View Poll Results: I watch one of the following the most:

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • FNC

    46 48.94%
  • CNN

    11 11.70%
  • MSNBC

    15 15.96%
  • CNBC

    2 2.13%
  • HLN

    2 2.13%
  • None of the above. Watch ABC,NBC,CBS or no news

    18 19.15%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 122
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Why is Fox News Chan. the number one cable news station?
    Oohh! Oohh! Mr. Kotter, I know this one! Oooh! Oooh!

    It's because more people watch Fox News Channel, right?

    Terry Rodecker

    Palm Pilot -> Palm V -> Treo 650 -> Treo 700p -> 700wx -> ppc6700 -> BB 8830 -> Pre -> iPhone (company requirement) -> TouchPad
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    While one can argue that there is a slant to any news channel, they do tend to differentiate between their news coverage, and their evening editorializing. Fox has overtly stated that their entire channel is an editorial. The problem is, unlike the statement from the Fox VP, people don't seem to be able to recognize the editorializing and believe the tagline that it's "fair and balanced" news.
    Couldn't care less what the Fox VP has to say. If folks can't comprehend this from a little exposure.... well...

    And if Fox has "overtly stated that their entire channel is an editorial" then I would think that would be a very honest statement for the viewers. That said, I don't think I've heard anyone but FNC 'show hosts' make statements that imply anything like that. So they don't pass GO and don't collect $200.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    While one can argue that there is a slant to any news channel, they do tend to differentiate between their news coverage, and their evening editorializing.
    And some even ignore until they no longer can (if they care to retain any semblance of significance).
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    While one can argue that there is a slant to any news channel, they do tend to differentiate between their news coverage, and their evening editorializing. Fox has overtly stated that their entire channel is an editorial. The problem is, unlike the statement from the Fox VP, people don't seem to be able to recognize the editorializing and believe the tagline that it's "fair and balanced" news.
    Bujin, your quote might benefit from a little context:

    NEW YORK--(Business Wire)--
    Michael Clemente has been tapped to oversee news editorial for FOX News in his current role as Senior Vice President of News, announced Roger Ailes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the network, to whom he will report.

    Clemente assumes the position immediately from News Editorial Executive Vice President John Moody who will join News Corp to direct a new portal that will allow the company`s journalism properties to share content. In leading the hard news side of the network, Clemente will work closely with Bill Shine, Senior Vice President of Programming on television production."
    Michael Clemente to Oversee News Editorial for FOX News | Reuters
    Last edited by groovy; 10/12/2009 at 12:37 AM.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Is there really enough enticing news for 24 hours straight? Then again would anyone watch such a station? We all need to be entertained. Without that our brains might explode sort of speak.
    I think that's the way CNN started. I remember sitting down and watching it for a full cycle (half or full hour, don't remember). Sometimes for another cycle or two to be sure I caught it all (you know, the little rugrats can sometimes distract).

    At the time, I thought it was a pretty good deal. You didn't have to wait hours or so to watch/hear their news. But it's not just news - ratings could be so much better if it wasn't the same thing over and over.
  6.    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    To underscore the obvious about this entire thread, Trainwreck-TV should never be confused with being "better". It will always garner more viewers. FOX began as the cheap infomercial capital of TV. It hasn't change much.
    Even if that were so or not, what ever Fox is doing it is working. While ABC, NBC and CBS are slowly drifting away and making fewer top 10 show shares, Fox is dominating with creativeness. The result is that the ratings show people like it. There was a time when CBS was the King of all TV. And the NBC Peacock was cool. Then when the test picture came on the screen you would wonder what else there was and maybe read a book or actually go to bed in the bedroom instead of falling asleep on the couch.
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Even if that were so or not, what ever Fox is doing it is working. While ABC, NBC and CBS are slowly drifting away and making fewer top 10 show shares, Fox is dominating with creativeness. The result is that the ratings show people like it. There was a time when CBS was the King of all TV. And the NBC Peacock was cool. Then when the test picture came on the screen you would wonder what else there was and maybe read a book or actually go to bed in the bedroom instead of falling asleep on the couch.
    You have to look at the Neilsen ratings. The three major networks are still on top. The ratings are broken out by day/time/show/age/number of viewers. TV by the numbers always has the latest ratings listed.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Even if that were so or not, what ever Fox is doing it is working. While ABC, NBC and CBS are slowly drifting away and making fewer top 10 show shares, Fox is dominating with creativeness. The result is that the ratings show people like it. There was a time when CBS was the King of all TV. And the NBC Peacock was cool. Then when the test picture came on the screen you would wonder what else there was and maybe read a book or actually go to bed in the bedroom instead of falling asleep on the couch.
    I miss those days! Where's that test pattern when you need it!?!?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #109  
    White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com

    Should have been titled "White House kisses up to CNN"
  10. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com

    Should have been titled "White House kisses up to CNN"
    Yeah the White house is obsessed with fox news..pretty funny really.
    WH needs to focus on their train wreck health care derams
  11. #112  
    It shows how badly they want to shut Fox down and using Anita Dunn as the goat - what a choice. Can you believe we have another far left person there that worships the ground of Mao? South Dakota Politics: Dunn Conundrum. She goes so far as to group Mao and Mother Theresa together! A mass murderer and a mass saver. Goodness. She said it was a joke. My God - what a liar.

    This is a good read: Michelle Malkin Anita Dunn: A corruptocrat flack and a Mao cheerleader

    Another one where she is caught in a lie: Obama aide fires back at Beck over Mao remarks - CNN.com

    And then someone trying to say that she was just using it as a way of saying he was firm about transforming China - Anita Dunn Mao Tse Tung.

    What losers.
  12. #113  
    Glenn Beck 2,598,000 viewers WHAT?!? that guy is such a tool with his 6 degrees of Obama hahaha. wow is all i can say
    SCK Manager
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Gingrich, Atwater, Rove, W Bush ... all referencing Mao's life or philosophies.
    Please substantiate your claim that these people referenced Mao's life or philosophies with anything other than disdain or condemnation?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Do as I say, not as I do? Really? If integrity could be purchased retail, would you mind buying a subscription?

    Buck up!
    Media Matters saying that they've said these things does not constitute "substantiation". Sorry, you failed, again... Did not even pass Go.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Haven't the ability to interpret the content, eh? Noted. Why would you want to read how Bush suggested to Rove to read Mao's biography, as originally reported in that liberal bastion known as the Wall Street Journal.

    Then again, why should I question you? You certainly know what failure looks like.
    Ok, this time publically, 1thing2add. Cease with the personal insults and flames. It's getting very old.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    In the face of the very substantiation you request, baiting statements such as this are cool? Just asking.
    You started with the baiting, and yes, my bad for rising to the bait. But it ends now. Ok?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #118  
    Media Matters = George S and Hillary. Ain't no way one can come close to saying anything about fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Media Matters saying that they've said these things does not constitute "substantiation". Sorry, you failed, again... Did not even pass Go.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    What a crippled contribution when all Media Matters did was collect the evidence, as previously shown from multiple reputable outlets, and assembled it into a single location. For the sake of convenience, it serves to show what a willfully ignorant hack Beck is. Thanks for underscoring it!
    I didn't ask you about Beck. I asked to: "Please substantiate your claim that these people referenced Mao's life or philosophies with anything other than disdain or condemnation?"

    Context is everything. The context in this case was around the discussion of Marxism and the left. You implied that people on the right referenced or supported their own ideology with Mao's life or philosophies. Bush asking if Rove had read Mao's biography doesn't fall into this category. Reading a biography is a far far cry from implementing strategies based on ideology.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    In Rove's own words: "he [Bush] encouraged me to read a Mao biography". A rational conclusion is that Bush found value in this written biography on Mao. If Bush did, does that suggest that Bush agreed with the totality of the man that Mao was? Who would irresponsibly make such a suggestion? Someone like Beck, perhaps? Or, more reasonably, does it suggest that Bush may have found some aspect of Mao's life which held value?
    I know! How's about it being that Bush liked the biography on Mao because it was well written and simply an enjoyable read?

    I mean, your argument is vague and far fetched, with all due respect. To compare that reading discussion of Bush with Rove, with the clear and direct correlations between the Progressives and Marxism.... I'm sorry, but that's really a stretch.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions