Why Libs Hate Fox News

Is there a specific answer you're looking for? I've already said why I think network news has gone out of style, and I've said why I think Fox News has been in the lead among the cable news stations.
I'm mostly just guessing about all this anyway since I'm not a ratings expert. But Fox' ratings certainly aren't due to their integrity and objectivity. I'm sorry, but that notion's just laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

why do you think fox news' ratings are so high?

which news station do you like?
 
The liberal media bias continues.................

ABC and CBS Lead Again with Fired Attorneys, Paint Them as Victims of Bush Politics
Posted by Brent Baker on March 14, 2007 - 20:24.
When the Clinton administration in 1993, in a then-unprecedented decision, gave all 93 U.S. Attorneys ten days to leave their offices, including Jay Stephens who was in the midst of investigating House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, ABC's World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News didn't utter a syllable about it. But on Wednesday night, the evening newscasts on both networks led with Republican Senator John Sununu's call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as both highlighted different U.S. Attorneys who were amongst the eight replaced late last year by the Bush administration, painting both as victims of nefarious political maneuvering.

“The pressure on the Attorney General of the United States to resign is growing,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson trumpeted, “for the first time, a Republican Senator has said Alberto Gonzales must go.” Focusing on the fired U.S. Attorney for San Diego, Carol Lam, reporter Pierre Thomas suggested she was removed for pursuing a case against a GOP Congressman and relayed how “Democrats pointed out that most of the eight fired U.S. attorneys had excellent performance reviews.” On CBS, Sandra Hughes delivered a “CBS News Exclusive” about how “John McKay was fired in December for reasons he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but very much to do with Washington politics.” Hughes passed along how “it was what he didn't do that McKay believes got him fired. In the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state, the Democratic candidate won by just a couple of hundred votes. McKay didn't call a grand jury to investigate questions of voter fraud.” But as Wall Street Journal editorial on Wednesday noted, McKay ignored very real evidence of voter fraud.

An excerpt from the March 14 Wall Street Journal editorial:


....The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do....

Wednesday's NBC Nightly News, anchored by Campbell Brown, didn't lead with the matter and held itself to one story which aired after pieces on the FDA demanding new warnings on sleeping pills, the survival rates for heart attack victims and a short item on the HPV vaccine controversy.

The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter reported:


Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it.
For an excerpt from a March of 1993 Washington Post story on Reno's move, as well as a rundown of how the Tuesday night broadcast network newscasts all led with the controversy, check my Tuesday night NewsBusters posting.

Now, to the March14 ABC and CBS evening newscast coverage:

ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson teased:


“Tonight, new calls for the Attorney General to resign over the firing of U.S. prosecutors. President Bush comes to his defense, but says he needs to explain.”
Gibson led:

“Good evening. The pressure on the Attorney General of the United States to resign is growing. For the first time, a Republican Senator has said Alberto Gonzales must go. New Hampshire Senator John Sununu today told ABC News [text on screen] 'the President should fire the Attorney General. That's what's in the President's interest and the country's interest.' President Bush did come to Gonzales' defense earlier in the day, but the President also joined the chorus of criticism.”
Pierre Thomas asserted that at a press conference in Mexico President Bush “admitted he had passed along complaints about some U.S. Attorneys to the Attorney General” and Thomas showed a soundbite of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming the Bush administration had committed an “illegal” act, before relaying the Democratic spin that painted one U.S. Attorney as a victim of improper political consideration:

“Democrats pointed out that most of the eight fired U.S. attorneys had excellent performance reviews. Carol Lam was the U.S. Attorney in San Diego. Her performance review noted some problems with immigration enforcement, but otherwise described her as 'an effective manager and a respected leader in her district.' Democrats say she was fired for prosecuting Republican politicians. They point to a Justice Department e-mail, dated May 11th, 2006. The Attorney General's Chief-of-Staff, D. Kyle Sampson, wrote a senior White House official, 'please call me at your convenience to discuss the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.' Lam had prosecuted Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham for corruption. On May 11th, the Los Angeles Times published an article suggesting Lam was turning her investigation toward another Republican Congressman. Lam would be fired seven months later. The Justice Department gave no reasons.”

Carol Lam at March 6 hearing: “We were given little or no information about the reason for the requests for our resignations.”

Thomas: “David Schertler, a former federal prosecutor, says Lam's firing appears to fly in the face of Justice Department tradition.”

David Schertler: “In the past, where you've had a U.S. Attorney working on a politically sensitive case, the department has almost taken a hands-off approach so that there'd not be any appearance of impropriety.”


CBS Evening News. Katie Couric opened:

"Hello, everyone. President Bush tonight is defending the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. He says it was the right thing to do. What was wrong, he says, is the way the Justice Department told Congress about it. That would include saying the White House wasn't involved. Turns out it was. Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire today became the first Republican in Congress to call on the President to fire the Attorney General. The President is not doing that, but he is making the Attorney General clean up the mess. Here's Jim Axelrod."
After the first story by Jim Axelrod on how Bush took Gonzales "to the woodshed” and how it "appears some [of the U.S. Attorneys] were fired for political reasons," Couric set up what was introduced in the tease as a “CBS News Exclusive” story:

"As we've told you, the President says the firings were appropriate, but one of the U.S. attorneys who got the axe told CBS News it certainly wasn't in his case. By most accounts, he was a star prosecutor in Washington state, and he talks exclusively tonight to Sandra Hughes."

John McKay, former U.S. attorney: "I'm disappointed in the President. I'm disappointed in the Attorney General."

Sandra Hughes: "That's because former U.S. attorney John McKay was fired in December for reasons he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job, but very much to do with Washington politics."

McKay: "I asked for the reasons that I was being asked to resign, and I was given no reasons."

Hughes: "McKay's office won a conviction of the man who was planning to blow up the Los Angeles airport, the millennium bomber, and a conviction of James Ujaama, who was planning to build an al-Qaeda training camp in Oregon. He was also lauded for cracking down on drug smuggling from Canada. So when the Attorney General said he was fired for performance reasons, he was livid."

McKay: "I knew that was false, and I felt obligated to speak up."

Hughes: "CBS News obtained McKay's most recent performance review, written just three months before his firing. In it, he was described as 'effective, well-regarded, and' a 'capable leader.'"

McKay: "I am really proud of the work that was done in my office, and the, you know, the excellent run that I had."

Hughes: "Justice officials say they also had a problem with McKay over the way he shared information with local and federal law enforcement officials. But it was what he didn't do that McKay believes got him fired. In the 2004 gubernatorial race in Washington state, the Democratic candidate won by just a couple of hundred votes. McKay didn't call a grand jury to investigate questions of voter fraud. And he heard about it when he sought a promotion."

McKay: "I did apply to be federal judge last fall, and at that time, questions were directed to me about the 2004 governor's election in Washington state."

Hughes: "Shortly after, McKay's name appeared on an e-mail between the Justice Department and the White House listed as a U.S. Attorney 'being pushed out.'"

McKay: "Any individual prosecutor is replaceable. What's not replaceable is our reputation for fairness, our reputation for independence from political influences."

Hughes: "McKay is no longer prosecuting al-Qaeda suspects or drug smugglers for the U.S. government. He's teaching law students, who now may benefit from a crash course in Bush administration politics. Sandra Hughes, CBS News, Los Angeles."

Following Hughes, Couric turned to CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen who declared it “absolutely extraordinary” to remove U.S. Attorneys in middle of a President's term.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11428
 
To show how bad Fox News kills CNN - the repeat of O'Reilly has twice the viewers of CNN 11:00PM show

i am sorry i don't understand how this addresses my questions...actually i don't understand your post at all.........

why do you think fox news' ratings are so high?

which news station do you like?
 
i am sorry i don't understand how this addresses my questions...actually i don't understand your post at all.........

why do you think fox news' ratings are so high?

which news station do you like?

People want to get both sides. They are tired of the left wing bias they were forced to endure before Fox News and talk radio

Sorry you do not understand why a repeat of O'Reilly is worth twice as much as the original prgram on CNN


Fox News is my source for news
 
People want to get both sides. They are tired of the left wing bias they were forced to endure before Fox News and talk radio

Sorry you do not understand why a repeat of O'Reilly is worth twice as much as the original prgram on CNN

Fox News is my source for news

care to explain to me why a repeat of O'Reilly is worth twice as much as the original prgram on CNN

do you watch cnn or msnbc?

which fox news program do you like the best?
 
Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, mm.

I haven't responded inappropriately to anyone that I consider a "lady" and apparently they
(the self described females) agree with me rather than you. I don't owe them or you any apologies at all.


That's right, Psychoblues - I didn't. And, it's not like I'm anybody to be telling you who you can post to on message boards; nor is it that I don't think you'd be an interesting person to chat with - or even butt heads with. But, your disgusting, vulgar, and classless treatment of women on message boards really makes me disinclined to have anything to do with you. I wasn't raised to treat ladies in that manner. Until you can mend some fences and act like you've got some sense, I'd prefer it if you didn't talk to me at all.

Why do you insist on one?
 
care to explain to me why a repeat of O'Reilly is worth twice as much as the original prgram on CNN

do you watch cnn or msnbc?

which fox news program do you like the best?

The mindless liberal blather on CNN is to much for me to take. The main difference between Fox and CNN/MSNBC is simple. Fox News gives both sides of the issues and allows both sides to express thier views

I have said this many times and have yet to proven wrong. Fox News has twice the number of libs on giving their opinions as the number of Republicans on CNN/MSNBC combined

Hannity/Colmes and Britt Hume's Special Report are my favorites
 
The mindless liberal blather on CNN is to much for me to take. The main difference between Fox and CNN/MSNBC is simple. Fox News gives both sides of the issues and allows both sides to express thier views

I have said this many times and have yet to proven wrong. Fox News has twice the number of libs on giving their opinions as the number of Republicans on CNN/MSNBC combined

Hannity/Colmes and Britt Hume's Special Report are my favorites

i watch all three as well as the BBC....i prefer brit as well....hanity and colmes is a bit too much of a side show for me....
 
i watch all three as well as the BBC....i prefer brit as well....hanity and colmes is a bit too much of a side show for me....

Oh the unbiased BBC that has a picture of Pres Bush as Hitler in their news room?

Perhaps you do not like Hannity and Colmes because Sean carries the show and shows the libs for what they really are
 
It is not just me who knows the media has a left wing bias.................

Released: March 14, 2007
Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real

Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet/Zogby Poll shows American voters are skeptical political motivation may be behind blogs run by mainstream news organizations


The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well – 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.


The Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet is based at George Washington University in Washington D.C.


Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches. The survey, which focuses on perceptions of the “old” and “new” media, will be released today at the PoliticsOnline Conference 2007 at GWU. It is also featured in the March issue of Zogby’s Real America newsletter, now available on www.zogby.com.


Fritz Wenzel, Zogby’s Director of Communications, will also discuss with conference–goers the results of the first interactive survey to include video clips from presidential candidates. The video poll is the latest step in Zogby’s cutting–edge leadership in online polling, and revealed important respondent sentiment toward the candidates after viewing clips online of recent speeches and interviews. Zogby International’s Jonathan Zogby, Director of Domestic Business Development, has also published an article in the conference magazine about the emergence of Internet polling as an important survey research tool, particularly in light of the increasing difficulty of telephone polling.


The IPDI PoliticsOnline conference is one of the most important annual national conferences focusing on how the Internet has affected American politics.


While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a conservative bias. Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.


The Zogby Interactive survey of 1,757 likely voters nationwide was conducted Feb. 20-26, 2007, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points.


As the influence of blogs has risen, mainstream news organizations have attempted to get in on the action by creating their own blogs to counter those run by private citizens and those not in the news business. But American voters remain skeptical of major news outlets diving in to the blog pool – 26% speculated that the reason news organizations are placing blogs on their Web sites is that “blogs give news organizations a chance to promote a political agenda they could not promote in their regular broadcasts, cablecasts, or publications.”

This month’s Zogby’s Real America newsletter also explores Americans’ divided views on how to fix the U.S. health care system – how the nation’s health care compares to other counties, whether Americans should seek a radical change and what type of health care system would benefit the most Americans.

For detailed methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
www.zogby.com
 
Oh the unbiased BBC that has a picture of Pres Bush as Hitler in their news room?

Perhaps you do not like Hannity and Colmes because Sean carries the show and shows the libs for what they really are

i didn't say the bbc was unbiased i said that i watched it.

sean hannity and alan both spin their arguments too much for my taste ... plus the whole thing is such theatre ..... same with bill's show, keith's show, and that other twit who's name escapes me

brit facilitates debate among the panel i prefer that style of show .....
 
i didn't say the bbc was unbiased i said that i watched it.

sean hannity and alan both spin their arguments too much for my taste ... plus the whole thing is such theatre ..... same with bill's show, keith's show, and that other twit who's name escapes me

brit facilitates debate among the panel i prefer that style of show .....


Do you watch the BBC for comic relief?
 
I think that in order to view Fox News accurately you must make more of a distinction between their news and their "news talk/commentating."

I personally find O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes annoying. They are all over-the-top and often one-sided. But people who point to Hannity or O'Reilly as examples of what "Fox News is," are demonstrating, in my opinion, their own biases against Fox News...just as if I pointed to Tucker Carlson or Scarborough and said - see look how biased they are, I would be doing the same thing for other news agencies.

There is a big difference between news and news talk.

CNN has Cristian Amanpour making amazingly partisan statements about the President, the war, etc. publicallys while claiming to be an unbiased news reporter, Dan Rather put out and vehemently defended fradulent documents, there are pictures of Bush portrayed as Hitler proudly displayed in the BBC newsroom...these are just a few small example of why I think so many people are beginning to feel that there is a left-tilting bias from the majority of the media.

I could be wrong - I get most of my news from as many sources I can off the internet...but I'm not sure if Fox NEWS (not news commentary) has quite so many examples of right-leaning reporting. They have STRONG right-leaning commentators...but they don't seem to be making the same mistakes that so many of the other news agencies are making - allowing their reporters and their reporting to express so much bias so obviously.
 
I am sorry to inform you, Gem, but there is no equal anywhere in the news business as the FoxNews bias in one-sided reporting. Their owner, Roger Ailes, sees and even admits to that in every article, every broadcast and every statement that officially comes from that despicable excuse for a news outlet.



I think that in order to view Fox News accurately you must make more of a distinction between their news and their "news talk/commentating."

I personally find O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes annoying. They are all over-the-top and often one-sided. But people who point to Hannity or O'Reilly as examples of what "Fox News is," are demonstrating, in my opinion, their own biases against Fox News...just as if I pointed to Tucker Carlson or Scarborough and said - see look how biased they are, I would be doing the same thing for other news agencies.

There is a big difference between news and news talk.

CNN has Cristian Amanpour making amazingly partisan statements about the President, the war, etc. publicallys while claiming to be an unbiased news reporter, Dan Rather put out and vehemently defended fradulent documents, there are pictures of Bush portrayed as Hitler proudly displayed in the BBC newsroom...these are just a few small example of why I think so many people are beginning to feel that there is a left-tilting bias from the majority of the media.

I could be wrong - I get most of my news from as many sources I can off the internet...but I'm not sure if Fox NEWS (not news commentary) has quite so many examples of right-leaning reporting. They have STRONG right-leaning commentators...but they don't seem to be making the same mistakes that so many of the other news agencies are making - allowing their reporters and their reporting to express so much bias so obviously.

I would suggest you take your search for truth in a different direction.
 
why do you think fox news' ratings are so high?

which news station do you like?

musicman and I have been discussing that so my guesses on that subject are already posted in here.
I get most of my news from the Internet. Sometimes public broadcasting. I like NPR and Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

How about you?
 
I'm on DirectTV HDTV and I have noticed a substantial decline in their quality of diaogue and programming. I didn't think it could get much lower but they have proven me innaccurate.

How high are Fox's ratings anyway?

I will definitely be contacting my satellite provider concerning this absolute derilection of duty and promised programing satisfaction and I WILL withhold all funds that I attribute to FOXNEWS (which I account for about $.02 (two cents) and I will demand a more responsible approach to news, genuine journalism and responsible broadcasting!!!!!!!!!!!! Americans don't have to put up with this shit!!!!!!

:eusa_angel:
 
Always take Zogby with a grain of salt.

How high are Fox's ratings anyway?

They're high as a kite right now, rocketman:

The Cable News Scorecard: Tuesday, March 13
25-54 demographic: (LS)

Total day: FNC: 238 | CNN: 138 | MSNBC: 96 | HLN: 118 | CNBC: 93

Prime: FNC: 373 | CNN: 157 | MSNBC: 116 | HLN: 163 | CNBC: 115

http://www.top5s.com/

Why are they so high? Who knows, I always thought they caught many of their viewers because of their coverage of 9/11.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21383179-7582,00.html

Or maybe the viewers have been taking their search for the truth in a different direction.
 
Actually, wiggles, the ratings of FauxNews are not "hugh" as you say. They are not even huge as you might imply.

I was trying to say "high"


FauxNews has an agenda far beyond anything else that presents itself as "news" or even "infoentertainmentnews" on cable and satellite. Roger Ailes has a perspective that he totally committed to and wants YOU to be as well.

Many of the people that you are addressing your genuine (I think) concern are as equally indoctrinated and equally as agenda prone as the enfotainment entity in question here.

Give it all a good listen, give it all a good and honest consideration. FauxNews in not credible in their "reporting" or their descriptions of national mood. They have a niche' in the entertainment field and they exploit it for all it's worth. Such is the dilemma of the cable/satellite era and such is the case for the "internet" era.

My suggestion is for you to separate the wheat from the chafe as you see it and go on about your life. Trying to separate the wheat from the chafe in these venues will not prove as fruitful as the more serious farming of genuinely credible news outlets and a variety of angles from which to observe the questions that you have.

Yeah, I'm not a fan. I only catch snippets around the 'net and whatnot. I don't tune in. I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater.
 

Forum List

Back
Top