Fox News Continues to Beat Other News Organizations

[Melissa]

Still Rolling: Fox News Has Its Best January Ever

They keep growing yet they are supposedly so biased compared to MSNBC, CNN and others.  Amazing!

Meanwhile, here's a good interchange between O'Reilly and Stewart:
Jon Stewart And Bill O’Reilly: Together – And Edited – At Last!

[Kopmatt09]

Viewing figures does not correlate with journalistic accuracy, decency or truth. Just because views are popular does not make them right or decent.

Their popularity does not stop them being a bunch of right-wing nuts.

[Kopmatt09]

Here's a more measured opinion of America than Fox could ever dream to produce:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvjaIEyjih4&feature=related




  foreigners making music  

[Melissa]

Then, explain why Fox ratings are so high?  Why is it CNN, MSNBC and the Big Three broadcast networks can't match up?

You say the numbers do not make it true.  The numbers are that that matter.  Your logic is like saying the store's sales are extremely low but it's still a good store.  In that case, the consumers are not showing up.   There must be something good about Fox if the consumers are indeed showing and in record numbers.

[maidboy]

More Big Macs are consumed than sirloin steaks.  Obviously Big Macs are better
by this line of reasoning.  The quantity of items sold is not the sole indicator of
the item's quality.

[Kopmatt09]

Your logic is like saying the store's sales are extremely low but it's still a good store.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying! Fox News may be popular, purely because it spouts such incredible bullshit and people tune in to laugh hysterically at the bollocks it is producing. Your purely-empirical viewpoint leaves no room for a qualitative analysis of what they are tuning in for. You're assuming that there is some magical correlation between the numbers of people watching Fox News and the accuracy or intelligence of its material.

There must be something good about Fox if the consumers are indeed showing and in record numbers.

No there isn't. Again, a massive assumption. You're assuming that because a large number of people do it, then it must be good.

Take one example:

Across the US and the UK every night, there will be hundreds of thousands of people off their face on alcohol, drugs, or both. Just because a significant proportion of people do it, does not make it right. I'm not saying we should necessarily stop people doing it, but the amount of people doing something does not make any assessment or bear any relation to it's quality.

Take another example:

Millions of people break speed limits, does this mean that the speed limit should be what people determine it is? No. Doing something in large numbers does not make things right or correct. They merely show that lots of people do things.

[Gina Marie]

Most people consistently watch whatever news service supports their belief systems and politics.

By the type of reasoning Melissa is suggesting, there are more Republicans than Democrats, so Republicans elected Obama... therefore, the people who elected our President, are now out to crucify him. I could go on and on with supposition, but I am afraid I will get caught in a lack-of-logic spiral...

My point is this: I watch Fox news on occasion, I watch MSNBC from time to time, I rarely look at CNN because that Wolf guy scares me. I also watch a good amount of BBC news, and I listen to NPR about once every... oh NEVER.

I try not to get caught in the passion of opinion when seeking actual NEWS. Not extreme right or left wing bullshit propaganda that will cater and pamper my beliefs (no matter how ridiculous that may sound). I simply want to be informed on the world I live in, not the one in my head.

I mean, by the same logic that ratings = superiority, you would only have CD's by artists that win Grammy's and only own DVD's that won Oscars.

... Ew.

[maidboy]

Good point Gia about not wanting to get news through a prism of opinion,
left or right.  I find NPR to be a good source of news despite its reputation
as "National Pinko Radio" (totally unfounded imho) and the BBC is hands down
the best source for international news.  The amount of fluff that passes for
news on the big three national networks and the cable outlets is appalling.
When I want news, I want to be informed, not entertained.  And a spirited
political debate between informed intelligent people is far more enlightening
than a shouting match between opinionated ignorant dolts, entertaining as
that may be sometimes.

[clipclop]

I don't normally watch CNN or Fox News; however, I do read their web news links. CNN does lean more to the left than I am comfortable. Fox News (online) tends to lean farther to the right, especially compared to CNN. Fox also reports on things I like such as Maxim Monday, what Hugh Hefner is up to, and their sexologist Dr. Yvonne Fulbright.

After the eight years of the G.W. Bush Administration, and comparing to the eight years of the Clinton Administration, I think that CNN is the Clinton News Network. CNN and the other channels were merciless on President Bush, and many people bought what was being said...including a fake military record. Now Fox is merciless on President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress, so some people are crying "foul" and hurling insults at Fox. And it bothers the insulters that Fox reports on the insults and portrays and attitude of "whatever." 

I noted in the clip of O'Reilly and Jon Stewart, that the Fox opinion people can (1) banter, (2) allow opposing opinions to be aired, (3) assert their opinion, and (4) have some laughs doing it.

Regarding the video from Rammstein, it was an interesting illustration of what can be perceived as American influence around the world...except everyone was lip-synching German! BTW, if anyone wants to know what true influence the U.S. has on other countries, I recommend getting on a plane and go to another nation to live for more than a few days or weeks. I have done this twice...it's not as bad as many would make you believe.

In my opinion, I'm just glad that we have the RIGHT to listen to those whom we wish to listen, and ignore those whom we choose to ignore.

[watcher1]

In my opinion, I'm just glad that we have the RIGHT to listen to those whom we wish to listen, and ignore those whom we choose to ignore.

Exactly. What makes this country still great.

[Melissa]

Your logic is like saying the store's sales are extremely low but it's still a good store.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying! Fox News may be popular, purely because it spouts such incredible bullshit and people tune in to laugh hysterically at the bollocks it is producing. Your purely-empirical viewpoint leaves no room for a qualitative analysis of what they are tuning in for. You're assuming that there is some magical correlation between the numbers of people watching Fox News and the accuracy or intelligence of its material.

There must be something good about Fox if the consumers are indeed showing and in record numbers.

No there isn't. Again, a massive assumption. You're assuming that because a large number of people do it, then it must be good.

Take one example:

Across the US and the UK every night, there will be hundreds of thousands of people off their face on alcohol, drugs, or both. Just because a significant proportion of people do it, does not make it right. I'm not saying we should necessarily stop people doing it, but the amount of people doing something does not make any assessment or bear any relation to it's quality.

Take another example:

Millions of people break speed limits, does this mean that the speed limit should be what people determine it is? No. Doing something in large numbers does not make things right or correct. They merely show that lots of people do things.

So, back to a challenge from the past which I don't believe you've ever answered...

Provide examples of biased reporting from Fox News reporters. 

[Melissa]

And, couldn't it just be possible...

For decades, all that existed were the Big Three broadcast networks.  They included Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson and a great many other names I cannot recall at the moment.

About thirteen years ago, a new network is launched which is more centered than any news source has previously been.  So much so, it seems right-winged. 

That is in fact what was determined by several studies:

A Measure of Media Bias

Synopsis of the stud:

We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS News Hour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like.

Here's the full article if you're so inspired.

More observations of Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and author of the above article:

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet.  Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

With this, such can also be said for Fox News' web site:

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose.  "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

And, in protection of bias of their own research:

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

[ebilbob]

Most people consistently watch whatever news service supports their belief systems and politics.

By the type of reasoning Melissa is suggesting, there are more Republicans than Democrats, so Republicans elected Obama... therefore, the people who elected our President, are now out to crucify him. I could go on and on with supposition, but I am afraid I will get caught in a lack-of-logic spiral...

My point is this: I watch Fox news on occasion, I watch MSNBC from time to time, I rarely look at CNN because that Wolf guy scares me. I also watch a good amount of BBC news, and I listen to NPR about once every... oh NEVER.

I try not to get caught in the passion of opinion when seeking actual NEWS. Not extreme right or left wing bullshit propaganda that will cater and pamper my beliefs (no matter how ridiculous that may sound). I simply want to be informed on the world I live in, not the one in my head.

I mean, by the same logic that ratings = superiority, you would only have CD's by artists that win Grammy's and only own DVD's that won Oscars.

... Ew.

Progressives don't listen to talk radio or watch news opinion programming as much as conservatives. That's why 98% of talk radio is conservative even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and FoxNews has more viewers than MSNBC. Progressives don't need someone to tell them what to think about what is happening. The modern conservative would be lost without their leaders like Limbaugh, O'Reily and (lately for the completely nuts crowd) Beck telling them what to think, who to vote for, and what to be outraged about.

FoxNews has high ratings for similar reasons as American Idol. It makes the viewers feel better about themselves without pointing out the obvious. People who watch FoxNews think they are intellectuals because they watch "the news" without all those annoying facts getting in the way of their preconceived notions. The exact same reasoning would let avid followers of American Idol think they are supporting the Arts.

[ebilbob]

Your logic is like saying the store's sales are extremely low but it's still a good store.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying! Fox News may be popular, purely because it spouts such incredible bullshit and people tune in to laugh hysterically at the bollocks it is producing. Your purely-empirical viewpoint leaves no room for a qualitative analysis of what they are tuning in for. You're assuming that there is some magical correlation between the numbers of people watching Fox News and the accuracy or intelligence of its material.

There must be something good about Fox if the consumers are indeed showing and in record numbers.

No there isn't. Again, a massive assumption. You're assuming that because a large number of people do it, then it must be good.

Take one example:

Across the US and the UK every night, there will be hundreds of thousands of people off their face on alcohol, drugs, or both. Just because a significant proportion of people do it, does not make it right. I'm not saying we should necessarily stop people doing it, but the amount of people doing something does not make any assessment or bear any relation to it's quality.

Take another example:

Millions of people break speed limits, does this mean that the speed limit should be what people determine it is? No. Doing something in large numbers does not make things right or correct. They merely show that lots of people do things.

So, back to a challenge from the past which I don't believe you've ever answered...

Provide examples of biased reporting from Fox News reporters. 

I did. You didn't respond. Because like every other conservative, you have a fear of facts and a short memory when it serves your interests.

Find another soapbox. I already used this one for kindling.

[Melissa]

Progressives don't listen to talk radio or watch news opinion programming as much as conservatives. That's why 98% of talk radio is conservative even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and FoxNews has more viewers than MSNBC. Progressives don't need someone to tell them what to think about what is happening. The modern conservative would be lost without their leaders like Limbaugh, O'Reily and (lately for the completely nuts crowd) Beck telling them what to think, who to vote for, and what to be outraged about.

FoxNews has high ratings for similar reasons as American Idol. It makes the viewers feel better about themselves without pointing out the obvious. People who watch FoxNews think they are intellectuals because they watch "the news" without all those annoying facts getting in the way of their preconceived notions. The exact same reasoning would let avid followers of American Idol think they are supporting the Arts.

With your logic, it seems CNN and the like can just go out of business and not be missed.  They simply aren't needed.  "Progressives" are more intelligent than that to need someone to provide their supposed news.

Bubba, you're more full of shit than a baby's diaper.  The bigger difference is the infant has more common sense than you do.  And, stop with this "progressive" bullshit.   Call yourself a liberal and be honest about it.

I'll identify myself as a "classic liberal" but you probably have no clue what that means.  Most don't.

[Melissa]

I did. You didn't respond. Because like every other conservative, you have a fear of facts and a short memory when it serves your interests.

Find another soapbox. I already used this one for kindling.

Yes, you and I were in this argument once upon a time.  Why not be a good little liberal and go find the threads you refer to then provide a link?

I seem to recall there being slight issues with your sources.

[ebilbob]

I did. You didn't respond. Because like every other conservative, you have a fear of facts and a short memory when it serves your interests.

Find another soapbox. I already used this one for kindling.

Yes, you and I were in this argument once upon a time.  Why not be a good little liberal and go find the threads you refer to then provide a link?

I seem to recall there being slight issues with your sources.

Nope. I'm not going to go searching for an argument I've already won. If you want to wallow, find it yourself.

And yes, there were problems with my sources. You didn't like what they said because they were factual, reliable, and contradicted your preconceived notions. For you, that's a big problem.

You keep using the term "liberal" like I'm supposed to be ashamed of it. I'm not. I'm a liberal. I'm a progressive. They are two different things which is why I use both terms in different situations. You don't understand the pointed application of a specific vernacular because your entire ability to comprehend those terms is based on the fact that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told you they are both bad things.

So bonus points to you for correctly identifying me as a person who proudly promotes the notion that all humans have the same human rights. I'm pleased that despite your inability to understand a single complex notion and your dependence on right wing talking machines to tell you what to think about everything from what to believe to where to shop, that you at least gleaned my belief that people should help support one another and that one of the inherent functions of government is to provide services and necessities for the citizenry.

I doubt you'll embrace your labels as readily as I embrace mine. Then again, "ultra-conservative" and ""far right" don't exactly have as many nice connotations about you as a person, do they? Well, unless you're a multi-billionaire. Those guys love your ilk. They always need more poor morons to fight for the rights and privileges of the wealthy and powerful based on faulty ideological arguments fed to you by those same multi-billionaires.

[ebilbob]

Progressives don't listen to talk radio or watch news opinion programming as much as conservatives. That's why 98% of talk radio is conservative even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans and FoxNews has more viewers than MSNBC. Progressives don't need someone to tell them what to think about what is happening. The modern conservative would be lost without their leaders like Limbaugh, O'Reily and (lately for the completely nuts crowd) Beck telling them what to think, who to vote for, and what to be outraged about.

FoxNews has high ratings for similar reasons as American Idol. It makes the viewers feel better about themselves without pointing out the obvious. People who watch FoxNews think they are intellectuals because they watch "the news" without all those annoying facts getting in the way of their preconceived notions. The exact same reasoning would let avid followers of American Idol think they are supporting the Arts.

With your logic, it seems CNN and the like can just go out of business and not be missed.  They simply aren't needed.  "Progressives" are more intelligent than that to need someone to provide their supposed news.

Bubba, you're more full of shit than a baby's diaper.  The bigger difference is the infant has more common sense than you do.  And, stop with this "progressive" bullshit.   Call yourself a liberal and be honest about it.

I'll identify myself as a "classic liberal" but you probably have no clue what that means.  Most don't.

It's good to see that your critical thinking skills haven't changed since I last bothered to throw you a bone and gave you the attention you so desperately seek out here at KB. Nothing says "I understand and disagree with your argument" more clearly than "You're a poopy diaper and dumber than a baby!"

But you are correct about one thing. I don't understand how you identify yourself at all. I honestly believe that if you were able to identify yourself accurately, you'd have sat in a closed garage with the car running a long time ago. But just for the record, it's never too late to give it a try.

[Kopmatt09]

It's good to see that your critical thinking skills haven't changed since I last bothered to throw you a bone and gave you the attention you so desperately seek out here at KB. Nothing says "I understand and disagree with your argument" more clearly than "You're a poopy diaper and dumber than a baby!"

I'm glad someone else notices just how childish the name calling from Melissa has become. If she can't think up a good reason to criticise your argument, she resorts to name calling.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that in real-life you may have been accused of bullying sometimes Melissa, am I right? You certainly come across here as very childish and frustrated, in a similar way a playground bully is.

[Lois]

Recently I read of a poll (conducted by some US company) that found that Fox was the most trusted news org. - thanx to repubs and some independents. - That alone is worth a belly-laugh!!


BUT WAIT FOR IT.


Also I read recently of a poll (conducted in the US but by a non-US company) that found that this most trusted network is also the network whose target audience has the lowest level of critical thinking skills.

I was on the floor laughing for a week!!!!!!