Why Libs Hate Fox News

[Dr Grump]

Always take Zogby with a grain of salt.

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

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.

Good link (the top5 one). That's a keeper.
What I meant re Fox news though, what is its overall comparative rating. Last time I looked it was about 2-3% of the audience share. That's hardly anything. It means over 97% of the people don't watch them. Ditto CNN et al...

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Good link (the top5 one). That's a keeper.
What I meant re Fox news though, what is its overall comparative rating. Last time I looked it was about 2-3% of the audience share. That's hardly anything. It means over 97% of the people don't watch them. Ditto CNN et al...

You mean raw numbers? Here, few people watch any news, broadcast or cable. They're pathetic, to wit:

CNN flops in February as Fox News surges

FNC only cable news network to see gains in primetime

By MICHAEL LEARMONTH


CNN posted steep viewer losses during the month of February, slipping 21% in primetime and 16% overall, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Fox News beat all other cable news outlets combined in February, extending its streak to six straight months.

FNC averaged 1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18% from the same period last year, while CNN fell 21% to 637,000 viewers from the same time period.

February marked what has been a rocky three months for new CNN U.S. prexy Jonathan Klein, who came to the network hoping to improve CNN's primetime performance, where it has been most hurt by a strong FNC lineup built around tentpole "The O'Reilly Factor."

CNN endured a thrashing by Fox during the State of the Union Address, and even lost in the key 25-54 demographic to third-place MSNBC during the speech.

Primetime tumble

CNN primetime stalwarts "Larry King Live," "Wolf Blitzer Reports," "Lou Dobbs Tonight," "Paula Zahn Now" and "Newsnight With Aaron Brown" all suffered double-digit declines, while "Anderson Cooper 360" was up slightly, by 2%.

Klein replaced the executive producer of "Aaron Brown" in a bid to make the show more competitive against "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren," which was up 24% for the month.

Joyous over CNN's February perf, Fox staffers began referring to the CNN prexy as "Jon De-cline."

FNC had primetime increases across the board, led by Van Susteren at 10 p.m., "Hannity & Colmes" up 7%, and "The O'Reilly Factor," cable news' most-watched program with 2.4 million viewers, up 7%.

MSNBC declined 15% overall and 14% in primetime, while financial news channel CNBC declined 23% overall and 42% in primetime.

Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/story.asp?l=story&a=VR1117918742&c=1275

Pales in comparison next to American Idol:

For the ninth consecutive week, Fox News has ranked among the top five cable networks in primetime. Last week, for the second week in a row, FNC placed third, behind USA and TNT.

FNC averaged 1,548,000 viewers and 1,246,000 households last week.

CNN placed #26 on the list, with 723,000 viewers and 611,000 households...

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

It doesn't mean what it used to, there's other news media alternatives now. You're bombarded with news if you're not careful.

 

[red states rule]

Good link (the top5 one). That's a keeper.
What I meant re Fox news though, what is its overall comparative rating. Last time I looked it was about 2-3% of the audience share. That's hardly anything. It means over 97% of the people don't watch them. Ditto CNN et al...

You cannot compare the ratings of cable shows with network shows. However, I understand why libs do it. It is a feeble attempt to downplay the success of Fox news. A network libs said would never make it past one year

 

[Gem]

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.

No need to apologize to me, Psycho, I don't own stock.

It wouldn't surprise me that Fox News has found a captalist niche to the right of other news organizations...when I've watched it I haven't noticed a reporter making some of the blatant slips I've seen those on CNN or CBS make...maybe I'll watch some of it this weekend with a critical eye on their reporters...again, their news commentators could be to the right of Jerri Falwell...I don't really care.

As far as "taking my search for truth in a different direction," I only hope that you are taking your own advice...anyone who looks for totally unbiased truth from an organization that profits from getting more and more readers/viewers, etc. is going to always report with an eye to what can increase their profit line and what "sells" their message. Thats why we as the news consumer have to vote with our feet by looking at as many different outlets as possible.

 

[red states rule]

No need to apologize to me, Psycho, I don't own stock.

It wouldn't surprise me that Fox News has found a captalist niche to the right of other news organizations...when I've watched it I haven't noticed a reporter making some of the blatant slips I've seen those on CNN or CBS make...maybe I'll watch some of it this weekend with a critical eye on their reporters...again, their news commentators could be to the right of Jerri Falwell...I don't really care.

As far as "taking my search for truth in a different direction," I only hope that you are taking your own advice...anyone who looks for totally unbiased truth from an organization that profits from getting more and more readers/viewers, etc. is going to always report with an eye to what can increase their profit line and what "sells" their message. Thats why we as the news consumer have to vote with our feet by looking at as many different outlets as possible.

You would not see Fox News put a huge black X over the face of Hillary as CNN did VP Cheney

You would not see Fox News play the Darth Vader theme music while doing a news story about Pres Obama as CNN did in a story about VP Cheney

Nor would you have a host nightly savage a Pres Hillary as MSNBC does with Kieth Olbermann

The left wing bias of CNN and MSNBC is getting worse

 

[red states rule]

Here are stories you will not see on the liberal media:

Did John Edwards Vote to Authorize the Iraq war for Political Reasons?

Veteran Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, who advised both John Edwards and John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential cycle, says Edwards was disinclined to vote to authorize the Iraq war, but was talked into doing so for political reasons.

In a book to be published in June, parts of which were obtained by the AP, Shrum describes a meeting in Edwards' Washington living room in the fall of 2002. He says the Senator was leaning against voting to authorize force in Iraq and that his wife was strongly against it.

But Shrum says he and other advisers argued that Edwards, as a freshman Senator, would appear unserious about national security, if he voted no and that Edwards reluctantly went along.

Edwards says he has "no idea" what Shrum is talking about and that his vote was a mistake but not a political calculation.


Weak Reid?

And speaking of political calculation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is described as reacting to an online poll by a left-wing Web site when he gave in to pressure to agree to canceling the Democratic party debate co-sponsored by FOX News.

The Politico newspaper says it all happened during a conference call last Thursday between Reid and a group of liberal bloggers. Reid had previously called the planned FOX debate "great news," but the bloggers were strongly opposed and one of them told him that his straw poll standing on the far-left Daily Kos Web site had dropped from 80 percent to the forties.

Reid then declared that, "I don't like Fox News," and claimed he had nothing to do with the original decision. By that night, the debate was cancelled.


Bracing for '08 Bid

Rudy Giuliani has given up some of his business connections as he mounts a presidential campaign but he remains a partner in the growing law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani.

One of the firm's clients is CITGO, the oil company wholly owned by the government of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The Giuliani firm represents CITGO in Texas.

The Giuliani campaign says the former New York Mayor regards Chavez as "no friend of the United States," but did not answer a question from Bloomberg News about whether Giuliani knew of the CITGO work, and whether he considered it appropriate
Hot Air Hog

Remember that story about the massive energy consumption by Al Gore's Tennesse mansion. It came to light through a tiny free-market think tank called the Tennesse Center for Policy Research, and spread quickly through the Internet to the national media.

But it now turns out that the esteemed Nashville Tennessean, perhaps the state's most influential paper, had been sitting on the story for a month. Tennessean editor Mark Silverman said the story "got put on the back burner simply because people were working on other stories."

—FOX News Channel's Martin Hill contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258814,00.html
__________________

 

[red states rule]

AP's Misleading Headline Hides Dem Infighting
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 15, 2007 - 07:41.
Imagine you're skimming the news and come across a story entitled "Democrats Work to Smooth Iraq Tension." What would you assume the article was about? That those caring Dems had tried to ease sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shias, perhaps? I'd say that would be a fair inference. But read the story, and you'll discover that it is an account of a behind-closed-doors shouting match between Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, the tart-tongued congresswoman from California.

According to the body of the article, "tempers flared on Iraq among Democrats on Tuesday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fielded criticism from an anti-war congresswoman over liberals' concern that the party is not doing enough to end the war. Pelosi's behind-closed-doors exchange with Rep. Maxine Waters of California [was] described as heated."

What's the harm, you might ask? After all, the full story is there for those who read it. But that's just the point. Frequently people read only the headlines. Consider, for example, this excerpt from a writer's guide:

"In search engines, newsfeeds (RSS), and other external environments . . . users often see only the headline and use it to determine whether to click into the full posting. Even if users see a short abstract along with the headline (as with most search engines), user testing shows that people often read only the headline. In fact, people often read only the first three or four words of a headline when scanning a list of possible places to go.

It's a news adage that conflict sells. So which headline is likely to attract more readers: one that suggests that tensions are being smoothed out, as in the AP's version, or one that told the real story: "Dem Tempers Flare Behind Closed Doors"?

You don't suppose the AP was trying to do their friends in the DNC a little favor by portraying Dems as peacemakers rather than infighters, do you?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11434

 

[Dirt McGirt]

You would not see Fox News put a huge black X over the face of Hillary as CNN did VP Cheney

You would not see Fox News play the Darth Vader theme music while doing a news story about Pres Obama as CNN did in a story about VP Cheney

Nor would you have a host nightly savage a Pres Hillary as MSNBC does with Kieth Olbermann

The left wing bias of CNN and MSNBC is getting worse

I don't deny that there is left wing bias in the MSM. But Fox caters to conservatives and is not without bias. But seriously, who's fault is it really for bias in the media????

 

[red states rule]

I don't deny that there is left wing bias in the MSM. But Fox caters to conservatives and is not without bias. But seriously, who's fault is it really for bias in the media????

Fox News do not "cater" to conservatives. Again, Fox News has more liberals on giving their opinions the the number of conservatives on CNN and MSNBC combined

If Fox News has alot of libs on expressing their views, how can Fox News cater to conservatives?

 

[red states rule]

a clear example of the left wing liberal bias


Clinton Fresh: In '93, CNN Described Mass Attorney Firings as 'Clean Sweep'
Posted by Tim Graham on March 14, 2007 - 16:13.
The media’s historical omission of Clinton’s mass dismissal of 93 U.S. Attorneys has led to demands on the MRC archive for footage of Janet Reno’s declaration of the act – and our staff found an April 12, 1993 CNN special report where reporter Ken Bode called it a “one-day clean sweep.” Reno declared: “I have asked for their resignations at the request of the President…It’s important that we build a team that reflects our desire to have a Justice Department marked by excellence, marked by diversity, marked by professionalism, and integrity. I want teamwork where we’re both interested in achieving justice throughout America.” Video clip: Real (1.7MB) or Windows (1.9MB) plus MP3 (295KB).


Bode’s report as a whole earned our old “Janet Cooke Award” that month for slanting dramatically against the Reagan-Bush Justice Departments, allowing Reno to defend herself, but not GOP attorneys general Ed Meese or William Barr. As we wrote at the time:


Bode's story moved on to Clinton: "Clinton's first public office was Attorney General of Arkansas. He was aggressive, high- profile, populist...If the Justice Department will reflect President Clinton's policies, expect the new attorney general to be much stronger on civil rights enforcement, pay attention to environmental laws, support the rights of children, and a continued emphasis on crime and public safety." Bode aired no one taking issue with Clinton's years in Arkansas or his present policies.


Bode ended on a properly even-handed note, suggesting that Janet Reno's firing of 93 U.S. attorneys "raises suspicions that the Clinton administration is willing to put politics above enforcing the law." Bode let fired U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens charge politics were involved in taking him off the investigation of House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. He also concluded that the Rostenkowski probe "has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno." But Bode interviewed Reno and let her declare herself non-political in three soundbites. That's very unlike his treatment of Reagan-Bush officials, who were simply left out.


But much of the report was a harsh critique of conservative politicization of the justice system:


Bode selected an increasingly popular target, the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments: "For the last decade, the Justice Department was an ideological warehouse for conservative thinkers. At the same time, Justice became a political arm of the White House." Bode aired sound bites from Donald Ayer, a disgruntled former Justice official, and Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bode explained: "The Department of Justice will always reflect the policy priorities of a President, but the Reagan-Bush Department went further, undermining laws the administration opposed."


Bode caricatured the GOP record: "The Reagan-Bush agenda included a hard line on abortion, a rollback on civil rights -- trying to restore tax credits for segregated schools, for example -- also attempts to minimize affirmative action requirements." To explain this, Bode brought on liberal Ralph Neas of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He aired no one defending Reagan policies.

Bode also underlined liberal charges that the Reagan-Bush GOP had a racist pattern of punishing black politicians in political corruption cases, and a lax approach to S&L fraud -- a rich critique compared to the Whitewater File Shredders who came next. The man who's number two to Al Gonzales now gave me a rebuttal back then to the charge of right-wing politicization:


Former Justice official Paul McNulty replied to MediaWatch: "What about the 1960s? Was the Johnson administration politicized because it 'undermined' racist laws? In the 1980s, we wanted to bring on reforms as well -- to correct oppressive regulation, restore a sounder reading of the Constitution, question discriminatory civil rights laws. Every administration is suppose to advocate policies in legislation and in judicial advocacy."


That sounds like a much better answer than what we’re hearing today.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11418

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Fox News do not "cater" to conservatives. Again,

Fox news does have a conservative bias and caters to conservatives.

Fox News has more liberals on giving their opinions the the number of conservatives on CNN and MSNBC combined

Name the liberals that appear on Fox news's lineup.

If Fox News has alot of libs on expressing their views, how can Fox News cater to conservatives?

Then by that token, are you calling Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck, and Tucker Carlson liberals?

I have no problems with Fox News and will fight for their right to broadcast whatever they want. But Fox News does have a conservative bias.

You keep going on and on about liberal bias. Are you saying that liberal bias in the media is a problem?

 

[red states rule]

Fox news does have a conservative bias and caters to conservatives.


Name the liberals that appear on Fox news's lineup.


Then by that token, are you calling Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, Joe Scarborough, Glen Beck, and Tucker Carlson liberals?

You keep going on and on about liberal bias. Are you saying that liberal bias in the media is a problem?

For starters, try the following libs: Juan Wiliams, Alan Colms, Bob Beckel, Mary Ann Marsh, David Corn, Mara Liason, Kristian Powers, Martin Frost, Wesley Clarke, Eleanor Clift, Nina Eason, Mort Kondracke, Susan Estridge, Jane Hall, Neal Gabler, and Ellis Hennigan

There are others but I cannot put names with the faces. So how does Fopx News cater to conservatives?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

For starters, try the following libs: Juan Wiliams, Alan Colms, Bob Beckel, Mary Ann Marsh, David Corn, Mara Liason, Kristian Powers, Martin Frost, Wesley Clarke, Eleanor Clift, Nina Eason, Mort Kondracke, Susan Estridge, Jane Hall, Neal Gabler, and Ellis Hennigan

There are others but I cannot put names with the faces. So how does Fopx News cater to conservatives?

HAHAHAHAHA! That's retarded. You're including a majority of GUESTS that come on the show. Wesley Clark doesn't have his own show. CNN and MSNBC all have conservatives with their own primetime shows- Carlson, Dobbs, Scarborough, Beck. Aside from Alan Colmes having half a show and Greta Van Susteran, which other liberal has their own show on Fox?

Wiggles put up a link to media matters denoting conservative bias. I also suggest visiting FAIR for more specific examples of bias.

Again, I have no problems with Fox. But they have a conservative agenda just as much as CBS news has a liberal agenda.

And again, do you have a problem with liberal bias in the media?

 

[jasendorf]

Ah - and I'm an extremist, of course? Hopelessly out of step with the mainstream, am I? Please explain the dazzling success of Fox News, then.

After you explain the dazzling success of the Nazi Party in Germany in 1938.

Don't think extremists can't find enough success amongst themselves to pretend they're really important.

 

[jasendorf]

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

Colmes is nothing more than a right-leaning moderate at best. And, he always goes ass-up for Hannity which makes him a useless dupe of the right-wing.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Colmes is nothing more than a right-leaning moderate at best. And, he always goes ass-up for Hannity which makes him a useless dupe of the right-wing.

Alan Colmes is left of center. He's not left wing enough to represent the liberals that they go after but he's just left enough for the right wing Hannity nuthuggers to think of him as a liberal. Like I've said many times before, a liberal is always someone to the left of you. Same principle applies.

 

[Dr Grump]

You cannot compare the ratings of cable shows with network shows.

Of course you can. They are the only ones that matter...

 

[red states rule]

HAHAHAHAHA! That's retarded. You're including a majority of GUESTS that come on the show. Wesley Clark doesn't have his own show. CNN and MSNBC all have conservatives with their own primetime shows- Carlson, Dobbs, Scarborough, Beck. Aside from Alan Colmes having half a show and Greta Van Susteran, which other liberal has their own show on Fox?

Wiggles put up a link to media matters denoting conservative bias. I also suggest visiting FAIR for more specific examples of bias.

Again, I have no problems with Fox. But they have a conservative agenda just as much as CBS news has a liberal agenda.

And again, do you have a problem with liberal bias in the media?

All the people I listed are FOXS NEWS CONTRIBUTERS, and they are on frequently

The liberal media has an agenda - to promote Dems and liberalism. That is the problem I have with the the liberal media

 

[red states rule]

Colmes is nothing more than a right-leaning moderate at best. And, he always goes ass-up for Hannity which makes him a useless dupe of the right-wing.

Libs usually dismiss Alan as such. Strange they had a high opinion of him BEFORE he accepted employment at Fox News

 

[red states rule]

Of course you can. They are the only ones that matter...

Is so few people watch Fox News, and Fox News is so unimportant, why do libs hate Fox News so much?