hippiechick wrote: 

Wow...who knew? The same trend holds...downward. Or do you wish to deny that, too? Pick a number, ride a winner...all show the same trend.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Possibly as pointless as approval rates? (Gallup:)



Obviously Glenn Beck isn't Fox, he's merely an employee hosting a show with political commentary on the Fox News Channel.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Too funny. When necessary, lather, rinse, repeat. This story has been around for as long as some Left wing bloggers decided to unleash it. If you would just look at it only superficially, you would see it for what it is: pure, unadulterated, fetid rubbish.
The last election...so, all those independents, the same ones that just 2 years prior had helped elect Mr. Obama, began tuning into FOX in what, lethally stupid doses, and viola!, having been dumbed down by FOX, they voted largely Republican? Please.
I don't want to call it the purest of dumbness, but the endless denial over what the voters said loudly just 8 weeks ago, is pathetic. Democrats got the same country butt whuppin' Republicans had rec'd in '06 and '08. Did Republicans then turn to some reason that bore no relation to reality or even sanity, and say, well we lost because of XY & Z, all of which were unrelated to voter sentiment? No.
Once again the failure to distill news from opinion as regards FOX. MSNBC reports the news and that is vastly different from the Left wing goop Mr. Olbermann spews by the barrel.

 hippiechick wrote: 
40%...45%...whatever; he's a long way down from where he was 2 years ago....even a year ago. And I note that the numbers are declining......

 musik_knut wrote: 
You are incorrect. From Real Clear Politics:

RCP Average	12/1 - 12/15	—	45.0	48.0	-3.0
FOX News	12/14 - 12/15	900 RV	40	51	-11
Gallup	12/13 - 12/15	1547 A	45	46	-1
Rasmussen Reports	12/13 - 12/15	1500 LV	47	53	-6
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl	12/9 - 12/13	1000 A	45	48	-3
ABC News/Wash Post	12/9 - 12/12	1001 A	49	47	+2
McClatchy/Marist	12/2 - 12/8	873 RV	42	50	-8
Bloomberg	12/4 - 12/7	1000 A	47	48	-1
Reuters/Ipsos	12/2 - 12/5	1028 A	45	46	-1
Pew Research	12/1 - 12/5	1500 A	45	43	+2

Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid

...The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News. ...

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Pointless. Likeable or not, Mr. Obama, according to Gallup, now sits at a new low of approval: 40%.
Liking Mr. Obama is not going to help the unemployed nor make his decided Liberal agenda more palatable to most.
And, despite some wrongheaded notions, Glenn Beck is not FOX.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I've actually seen this on Fox News(not Glenn Beck,...who watches that sh*t anyway?). A 72% "like" rating as a person....and a 48% "approval" rating as it pertains to the job he's doing. So what?!

Don't tell Fox News, but Obama's better liked than Reagan or W. Bush

 Jack_Jefferson wrote: 

That was a time of greater civil demeanor, of a much less coarse Nation. And it was also a time when going snide could mean losing your job as a broadcaster or a talking head on the tube. Now, you can all but drop the F bomb in a comment and the only thing that interrupts some personal explosions on the air is a commercial break. Times change but not always for the better.
Covering the Chilean miners was simply a compelling human interest story and much of the world covered it. For reasons of their own, MSNBC and CNN gave updates while FOX fixated on the unfolding drama.

 Danimal174 wrote: 

FAUX News, FIX News. That is how many of my friends on the other side see FOX News. The commentators are not the reporters, they are not in the field covering Katrina or Afghanistan or Congressional doings. FOX News, as I stated, uses the same sources, reports the same stories, especially those breaking stories. I don't listen to Mr. Beck and in particular, I despise Mr. Limbaugh. However, the few times I have heard their rants or comments, they paled in comparison to those of Mr. Olbermann who has recently shown a total lack of tolerance for views outside his own: he is now sniping at Mr. Obama when he once was one of Mr. Obama's more ardent and at times, man-crush defenders. In a forum now long forgotten, I said shortly after Mr. Obama won but was yet to be sworn in, that his greater opponents would be fellow Liberals. It might be taking that course for Mr. Obama.
The 'fair and balanced' is a calling card, one that leaves FOX open to criticism. But where does most of the criticism come from? Certainly not their viewership which is number one among the many. It's like the unfortunate tag 'America's Team' that is hung on The Dallas Cowboys: lots of folks seethe at that calling card. So the majority of the critics of FOX are what, Liberal? That does not mean 'fair and balanced' is a false tag *anymore than being numer uno in viewership means it's a worthy tag*.
I have never seen evidence that FOX lies. FOX lies. That suggest that that is all FOX does. If that be the case, then there must be buckets of evidence of lying. Lying where? In their commentaries which are afterall, opinion? In their field reports?

 Jack_Jefferson wrote:  All broadcast news programs these days are driven by the desire to increase market share, and thus advertising revenue.  (Paddy Chayevsky's nightmare vision has more or less come to pass; think Glenn (Howard) Beck(Beal).  (Although Beck was a morning zoo DJ to begin with, not a news anchor).  And the competitive world of cable news broadcasting does seem to be leading to increased niche marketing approaches, much like newspapers in the UK; you watch the programming that reflects your substantially unchanging world view.

Let's assume arguendo that Fox viewers are the least educated, or someone else's viewers are the most educated with regard to world events (or however you want to define "educated").  I think there is a correlation equals causation fallacy at work here.  Just because I watch Beavis and Butthead, or Masterpiece theatre, doesn't mean I'm more or less educated because of what I watch.  There might be more of a basis for proposing that Rupert Murdoch's FNC viewers were less educated than others as a result of watching Fox News if the primary function/mission of Fox News (or MSNBC or CNN) was informing viewers, but we've already established (I believe) that that's not their primary goal.  Nor is it the primary goal of virtually any other so-called "broadcast news organization"; their goal is to entertain people to drive up ratings and revenues.  So they give us entertainment dressed up to look like "news", "reporting", and "informed opinion".

musik_knut wrote:

With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.  
How did Fox News Suck?  I happened to see their coverage of the miners' rescue.  I was at a restaurant where it was on.  Most of it was waiting for the next miner to be rescued.  In the meantime, they kept re-iterating the obvious and throwing a bone to those that thrive on sensensional BS ("Hey, that miner has a wife and a mistress!").  A big, boring waste of airtime.

First off, let me say I agree with Knut about MSNBC.  Olbermann's commentaries can be good and insightful at times (heavy handed, but good nonetheless), but I quit watching because I couldn't stomach his ending segment about tacky people like the Octomom, Sarah Palin, Kate what's-her-name, Donald Trump, OJ Simpson, etc. However, I think MSNBC's demise started with them becoming as blatantly biased as Fox News.  That MSNBC morning show is such nonsense, but I think all of those morning shows are nonsense. 

Now about Fox's morning show: it started out promising with a diverse trio of co-anchors (an African American man, a scatterbrained blonde haired woman and a homosexual).  But behind that seemingly cheerful facade, the tone of that show was no better than that time spent around the water cooler with that terminally PO'd co-worker.  I've even seen the weather man on Fox make backhanded remarks about the president or Harry Reid.  I asked a regular viewer of the show about that.  His response was that they have been doing stuff like that for years on NBC.  Maybe so, but not to that degree.  I don't recall Willard Scott or Gene Shalit dissing Reagan or Bush while showing storm fronts or waxing about the latest Dudley Moore film.  

 musik_knut wrote:

With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere.  

I think therein lies the secret of Fox's success.  Chilean miners have no bearing on how I make decisions in my life, impact the price of gasoline or shape policy where I live.  Yet some of us are drawn to things like that.  I think there is a specific demagraphic that they are trying to appeal to with such stories, a demagraphic more encompassing than just conservatives.  I'd be curious to know what that story was that was "important to mostly liberals".  I'd be willing to bet it was an issue that should be relevant to all voters/consumers/workers, but not near as sexy as rescuing people you've never met before in a continent south of here.  Sadly, most people are drawn to sensationalism, even moreso than information that has an impact on their day-to-day lives.  I think the only time I can recall Fox not covering a such a story was when Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face.  They even went so far as to say it wasn't that big of a deal, which I guess it wasn't, since that guy apologized to Cheney once the stitches were sown.

 musik_knut wrote: 

While I'm not trying to defend Olbermann's impartiality by any means, he probably stands atop the pile because you disagree with most of his views, relative to other commentators. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would hold that post for me. In my opinion, they are the embodiment of what is wrong with Fox News and conservative talk radio; however, I'm sure I feel that way in part because I disagree with most of the beliefs and viewpoints they are pushing.

The problem I have with Fox is that it pushes opinionated viewpoints as "news". (I have only watched MSNBC a couple of times, but you may share the same complaint concerning their network.) If you're going to be opinionated and biased, just admit that you are. Don't give me a tagline of "fair and balanced" when you're anything but.

Sic 'em Knut!

I watch Fox just for Bill O Reilly.
I find him entertaining and funny.
And he backs up what he reports on.

Hannity is way over the top IMHO.
Just as is that dorkus Colmes.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Oh that's right...how could I forget...FOX got their talking points from The White House...and that was confirmed by Left wingers like Olbermann...good to know an unbiased source confirmed a lie they were spreading...

Of course FOX is lying. I am comfortable in stating again, you are the most steeped partisan in RP...


Once again, the views of Mr. Olbermann cannot be seen by anyone as less than extremely biased...so to him, all FOX is all bullshit...he only sees the truth as a radical Left winger sees it.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most
neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more
toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

 musik_knut wrote: 
Whatever you think of Olbermann, HE is the one that called out the bullshit by Fox, which admittedly became an arm of the Bush White House and was used to spread propaganda and lies. And that was a good thing.

Fox still is lying, as shown in my post, which got skipped over, but instead turned into a discussion of Olbermann.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

In the pantheon of arrogant, obnoxious, rude and mean spirited 'commentators', Mr. Olbermann stands atop the pile. Only recently has he seen fit to draw his unique name calling, smearing, lying brand of rubbish upon Mr. Obama and only because Mr. Obama had the temerity to reach a compromise with Republicans and worse, because Mr. Obama has not taken us as far Left as Mr. Olbermann would want. While Mr. Olbermann and Mr.  Hannity and others are not journalists in the purest sense, there are considerable differences: to Mr. Olbermann, anything said in a negative vein about Mr. Obama invites an often vulgar 'Special Commentary' where the targets are seen in Hitleresque stature by Mr. Olbermann. It bears keeping in mind that twice since 2008, MSNBC, the very network pulled hard to the Left by Mr. Olbermann, has had to rein him in for his blatant biases. Where the wheels of MSNBC began to fall off can be traced to the employment of Mr. Olbermann. MSNBC once had some following, they now lag behind 3AM infomercials. For whatever reasons, FOX leads MSNBC and the continually sinking CNN. That cannot be traced to the usual rationale provided by, in particular, MSNBC: well, FOX viewers are mostly racists and other slurs without proof or warrant. I guess when you're drowing by your own hand, you try to take others down by name calling.
With all that said, when a news story breaks, how is it that FOX sucks? When the Chilean miners were being rescued, FOX stayed on the story while MSNBC had drifted off to a story important to mostly liberals, meanwhile CNN floundered elsewhere. When you see the field reporters of any network, they all do the best job possible, usually pass on the same information and cite the same sources. It's amusing to see so many Liberals rant on FOX while using the same reasons and words. FOX is despised by Liberals mostly because of their 'talking heads' and the bias they bring. Gee, and the other networks don't bring bias with their talking heads? FAUX News, suggestive of make believe news. Hardly. News is news and while one network might skim over what another concentrates on, reporting the news as FOX does is just reporting the news as the others do.