Granted, point taken again. I shall be more careful.

What does that say about your intellect?

"Entertainment" (commentary) is profitable; news is not. That's what I've been saying not only in this post but as long as I've been posting anywhere on the internet. If you tore yourself away from the mirror for two minutes you would know that. And no, Fox and Fox News are not "two different organizations" any more than Toyota and Camry are.

The conversation about entertainment verses news has been going on for decades. Why the fuck should I giver you credit for discovering something that has been know longer than you have been alive?

No, I don't mean that.
Firstly, *I* don't mean anything; that's the study being quoted again, which is why it's set apart with arrows, a paragraph break and a different font color. Perhaps if you weren't so busy smearing Brylcreem (or whatever liquid that is) into your head, you might have caught at least one of those clues.

You didn't quote that in an attempt to bolster your position?

My mistake.

Again this will all become clearer when you (a) learn to read English or (b) stop gazing at your own reflection long enough to read what someone else is saying. There's nothing in either the passage above, or my intro to it, implying anything whatsoever about what Ted Turner (who long ago sold out to Time Warner anyway) has to pay for carriage. Not a damn thing. It's analysis of how these news channels are changing their approaches.

If that analysis is not convenient... tough shit.

Like I have said, repeatedly, this has been going on since the very first newspaper. I don't understand why you think it is something that needs to be stressed, unless you are so stupid you think the world did not exist before cable.

No, I mean what I said; that the format of faux news that Fox invented, generally shunted to the evening prime time where it will make the most money, is now infiltrating its so-called "straight news" dayparts of the daytime. That line of demarcation is becoming more fuzzy. In other words it's remarkably similar to the tree-point about MSNBC you tried to single out of this forest, yet you never got around to mentioning the same devolution on Fox. An oversight I'm sure. Or the effect of buying links from the used news dealer on the Dimbart lot.

That was funny.

Can you tell me exactly when we had straight news in the daytime? I remember commentary on news from way back before they even had cable TV, so I am a little confused why you think Fox News invented the format. Could it be massive ignorance?

I've said nothing about a "shift in the market" (or about the President enforcing laws). In the post in general, I opined on a shift in how a cable "news" channels, in general, have devolved; a shift in objective. And in this devolution, Fox Noise has been the leader, unquestionably. Nay, the inventor. I even illustrated how it did that, just in case anyone's attention to their own posts might be distracted away long enough to read it.

Everything you said is about the shift in the market, even if you don't understand what you are saying.

Now, as to why a CNN or Fox or any news corp would choose that path, I didn't really go into that but I have posted in countless other places that the CNNs and MSNBCs going that route do so at the expense of their own integrity. Simply put, they're all in the gutter. They fell in with bad companions, so to speak. That doesn't make Fox "responsible" for the lowering of standards on other channels; they still had the free will not to go there. It just means it was Fox's idea to go there. In effect, CNN and MSNBC made (make: present tense) the same mistake many posters on this forum do: they saw something on Fox Noise and thought it was something worthy of imitation.

All those times you were posting about money and profit you were talking about something other than why a corporation would go for profit over whatever it is you think they should be worried about?

Seriously?

To the current point above, yes I think Fox can be "blamed" for its own decisions on how it evolves its dayparts. Who else would be responsible? Perhaps that's one of the obscure powers of the POTUS in your "special" version of the Constitution too

We'll cut this here and split into Part Two. Such is the noise level.

You want to blame Fox for something that was occurring before they even existed?

I was right the first day you posted, you aren't worth my time.

 

[Rozman]

I've never seen a liberal on this board defend msnbc as news. Yet Rush is quoted all time time by the righties. There is a double standard amongst conservatives about what is categorized as news and opinion. They claim all other news is opinion and that Fox is the only credible source.
Yet Fox shamelessly hires and promotes the likes of Rove, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. and somehow claim they are not biased. And what liberals do they manage to dig up? Kucinich and other conservative punching bags.

Yet Fox shamelessly hires and promotes the likes of Rove, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. and somehow claim they are not biased. And what liberals do they manage to dig up? Kucinich and other conservative punching bags

Yet MSNBC hires Sharpton,Mathews,Schultz,Maddow,O'Donnell and they are NOT
biased?...and they rarely have on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I've never seen a liberal on this board defend msnbc as news. Yet Rush is quoted all time time by the righties. There is a double standard amongst conservatives about what is categorized as news and opinion. They claim all other news is opinion and that Fox is the only credible source.
Yet Fox shamelessly hires and promotes the likes of Rove, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. and somehow claim they are not biased. And what liberals do they manage to dig up? Kucinich and other conservative punching bags.

Yet Fox shamelessly hires and promotes the likes of Rove, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, etc. and somehow claim they are not biased. And what liberals do they manage to dig up? Kucinich and other conservative punching bags

Yet MSNBC hires Sharpton,Mathews,Schultz,Maddow,O'Donnell and they are NOT
biased?...and they rarely have on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

Yea MSNBC's a crock of garbage. So is fox news.

 

[Pogo]

What makes you think I wanted to discuss the Pew study? Are you making assumptions and trying to put thoughts in my head again? Didn't you learn not to do that the last time you tried?

Oh I dunno, the OP reference to, quote, "the annual Pew Report' ... the graphic you selected that was clearly labeled, "Source: Pew Research's News Coverage Index" ... little clues like that tell us what the thread is pseudo-about, although in truth there can only be two reasons not to link the basis of your point, (a) abject sloppiness or (b) it would have a deleterious effect on the agenda you wanted to push. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed (b). Perhaps that was overgenerous. Point taken.

In other words, you assumed because you found my actual point to subtle. I didn't discuss the report because it is saying the exact same thing it has been saying for years. I did, however, enjoy mocking a few idiots. The fact that I managed to catch you in the mocking, while unintentional, is enjoyable.



You never learn, yet you follow me around like a puppy dog. Interesting.

The thread is about idiots that think that they are smart enough to discern something about news despite their actual biases. It isn't about the changing way old school media presents the news.

I guess that makes this thread about you.



Let me explain how the internet works.

Somebody posts something, someone else sees it, someone passes it on, someone else writes something about it, on and on forever. Since I do not read Brietbart, I get the stuff at least second hand. The fact that Brietbart started it does not mean I got it from them.

That makes you wrong, period.



Wait, didn't you just bust me from getting it from the original source?



If the link was missing, how did you trace it back to the source? Could it be because someone put a link in the picture, thus eliminating the need for me to post a link? Especially since I didn't quote any of the language from where I got the picture, and the picture itself was from a different source?



I did not fail to link to the study, I wasn't talking about the study, nor did I quote from it, thus I had no need to link to it. All that is required, by law, is a reference to to original source. I did that.

You are probably confused because you just learned that the president enforces laws.



Why? Is there something in there that contradicts what I said?

Didn't think so.



Your analysis? Did I blink and miss something?



What does that say about your intellect?



The conversation about entertainment verses news has been going on for decades. Why the fuck should I giver you credit for discovering something that has been know longer than you have been alive?



You didn't quote that in an attempt to bolster your position?

My mistake.



Like I have said, repeatedly, this has been going on since the very first newspaper. I don't understand why you think it is something that needs to be stressed, unless you are so stupid you think the world did not exist before cable.



That was funny.

Can you tell me exactly when we had straight news in the daytime? I remember commentary on news from way back before they even had cable TV, so I am a little confused why you think Fox News invented the format. Could it be massive ignorance?



Everything you said is about the shift in the market, even if you don't understand what you are saying.

Now, as to why a CNN or Fox or any news corp would choose that path, I didn't really go into that but I have posted in countless other places that the CNNs and MSNBCs going that route do so at the expense of their own integrity. Simply put, they're all in the gutter. They fell in with bad companions, so to speak. That doesn't make Fox "responsible" for the lowering of standards on other channels; they still had the free will not to go there. It just means it was Fox's idea to go there. In effect, CNN and MSNBC made (make: present tense) the same mistake many posters on this forum do: they saw something on Fox Noise and thought it was something worthy of imitation.

All those times you were posting about money and profit you were talking about something other than why a corporation would go for profit over whatever it is you think they should be worried about?

Seriously?

To the current point above, yes I think Fox can be "blamed" for its own decisions on how it evolves its dayparts. Who else would be responsible? Perhaps that's one of the obscure powers of the POTUS in your "special" version of the Constitution too

We'll cut this here and split into Part Two. Such is the noise level.

You want to blame Fox for something that was occurring before they even existed?

I was right the first day you posted, you aren't worth my time.

Obviously I am, since you took all that time to go picking my post apart sentence by sentence in the eternal quest for self-congratulation.

This point was predictable; the narcissistic ego cannot act otherwise. It just doesn't know any better. Nobody reads these endless diarrheaic streams of lexicograhical onanism, so I don't know why you bother, but then again I'm not a trained psychologist. And now you're running away, which was equally predictable.

I have work to do; in the absence of anything but self-indulgent ad hominem, one-upmanship and red herrings, my post stands uncontested. Should I find myself really bored or ahead enough I may return to shoot down the obvious new fallacies, but for now I'll allow them to shoot themselves. It is after all what they're designed for.

 

[sealadaigh]

Oh, for God's sake... don't like it, don't watch it.

This clusterfuck of a forum is a mirror of why our country is such a mess. No fucking backbone.

"a chara" is preferred gramatically. "mo chara" is also correct, and used by many non-irish speakers. just saying. you could look it up...or i suppose i could for you if you want.

i use both.