I have criticized the left a lot on here.
The liberal snowflakes are after free speech now they are going after hannity
- Thread starter Wyatt earp
- Start date
oreo
Gold Member
LIBERALS DON'T WATCH FOX NEWS--LOL These complaints are coming from Conservatives.
This is no surprise--FOX News ratings are tanking and much of it is due to Sean Hannity, aka the Trump fairy godfather show.
In fact they started losing viewership, in mass, during the primaries when FOX News turned into the Trump news network. This really pissed off a lot of people who favored other candidates. FOX News gave Trump an unprecedented 2 billion in FREE News coverage while basically ignoring all other more qualified--competent GOP candidates.
"Fox News has decided to cater to a (very) vocal minority in exchange for a brief boost in ratings. Sean Hannity likes to boast of a 40% increase in his ratings, but look at Fox News overall: they are falling in a bad way. And, while the Trump supporters would love to tell you that it is because Fox News isn’t kowtowing to Trump enough, the reality of the situation is a lot simpler: They’ve alienated the legions of conservatives who turned into them to see news.
Fox News, meanwhile, has given Donald Trump the level of positive coverage that money could never (legally) buy, and as a result, they’ve dropped in the ratings. It’s no coincidence that as Trump enablers and outright supporters have focused more and more on Trump, their level of appeal has dropped. They don’t have the diversity of panelists CNN has managed to grab, and they don’t have hosts who allow both sides to speak freely.
What’s more, the rising star of Fox News, Megyn Kelly, was fast becoming the most popular personality, and then Donald Trump not only insulted her, but the network on multiple occasions met with Trump to try to work things out and get him to come back on the air. If Kelly decided not to remain with Fox News when her contract is up, Fox News would fall even further – and they would deserve it." (Megyn Kelly didn't renew her contract and went over to bigger waters on CBS.)
But WHY is CNN crushing Fox News in the ratings?
Sean Hannity has a lot to do with promoting Trump over 16 other GOP candidates--and I believe FOX is now getting a grip as to what they have done and are looking to cut people who are turning out to be a problem for them--Hannity being one of them.
They're finally realising that millions have turned them OFF and turned on CNN. The Trump effect will also hit right wing radio talk show hosts in the nuts, like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and any of the others that sold Trump over more qualified GOP candidates. Rush Limbaugh for his continual attacks on Establishment Republicans, Michael Savage--who was 110% in the tank for Trump--and Ann Coulter who was having wet dreams over Trump. Paybacks are hell, and it's going to hit them right where it hurts--right in those obscene profit breaks.
Donald Trump broke the conservative media
Last edited:
usmbguest5318
Gold Member
O'Reilly's show, like Hannity's, is news commentary, that is, they are essentially video editorials, or, if you prefer, talk-radio made for television. There's nothing wrong with that; it is what it is. MSNBC and CNN have programs that are largely that too, though the format is somewhat different on CNN from that found on Fox and MSNBC. I guess someone in the networks' marketing divisions have determined that in along the journalistic spectrum that puts hard, "adjective free" news at one end and purely speculative commentary at the other, cable news viewers want less "hard news" and more "punditry."
When I was a young adult, I used to enjoy -- i.e., I made a point of watching it -- watching Firing LIne. That show was pure analysis and commentary of current events and public policy. The show eventually went off the air, and though I miss the show, that it is no longer around isn't problematic, isn't indicative of an assault on free speech, etc. It's not around, and that's that. So it will need to be with O'Reilly's show, and Hannity's too if it also goes the way of the dodo.
These days, I read the editorial pages of newspapers, a smattering of professional journals and publications, and a handful of magazines. I encounter the news commentary that comes on CNN, but mostly I don't pay much of that stuff any mind, although there are some commentators on CNN who occasionally offer insights and lines of thought that I hadn't considered, or that, based on their commentary, I am called to consider whether I may have inaptly over or undervalued, for a given issue. That happens mostly for issues in which I have only a passing interest; on issues that I genuinely care about, I'll have "done my homework," and no TV editorialist is going to present an angle that escaped me, unless they perhaps have access to information that I, quite simply, do not. That's the value I see news commentary, editorials.
Now editorials are wonderful, but if they are the foundation or important building block upon which one builds one's views on "whatever," whether one realizes it or not, one is acquiescing to being told what to think about the topic itself and the politics surrounding it. One needs to consume not opinions, but data and perform one's own analysis. Though editorials typically contain some data, they are still editorials; the data will be the data that supports the argument the editorialist aims to make. If one hasn't done one's own data collection and analysis, how could one possibly know whether there exist other data that is more germane, or that indicate the weighting the editorialist assigned to the data s/he included? One cannot, unless one can perform something akin to a Vulcan "mind meld" with the world's information repositories.
And that's the thing with editorials. Their raison d'etre is not to share information, but rather to inform readers of the conclusions the writer has arrived at based on the information they had and saw fit to value to greater and lesser extents. Well, I don't need to know what someone else thinks before I've collected relevant raw information and thought about it, the matter as a whole, confounding/contributing secondary factors, etc. myself. Using any other approach will jaundice my objectivity, at which point I'm disserving myself. Well, I'm the last person to whom I care to do that.
So O'Reilly is gone. Hannity may disappear too. Oh, well. Guess what, (former) watchers of those shows? You'll get by just fine without them, as I did when Firing Line went off the air, particularly if, for the issues you care most about, you build your own "portfolio" and don't rely upon theirs.
When I was a young adult, I used to enjoy -- i.e., I made a point of watching it -- watching Firing LIne. That show was pure analysis and commentary of current events and public policy. The show eventually went off the air, and though I miss the show, that it is no longer around isn't problematic, isn't indicative of an assault on free speech, etc. It's not around, and that's that. So it will need to be with O'Reilly's show, and Hannity's too if it also goes the way of the dodo.
These days, I read the editorial pages of newspapers, a smattering of professional journals and publications, and a handful of magazines. I encounter the news commentary that comes on CNN, but mostly I don't pay much of that stuff any mind, although there are some commentators on CNN who occasionally offer insights and lines of thought that I hadn't considered, or that, based on their commentary, I am called to consider whether I may have inaptly over or undervalued, for a given issue. That happens mostly for issues in which I have only a passing interest; on issues that I genuinely care about, I'll have "done my homework," and no TV editorialist is going to present an angle that escaped me, unless they perhaps have access to information that I, quite simply, do not. That's the value I see news commentary, editorials.
Now editorials are wonderful, but if they are the foundation or important building block upon which one builds one's views on "whatever," whether one realizes it or not, one is acquiescing to being told what to think about the topic itself and the politics surrounding it. One needs to consume not opinions, but data and perform one's own analysis. Though editorials typically contain some data, they are still editorials; the data will be the data that supports the argument the editorialist aims to make. If one hasn't done one's own data collection and analysis, how could one possibly know whether there exist other data that is more germane, or that indicate the weighting the editorialist assigned to the data s/he included? One cannot, unless one can perform something akin to a Vulcan "mind meld" with the world's information repositories.
And that's the thing with editorials. Their raison d'etre is not to share information, but rather to inform readers of the conclusions the writer has arrived at based on the information they had and saw fit to value to greater and lesser extents. Well, I don't need to know what someone else thinks before I've collected relevant raw information and thought about it, the matter as a whole, confounding/contributing secondary factors, etc. myself. Using any other approach will jaundice my objectivity, at which point I'm disserving myself. Well, I'm the last person to whom I care to do that.
So O'Reilly is gone. Hannity may disappear too. Oh, well. Guess what, (former) watchers of those shows? You'll get by just fine without them, as I did when Firing Line went off the air, particularly if, for the issues you care most about, you build your own "portfolio" and don't rely upon theirs.
James and Lachlan Murdoch are. Their wives certainly are and now they are in charge. So, it looks like Fox will be under going renovation.So now FOX is "liberal"?
Sadly, you are correct.
This may be a reason why O'Reilly was sacrificed to the Left:
"Sky takeover by Fox to be lodged for European approval
The £11.7bn deal still risks scrutiny by UK competition authorities and media watchdog.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
Subscribe to read
Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox will ask Brussels to approve its £11.7bn bid to take full control of Sky as early as this week, marking the next step in the politically contentious battle for the UK-based pay-television broadcaster."
Subscribe to read
The EU can't support a conservative network.....
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Who do you think I'm talking smack about? The douchebag talking heads on the magic lightbox?
I didn't know people could see how many times you've been banned. It's not on your profile page that I can see. Where is the list?
What about it?
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Explode how? What kind of ******* snowflake thinks Hannity, Lemon or any other talking head has a right to a multi-million dollar per year job in infotainment?
Hannity tops media ‘rich list’ with $29 million salary
Newz is a business, not a charity. Business owners have a right to make decisions for their business in order to legally maximize profit. If the Murdoch brothers want to realign their businesses, that's literally their business.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,446
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #67
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
LOL. I was thinking 1/2 weasel and 1/3 Moose.
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Come off the ledge, son. It's not that serious. Get a grip. Life won't end if Sean Hannity has to start doing podcasts.
Figured you couldn't back up your previous statements.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,446
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #70
So now you like inheritance of children? When did that happen?
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,446
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #71
Rexx Taylor
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #72
and 1/32nd Rectal Examination Prong,,,{is that what its called?}
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Blame the LWLs, not Schussel. She made a comment about Hannity but also says it wasn't sexual harassment even though LWLs wanted to claim it was.
Despite Reports, Fmr Fox Guest Claims She Was Never Sexually Harassed by Sean Hannity
Schlussel denied that she was ever sexually harassed by Sean Hannity. While Schlussel stands by her description of the incident, Schlussel told us that she doesn’t believe what happened between the two amounted to sexual harassment by any legal definition.
“I would never accuse him of that. Sexual harassment has a special meaning under the law, and I would never accuse him of that,” Schlussel, an attorney herself, said. Schlussel said the interaction happened in the early 2000’s when Hannity was in Detroit taping a show.
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Yes. Mostly history, but some entertainment. Great way to pass the time mowing my two acres.
JohnnyApplesack
Gold Member
- Feb 8, 2011
- 2,660
- 357
- 130
problem is he's a perv like the rest of those Fux clowns, not what the moron mumbles
jeebus you're clueless
jeebus you're clueless
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,446
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #76
Let's go back to your statement.. You're now for the snot nose children of inheritance, I thought you were against it?
Again when did that happen?
.
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
Talking smack and spreading lies from your anonymous account behind a keyboard? Sad. How desperate you must be at the prospect Sean Hannity might be replaced.
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
There is not evidence of that. Only the ******* snowflake left thinks asking a woman to join him at his hotel room is perverted.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,446
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #79
So you really can't figure what's going on can you? It's a direct assault on the 1 st amendment..
You have Glenn Beck trying to pay off tomi to silence her and now you have rich kids trying to off their dads empire
Divine Wind
Platinum Member
More lies. Are you really so butthurt over the chance that Sean might be joining Beck's network that you have to lie?
Why do you think a family business shouldn't be passed down to middle-aged sons? James, 44, and Lachlan, 45, Murdoch have been following in their father's footsteps for decades. For someone only 10 years older to call them "snot nose children of inheritance" is an exaggeration befitting a LW Snowflake.
Feel free to quote your source of why you leaped to false conclusions to back your anonymously posted lies.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zone1 Italy expels Muslim leader who defended marriage to 9-year-old girl.- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
-
-
Teen Lures Boy To His Death, Thinks She Can Get Away With It- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 3
-
