| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 10:41:29 AM |
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
When questions like this come up there is only one voice of reason that can clear it all up for ya.
Jon Stewart.
October 29, 2009
For Fox Sake!
Fox News defends itself against an attack by the Obama administration by explaining that most of their shows aren't real news.
USA
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-
Canada
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---october-29-2009/#clip227843 | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 1:27:12 PM | I have to agree. Fox is just packed full of right-wing commentators like...
Napolitano is a self-identified conservative. He says so himself in in ad for his book: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-203539193.html
So is Susteren : http://www.newshounds.us/2008/10/28/fox_news_democrat_greta_van_susteren_helps_limbaugh_offer_right_wing_talking_points.php
Geraldo has always been a conservative (He just comes across as a liberal to Faux viewers because he's also pro-hispanic. . . wonder why?)
Alan Colmes is a liberal and is also no longer even on Faux TV but they were gracious enough to give him a radio show at the coveted time spot of 10pm to 1am weeknights .
Liasson is also a conservative but Faux lies (shock!) and just calls her a liberal: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
Juan Williams is probably the only actual liberal still on Faux TV for a whopping 5-8 min of the round table he participates in.
Martin Kalb. (I watch Faux everyday and I have no clue who this is.)
Martin Frost (see above)
In comparison, MSNBC's entire morning programing is hosted by noted conservative Joe Scarborough. (Now that's fair and balanced).
Nice try though. | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:25:10 PM | Wrong on Greta Van Susteren she might come across as a conservative but she is a registered Democrat. She was a Hillary fan pretty much until Obama took the DNC vote, then she switched to McCain. Greta Van Susteren' husband is also a democrat.
As for the others most seem to hang their hat in the conservative area, except for Juan Williams. That’s why bashing Juan earlier this year with a racial slurring was not too smart. Juan has pretty much defending most of Obama’s policies except for Health Care.
With all the media stations hanging heir hats in the Liberal ring, some way left it is good to have at least some that do question what is happening in DC. | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:38:53 PM | He said "Joe Scarborough".... 
Maybe those names aren't considered liberal enough by your standards, or their own (I mean, who wants to admit being liberal but the most extreme of them.), but that doesn't make them conservatives. Having a single view that doesn't toe the line of the idealogical extremes (Either left or right) is enough to have you kicked out of the club. That doesn't mean that from the center you still don't look like a leftist... or a right-winger. Van Susteren is closer to the center than Colmes, but she's still on the left side of it. I think people confuse fiscal conservatism with social. Napolitano is a strange mix of liberal and conservative ideas and stances... I guess he could be considered either balanced or unbalanced depending on who's doing the measuring. He says a lot of stuff that sounds leftist to me during his show.
http://freeconservative.org/judge.htm
I'm right of center myself (Duh. Right?), but I can't watch Hannity's show. Glen Beck is a riot though. | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:39:19 PM |
With all the media stations hanging heir hats in the Liberal ring, some way left it is good to have at least some that do question what is happening in DC.
You certainly are not including radio in your mention of "all the media stations." Otherwise, I agree with a few caveats:
-the level of Fox's scrutiny of DC seems to vary with the letter after the Prez's name
-being right leaning shouldn't mean poor journalism, sensationalism and "making sh!t up"
-Fox brutalizes the phrase "Fair and Balanced"-- it is difficult now for me to even utter those words with a straight face, and I am known as having a dry sense of humor | |
|
| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:51:50 PM | Wrong on Greta Van Susteren she might come across as a conservative but she is a registered Democrat. She was a Hillary fan pretty much until Obama took the DNC vote, then she switched to McCain. Greta Van Susteren' husband is also a democrat.
Being a Democrat does NOT prevent one from being a conservative... not does it automatically imply that one is liberal...
Nice try... but your hem is turned out (as in your bias is showing, figured I had to explain that one)... | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/2/2009 5:33:09 PM |
With all the media stations hanging heir hats in the Liberal ring, some way left it is good to have at least some that do question what is happening in DC. Why can't people question what is happening in DC without going all wingnut????
I often question what is happening in DC, but don't feel that I need to listen to Faux Noise to maintain an objective attitude about it. | |
|
| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:37:57 PM | .
FOX "making sh*t up" ... fake "news"...
FOX News viewer ship increased....... Soared ......Thanks to White House War!!!!
Rating UP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
,,,,,,,,,the two weeks prior to the White House dispute cover the dates from September 28-October 11. The two weeks after that cover the dates from October 12-October 25.
But the tabulation used to come up with the 9 percent ratings gain (i.e. 1.2 million vs. 1.3 million) only measured Fox News' post-controversy ratings from October 12-October 23, which meant it was a 14-day comparison vs. a 12-day comparison. And which two days were left off the tabulation? Saturday, October 24 and Sunday, October 25. Traditionally, Saturday and Sunday, of course, are the two lowest-rated days of the cable news week.
What happened when you included October 24 and October 25 in the tabulation to make a true two-week-vs.-two-week comparison? Suddenly, that 9 percent gain in overall viewers evaporated into a barely-there 2 percent blip, while that 14 percent increase among viewers 25-54 shrunk to a much more modest 7 percent bump.
...........the relatively modest 7 percent gain among the more targeted 25-54 demo. Because that audience group is much smaller (roughly 330,000 viewers each day as compared to the larger pool of 1.2 million), a 7 percent increase or decrease is unexceptional. Again, between October 1 and October 2, Fox News' total day 25-54 demo decreased from 415,000 to 320,000 viewers -- a drop of almost 25 percent. The smaller 25-54 demo often fluctuates like that.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004
All Media repeated the FOX Lie............ FOX "making sh*t up" ... fake "news"...
. | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:47:24 PM | Looks like Fox News's War is not the only misstep Obama seems to be making in his 9 month performance according to the NY Post. Seems Obama's war with FOX is not the only people the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate seems to have problems with.
It's interesting how Michael Goodwin has broken down two of the missteps that do seem to be earning the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate his disapproval ratings.
Even more intriguing is how many Obama supporters, and elected Democrats have also found that the first pattern Goodwin discusses of Obama's can really backfire on them as it has with Obama and his WH. Obama dishing of FOX NEWs and any other organizations, companies or people that disagree with the Obama administration.
Just maybe the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's inexperience is showing through with his inability to take criticism. Hey at least Goodwin gave the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate higher grades than the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate earned with the CNN polls that asked the public to grade him.
From the NY Post ( Looking at the big picture of Obama's performance, two distinct patterns of missteps emerge. While neither involves serious constitutional issues, they spell trouble and help explain the fierce opposition to many of his signature policies even as he remains personally popular.
The first pattern shows his tendency to overuse the White House bully pulpit and cross the line of accepted behavior by employing his office and aides to demonize dissenters. His attacks on insurers, the US Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, tea-party protesters, even individuals all reveal an intolerance of criticism that falls outside the mainstream of American political tradition.
Clearly, the administration hasn't found its place in the pecking order, with the most shocking evidence coming from Valerie Jarrett, Obama's alter ego in the White House. She defended the attacks on Fox as showing how "we're going to speak truth to power."
The idea is laughable, but revealing that Team Obama still sees itself as an outsider and spouts counterculture nonsense. If Fox or any other critic attains more power than the president in the court of public opinion, it's because a weak president let it happen. Even worse, his trying to overcome the weakness by undermining critics only shrinks the presidency, as Richard Nixon taught us.
The second pattern is an eagerness to abdicate American power on the international stage. Obama's apologies for the nation's past on foreign soil, combined with a bended-knee approach to tyranny in Russia and Iran, show the president as an internationalist who believes only in "soft" power and will act only with a consensus.
As foreign-policy expert Leslie Gelb writes in his book "Power Rules," liberals believe that, "rightly understood, almost all differences can be resolved by reason."
Gelb, who hopes his treatise will be a version of Machiavelli's "The Prince" for Obama, argues that power on the global stage "is what it always was -- essentially the capacity to get people to do what they don't want to do, by pressure and coercion. The idea is to cause others to worry about what you can do for them or to them."
It is obvious that Obama, like Jimmy Carter, missed the lesson. Nobody, friend or foe, is doing what Obama wants them to do.
Oddly, his response has been to be tougher on domestic critics and foreign allies, like Israel and Poland, than on true adversaries and sworn enemies.
Iran is enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb, which it vows to use, and is helping to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the president offers engagement without firm deadlines or consequences for failure.
He wants to scrap our nukes and blasts "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War," presumably including NATO, whose troops we are leading in Afghanistan. He has little sympathy for the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan but hams it up with Hugo Chavez.
The patterns reveal a young, inexperienced leader struggling with his job's steep learning curve. For our sake, let's hope the president's vaunted intelligence allows him to show big improvement.
For now, he has earned only a gentleman's C. http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/wobbly_prez_power_trips_himself_sg3AYbmlsg69ghYoozlj4O) | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:55:42 PM | Gosh...isn't this the '(cluster)Fox (not the) News is NOT THE NEWS' thread?
And, as such, shouldn't we be debating/discussing the merits (LOL!!!) of ClusterFox?
Interesting how some folks just have to bring in an off-topic article into this thread--why is that?
'Cuz they know ClusterFox is NOT the news, and they've run out of even a minute shred of proof that it is?
Hmmm...seems mighty suspicious, to me...hmmm... | |
|
| |
| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:11:20 AM |
Looks like the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's war with Fox sure has paid off for fox in ratings and trips to the bank.
Guess the title of this thread should read "the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate's Untruths Mean $$$$$$$$ Signs to Fox
How about some current Numbers????
Those are almost a year old!!!!!!!!!!
How about that 12 day ...... 14 day thing????? | |
|
| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:35:39 PM | Looks like more people were watching Foxs News Cable than any other cable news network on Tuesday 11/04
Election Night 2009 Ratings: CNN Comes In 4th, Fox News Easily Wins
Election 2009 didn't prove nearly as successful as Election 2008 for CNN.
Whereas big news nights like Election Night were CNN's bread and butter during the 2008 presidential campaign, the network finished fourth Tuesday night, averaging just 826,000 total viewers in primetime and 227,000 in the Adults 25-54 demographic.
Fox News ratings soared to an average of 4,043,000 total viewers and 1,130,000 A25-54 to easily win the night and beat all three cable news competitors combined in both total viewers and the demo. MSNBC placed second in total viewers an average of 974,000 to HLN's 842,000. In the demo, HLN placed second with 341,000 to MSNBC's 308,000.
HLN did not cover the election returns. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/election-night-2009-ratin_n_346113.html?view=print&cp | |
|
| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/5/2009 7:42:23 AM | Looks like more than just the voters were not listening to Obama's campaign speeches this year.
On election night Tues it seems that Fox News almost had over 50% more viewers on its Tuesday night shows. All of Fox News evening shows showed an increase in viewership Tuesday; Hannity, O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren. Fox's late night election coverage drew in even more viewers than usual for that time slot.
Overall Fox domminated the cable news stations for Tuesday night.
Seems when Obama talks its good for the conservatives. The NY-23rd was the one campaign that Obama was actively involved in.
Maybe the DNC should have Obama stay home next year.....
But I bet Fox is laughing all the way to the bank as their ratings go up up for cable neworks
From the NY Times
(November 5, 2009
G.O.P. Victories Inflate Fox Ratings
By BRIAN STELTER
An off-year election night of Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia proved to be a big winner for the Fox News Channel, Nielsen ratings showed Wednesday.
Perhaps still high off the fumes of last year’s presidential contest, the news media covered the elections as if they were prize fights — with extra coverage and countdown clocks to poll closings on cable channels. MSNBC called it a “mini-Super Tuesday.”
“This is the closest we get to covering sports,” Bill Hemmer, a morning anchor on Fox News, said Tuesday.
But for all the ballyhoo, only Fox News — which Bill O’Reilly, its top host, on Tuesday called a “traditional right-leaning network” — showed significant ratings gains. In prime time, CNN was down 12 percent from its year-to-date average, and MSNBC was up 18 percent. But Fox News posted an 84 percent gain for the night.
Mr. O’Reilly added more than a million viewers to his usual audience base, but the biggest percentage gains came later in the evening, as the Republican candidates for governor, Robert F. McDonnell in Virginia and Christopher J. Christie in New Jersey, gave victory speeches.
Sean Hannity, whose 9 p.m. program averages 2.5 million viewers, had 4.2 million viewers on Tuesday. Greta Van Susteren, the 10 p.m. anchor, had 3.7 million viewers, up from an average of 2 million.
An extra hour of election coverage at 11 p.m. drew 2.6 million viewers, up from the time period’s average of 1.5 million
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/business/media/05rating.html) | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/5/2009 7:48:48 AM |
Looks like more than just the voters were not listening to Obama's campaign speeches this year.
On election night Tues it seems that Fox News almost had over 50% more viewers on its Tuesday night shows. All of Fox News evening shows showed an increase in viewership Tuesday; Hannity, O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren. Fox's late night election coverage drew in even more viewers than usual for that time slot.
For one night, ClusterFox 'dominated'.
Congrats.
Still not a credible news source.
Sorry 'bout that.
 | |
|
| |
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/5/2009 10:27:45 AM | I'm not sure how citing ratings numbers lends anything to this debate.
There are a lot of people who don't want to hear anything that conflicts with their delusions. Some people will only get their news from Preachers who frame everything in terms of the "End Times." Some won't read anything about psychiatry that doesn't originate with Scientology. Clearly some only want their news framed in context of their faith - and that's what the Republican party is becoming: faith based. Because the facts are proving everything they hold near and dear to be factually wrong. | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/5/2009 10:37:18 AM |
Define 'credible news source', better yet define news.
'Credible news source' is one that reports what happened by simply giving the facts--it doesn't create the news, it doesn't incite others, it doesn't promote public oppostition to the government. A credible news source just reports the news.
ClusterFox does not meet the criteria for being credible. | |
|
| Nobel Peace Prize Laureate confirms Faux News is NOT a news organization
Posted: 11/5/2009 10:51:40 AM | Do those exist anymore?
Seriously...It is possible to report facts and still be biased...the mainstream stations are very adept at reporting the facts that support their preconceived notions while all the facts that are presented may be true they do not reflect ALL the facts surrounding whatever incident or issue on which they are reporting...
It doesn't Incite others ,It also doesn't promote public Support to the Government...........
Please give an example of what you deem to be a "Credible news source" | |
|
Home
login 
