why do people even listen to Foxnews?

[antimvp]

they have been interviewing brits about the NHS.....not one interview has a good thing to say about them.

but millions of brits love the NHS(why hasn't it been repealed if it is so bad-politicians do not dare touch it for fear of revolution-the people must like it)....foxnews can't find one person who likes the NHS.....why is that?


you fuckers are losers(lemmings) and you know it.


...at least Micheal Moore outed Hilary for taking money from the pharmaceutical companies.

[hope4dopes]

they have been interviewing brits about the NHS.....not one interview has a good thing to say about them.

but millions of brits love the NHS(why hasn't it been repealed if it is so bad-politicians do not dare touch it for fear of revolution-the people must like it)....foxnews can't find one person who likes the NHS.....why is that?


you fuckers are losers(lemmings) and you know it.


...at least Micheal Moore outed Hilary for taking money from the pharmaceutical companies.

[DarrinS]

Well, here's liberal NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman asking if some Candadians are happy with their system:


3EPd2i4Jshs

[101A]

they have been interviewing brits about the NHS.....not one interview has a good thing to say about them.

but millions of brits love the NHS(why hasn't it been repealed if it is so bad-politicians do not dare touch it for fear of revolution-the people must like it)....foxnews can't find one person who likes the NHS.....why is that?


you fuckers are losers(lemmings) and you know it.


...at least Micheal Moore outed Hilary for taking money from the pharmaceutical companies.

I am concerned about the GOVERNMENT - its size, rate of growth, and virtually limitless power - and what they are doing/want to do to me.

You bitch about Fox News.

Reevaluate, please, who the loser is.

[hope4dopes]

So Micheal Moore is your moral compass.Micheal Moore also had investments in both Haliburton and pharmacutecal companies.He was outed in a book called "Do as I say".Britain also has taken guns away from it's people and they've staged massive demonstrations to recapture their rights to keep and bear arms, as it was revealed after guns were taken away violent crime skyrocketed in Britian.
The energy it takes to recapture your rights after they been stripped is termendous, goverments don't like to relinquish power. That is why so many people don't want the state to take over health care.... they fear, and distrust the state.
The interviews are to reveal the other side of state run health care, which the george soros brach of the DNC is ramming down our throats, using all the tools of the state legal and illegal to do it with.So now dissent and discourse are being stifeled....who's the real lemming.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So Micheal Moore is your moral compass.Micheal Moore also had investments in both Haliburton and pharmacutecal companies.He was outed in a book called "Do as I say".Britain also has taken guns away from it's people and they've staged massive demonstrations to recapture their rights to keep and bear arms, as it was revealed after guns were taken away violent crime skyrocketed in Britian.
The energy it takes to recapture your rights after they been stripped is termendous, goverments don't like to relinquish power. That is why so many people don't want the state to take over health care.... they fear, and distrust the state.
The interviews are to reveal the other side of state run health care, which the george soros brach of the DNC is ramming down our throats, using all the tools of the state legal and illegal to do it with.So now dissent and discourse are being stifeled....who's the real lemming.


you are

[ducks]

why even turn on cnn?

[hater]

why do people even listen to Foxnews??????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????

good question

[SouthernFried]

Why do people listen to CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC?

Actually, I don't listen, or watch TV at all. If your upset at FOX, why ain't you upset at MSNBC or ABC? I would be surprised if anyone thought they were "better." Unless they've changed an awful lot since the 80's, they were terrible, slanted, and biased. If FOX is bias in the other direction...good on them. Still ain't gonna waste any brain cells watching any of 'em.

[hope4dopes]

you are

Ah ..I see you'vre risen to the very zenith of your ablities george.

[byrontx]

The people watching Faux want validation not information.

[Yonivore]

The people watching Faux want validation not information.
On what do you base that observation?

[Jacob1983]

Do people bitch about FOX News so much because it kicks other news channels' asses? More people watch crazy Bill O'Reilly than epic fail anchorwoman Katie Couric.

[Def Rowe]

Do people bitch about FOX News so much because it kicks other news channels' asses? More people watch crazy Bill O'Reilly than epic fail anchorwoman Katie Couric.

O'Reilly Factor get's about 3.1 million viewers.

Katie Couric's failing news program gets around 5.1 million viewers.

O'Reilly is a blow hard.

[Jacob1983]

O'Reilly may not always beat Katie Couric in ratings but he has before and will continue to do so because she sucks. O'Reilly is entertaining. She's not.

[antimvp]

The people watching Faux want validation not information.


:toast

[TheProfessor]

The people watching Faux want validation not information.
Though this also holds true for most of those who watch MSNBC, read the NYTimes, listen to talk radio, etc. Fox is not alone.

[Cry Havoc]

On what do you base that observation?

The fact that most news sources are like that? Fox is just the worst, most obvious of them, but by no means alone.

[Wild Cobra]

O'Reilly Factor get's about 3.1 million viewers.

Katie Couric's failing news program gets around 5.1 million viewers.

O'Reilly is a blow hard.
Do you always compare apples to oranges?

Couric is in third place between ABC, CBS, and NBC... I mean last place. Fewer people have access to cable news. On top of that, she is in a timeslot before prime-time and O'Reilly is during prime time when people watch programs other than the news.

I don't care for him much, but O'Reilly has been the top ratings performer on cable news for 104 consecutive months. How can you begin to compare Couric?

[jack sommerset]

The fact that most news sources are like that? Fox is just the worst, most obvious of them, but by no means alone.

Have you ever watched MSNBC? Probably not or you would not make that statement. If you think for one second that any network is more bias than MSNBC you are fucking nuts. Seriously you are fucking NUTS if you think they always report facts or will give a republican a chance to speak. What a bunch of stupid snobs they have over there. Those folks are tools. It's a republican 24 hour bash.

[jack sommerset]

Greta and O'Reilly are good and most cases fair. Hannity can be but he goes off on dems to much. I wish they kept Colmes with Hannity. Much much better show with him on board. Beck is a head case. Geraldo seems to pick the dems over repubs more often. The former Gov that has his own show on Fox now still dreams he can be President so he is playing politician singing and dancing with his guest. Overall Fox gets a B in my book.

[SpurNation]

Those folks are tools.



They're all tools for their intended audiences.

[Yonivore]

They're all tools for their intended audiences.
So, where do you find the information around which you base your positions on current events?

[Def Rowe]

Do you always compare apples to oranges?

Couric is in third place between ABC, CBS, and NBC... I mean last place. Fewer people have access to cable news. On top of that, she is in a timeslot before prime-time and O'Reilly is during prime time when people watch programs other than the news.

I don't care for him much, but O'Reilly has been the top ratings performer on cable news for 104 consecutive months. How can you begin to compare Couric?

If you notice, I mentioned Couric's program was failing. It's not a secret.

My point is that every day Bill O talks about his great ratings on the air. Acting as if he's spearheading a revolution in cable news. This is an old trick he learned from Howard Stern.

Meanwhile out of a potential 94 million viewers, O'Reilly pulls in about 2.5 to 3 million viewers.

[SpurNation]

So, where do you find the information around which you base your positions on current events?

If you mean by "information" ...which "stories" I choose to believe based on Liberal or Conservative radio/tv/internet broadcasts...I don't.

I view these outlets for what they are...a way to either recruit new followers or appease their targeted audiences. They would not be in existance if they were to report in a way that did not appease who they are targeting.

And it's not about reporting news anymore. It's about obtaining and retaining viewership and using a "news" incident to incite and recite their employer's agenda.

Most of what I base my positions regarding current events is from learning and retaining from past events. It's all the same. It's a recirculatory chain of events that happens over the course of time. One event leads to another. "For every action...there is an opposite and equal reaction"

For instance...If one thinks our economy suffers because of a Democrat or Republican in office...they are sadly mistaken and unaware of the recirculatory events that happens every time during an election year when the current president cannot run for office due to term restrictions.

The economy suffered at the end of Nixon's term....again with Reagan...again with Clinton...and yet again with Bush. These recirculatory events are not caused by any political affiliiated policy but because of an unknown of which party will be in office. This country is run by business and cartels. (Demacrats...you're living in denial if you think Republicans are the only ones catering to big business)

These businesses and cartels freeze their assests from circulation during this period. The affect by this freeze is devastating to the general public and takes approximately 2 years to recoup but usually in a way where the economy again flourishes. These freezes are just smart business practices until they can see who will be in political power so they can in turn objectively and profitably recirculate their assets back into the economy.

That's why it's so hard in modern times to unseat a first term president...businesses regardless of political alliance will choose capital gains over political affiliation in order to continue making a profit. But when it comes to having to deal with a totally new administration...they'll freeze up until it is known who is deemed the next leader of the free world.

[Yonivore]

If you mean by "information" ...which "stories" I choose to believe based on Liberal or Conservative radio/tv/internet broadcasts...I don't.

I view these outlets for what they are...a way to either recruit new followers or appease their targeted audiences. They would not be in existance if they were to report in a way that did not appease who they are targeting.

And it's not about reporting news anymore. It's about obtaining and retaining viewership and using a "news" incident to incite and recite their employer's agenda.

Most of what I base my positions regarding current events is from learning and retaining from past events. It's all the same. It's a recirculatory chain of events that happens over the course of time. One event leads to another. "For every action...there is an opposite and equal reaction"

For instance...If one thinks our economy suffers because of a Democrat or Republican in office...they are sadly mistaken and unaware of the recirculatory events that happens every time during an election year when the current president cannot run for office due to term restrictions.

The economy suffered at the end of Nixon's term....again with Reagan...again with Clinton...and yet again with Bush. These recirculatory events are not caused by any political affiliiated policy but because of an unknown of which party will be in office. This country is run by business and cartels. (Demacrats...you're living in denial if you think Republicans are the only ones catering to big business)

These businesses and cartels freeze their assests from circulation during this period. The affect by this freeze is devastating to the general public and takes approximately 2 years to recoup but usually in a way where the economy again flourishes. These freezes are just smart business practices until they can see who will be in political power so they can in turn objectively and profitably recirculate their assets back into the economy.

That's why it's so hard in modern times to unseat a first term president...businesses regardless of political alliance will choose capital gains over political affiliation in order to continue making a profit. But when it comes to having to deal with a totally new administration...they'll freeze up until it is known who is deemed the next leader of the free world.
So, what informs your opinions? Where do you get your facts?

[SpurNation]

So, what informs your opinions? Where do you get your facts?

History....and...You won't find it reported in any news organization. It's just what happens.

I can't gaurantee when it will happen but...I predict that some time during the Obama administration we will be subjected to another catastophic event such as 9/11. (Hopefully not as severe) but... History will repeat. The recycling of events will continue and an equal and opposite reaction will incur....and once again Democrats and Republicans will be pointing the finger each other.

My advise to you...if Obama is re-elected...at some time during the end of his 6th to 7th year in office...live frugal and secure any unsecure investments you may have.

Do this until the next administration has been in office for at least a year. Again...it won't matter if the next administration is Democrat or Republican.

[Wild Cobra]

If you notice, I mentioned Couric's program was failing. It's not a secret.

My point is that every day Bill O talks about his great ratings on the air. Acting as if he's spearheading a revolution in cable news. This is an old trick he learned from Howard Stern.

Meanwhile out of a potential 94 million viewers, O'Reilly pulls in about 2.5 to 3 million viewers.
I can believe she's failing, but again, apples and oranges. She is on broadcast television. FNC is not. If O'Reilly is failing because he has lower numbers than someone on the alphabet news networks, then all those on cable are failing because within cable news, O'Reilly's are higher than everyone else.

From The Scoreboard: Thursday, August 20 (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_thursday_august_20_125010.asp):

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1559 | CNN: 589 | MSNBC: 444 | HLN: 330

Prime: FNC: 2726 | CNN: 885 | MSNBC: 925 | HLN: 564

5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O'Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O'Reilly:
2170 2022 1760 3512 2630 2021 1549

CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Dobbs: Brown: King: Cooper: Cooper:
610 486 532 686 1050 916 540

MSNBC Matthews: EdShow: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Olbermann: Maddow:
529 540 760 1029 1085 653 396

HLN Prime: Prime: Issues: Grace: Issues: Grace: Showbiz:
240 272 501 715 439 566 497

25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 423 | CNN: 170 | MSNBC: 144 | HLN: 146

Prime: FNC: 753 | CNN: 259 | MSNBC: 268 | HLN: 212


5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O'Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O'Reilly:
562 525 500 1056 660 531 532

CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Dobbs: Brown: King: Cooper: Cooper:
133 89 123 178 283 315 203

MSNBC Matthews: EdShow: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Olbermann: Maddow:
136 141 196 291 277 236 176


I don't know what the numbers mean for certain, I assume they are thousands of viewers.

[Yonivore]

History....and...You won't find it reported in any news organization. It's just what happens.
So, did you live this history or did you learn about it from some other resource? And, if so, who's version of history informs your ideas?

[SpurNation]

So, did you live this history or did you learn about it from some other resource? And, if so, who's version of history informs your ideas?

I guess I consider myself open to facts of the past to expect the events of the future. It's not "written" history I refer to. Anything "written" is subject to the writer's interpretation.

[clambake]

I guess I consider myself open to facts of the past to expect the events of the future. It's not "written" history I refer to. Anything "written" is subject to the writer's interpretation.

or what they decided to agree to believe.

[Yonivore]

I guess I consider myself open to facts of the past to expect the events of the future. It's not "written" history I refer to. Anything "written" is subject to the writer's interpretation.
But, to whose "facts of the past" are you open?

[SpurNation]

But, to whose "facts of the past" are you open?

Again...not any outside interpretation....just my own observance and interpretation.

Try it sometime...it's uplifting and awakening.

[Yonivore]

Again...not any outside interpretation....just my own observance and interpretation.

Try it sometime...it's uplifting and awakening.
Well, unless you are present at every seminal event in history, you'll have to accept someone's rendition of the facts.

So, when it comes to events at which you do not have your "own observance," where do you choose to get the facts you interpret?

[SpurNation]

Well, unless you are present at every seminal event in history, you'll have to accept someone's rendition of the facts.

No I don't.


So, when it comes to events at which you do not have your "own observance," where do you choose to get the facts you interpret?

One does not have to be present in order to "observe" or predict based on past history.

[Yonivore]

No I don't.
Okay, Stimulus Bill. Good or bad, and why? Cash for Clunkers? HB3200? Palestinians or Israelis? Iraq War legitimate or not?

This are all questions that most of us have taken a position on and for which virtually all of us have not first-hand knowledge of the fact involved.


One does not have to be present in order to "observe" or predict based on past history.
Then one's prediction is based on someone else's version of history.

[Def Rowe]

I can believe she's failing, but again, apples and oranges. She is on broadcast television. FNC is not. If O'Reilly is failing because he has lower numbers than someone on the alphabet news networks, then all those on cable are failing because within cable news, O'Reilly's are higher than everyone else.

From The Scoreboard: Thursday, August 20 (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_thursday_august_20_125010.asp):

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1559 | CNN: 589 | MSNBC: 444 | HLN: 330

Prime: FNC: 2726 | CNN: 885 | MSNBC: 925 | HLN: 564

5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O'Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O'Reilly:
2170 2022 1760 3512 2630 2021 1549

CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Dobbs: Brown: King: Cooper: Cooper:
610 486 532 686 1050 916 540

MSNBC Matthews: EdShow: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Olbermann: Maddow:
529 540 760 1029 1085 653 396

HLN Prime: Prime: Issues: Grace: Issues: Grace: Showbiz:
240 272 501 715 439 566 497

25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 423 | CNN: 170 | MSNBC: 144 | HLN: 146

Prime: FNC: 753 | CNN: 259 | MSNBC: 268 | HLN: 212


5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O'Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O'Reilly:
562 525 500 1056 660 531 532

CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: Dobbs: Brown: King: Cooper: Cooper:
133 89 123 178 283 315 203

MSNBC Matthews: EdShow: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Olbermann: Maddow:
136 141 196 291 277 236 176
I don't know what the numbers mean for certain, I assume they are thousands of viewers.

Interesting. Like you say, i'm not sure if the numbers are reflecting viewership, or what they call a ratings share. A percentage of overall viewers watching during that hour.

Either way. Fox is having an upsurge in ratings right now. What this shows is, O'Reilly at his best, beats Olberman 3.5 to 1 in ratings. Olberman's show is seriously boring. This number should be a lot higher. Bill O has basically no competition. I just think it's petty how he's always patting himself on the back for being a big fish in a small pond.

[Yonivore]

Well, at least the L.A. Times had it right...until they corrected themselves.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/So6rB39yosI/AAAAAAAAdZw/WzQ_pw9CC6U/s400/olbermann.jpg

From the LATimes corrections page (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-a4-correx21-2009aug21,0,7452844.story):


"TV listings: The Prime-Time TV grid in Thursday's Calendar section mistakenly listed MTV's "Jackass" show on the MSNBC cable schedule at 7 and 10 p.m. where instead MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" should have been listed."

So, "Olbermann" = "Jackass." Sounds about right.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/So6pZkLDkvI/AAAAAAAAdZo/trs-vgr6On0/s1600/countdown%2Bjackass.JPG

[SpurNation]

Okay, Stimulus Bill. Good or bad, and why? Cash for Clunkers? HB3200? Palestinians or Israelis? Iraq War legitimate or not?

This are all questions that most of us have taken a position on and for which virtually all of us have not first-hand knowledge of the fact involved.


Then one's prediction is based on someone else's version of history.

Because I haven't responded to some of the posts you are mentioning
it doesn't mean I haven't read them. I just haven't repsonded to them. But I have formed an opinion on some of them.

Is it forum law I have to respond to every post I read?

[Yonivore]

Because I haven't responded to some of the posts you are mentioning
it doesn't mean I haven't read them. I just haven't repsonded to them. But I have formed an opinion on some of them.

Is it forum law I have to respond to every post I read?
I'm not asking you to respond to those issues. I was trying to discuss how you arrive at your positions -- on these or any issue -- so, it was in that context that I mentioned them.

But, since you say you've formed an opinion, upon what information was that opinion formed? Where did you get the facts allowing you to form an opinion on these another events?

[SpurNation]

I'm not asking you to respond to those issues. I was trying to discuss how you arrive at your positions -- on these or any issue -- so, it was in that context that I mentioned them.

But, since you say you've formed an opinion, upon what information was that opinion formed? Where did you get the facts allowing you to form an opinion on these another events?

And to what do I owe this honor of your fixation on how I derive my opinion?

I see it as either 1 of 2 ways. You can either agree with me or not. If you find fact that disputes anything I post...by all means...post those facts. But all you are doing in this post is questioning my methods of deriving at opinion.

Why is that so intriguing to you?

[Yonivore]

And to what do I owe this honor of your fixation on how I derive my opinion?
You seemed to suggest, earlier in the thread, that traditional outlets of facts -- news organizations -- were useless to you in informing your opinions. I was intrigued, not fixated, to know how, then, you informed your opinions on current events.


I see it as either 1 of 2 ways. You can either agree with me or not. If you find fact that disputes anything I post...by all means...post those facts. But all you are doing in this post is questioning my methods of deriving at opinion.[/quote[
I can neither agree nor disagree if I don't know a)what is your opinion and b)how you arrived at it.

If I disagree with something you say it helps to know how you arrived at it. Maybe your source would be persuasive enough to change my opinion on the matter.

[SpurNation;3648404]Why is that so intriguing to you?
I thought maybe you had some unique way of devining truth without a source of facts. I guess you don't...you just arrive at an opinion through osmosis.

[SpurNation]

You seemed to suggest, earlier in the thread, that traditional outlets of facts -- news organizations -- were useless to you in informing your opinions.

I never said they were "useless" just that news agencies often use news as a platform to promote their own agenda depending on a Liberal or Conservative program.


I thought maybe you had some unique way of devining truth without a source of facts. I guess you don't...you just arrive at an opinion through osmosis.

I guess reading comprehension isn't one of your strongest suites because it looks as if I must again state how I derive at an opinion and osmosis never was one of them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I never said they were "useless" just that news agencies often use news as a platform to promote their own agenda depending on a Liberal or Conservative program.



I guess reading comprehension isn't one of your strongest suites because it looks as if I must again state how I derive at an opinion and osmosis never was one of them.

After dealing with Yoni your IQ will drop a few points

[Wild Cobra]

Well, at least the L.A. Times had it right...until they corrected themselves.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/So6rB39yosI/AAAAAAAAdZw/WzQ_pw9CC6U/s400/olbermann.jpg

From the LATimes corrections page (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-a4-correx21-2009aug21,0,7452844.story):



So, "Olbermann" = "Jackass." Sounds about right.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/So6pZkLDkvI/AAAAAAAAdZo/trs-vgr6On0/s1600/countdown%2Bjackass.JPG
Absolutely.

Who said they got it wrong?

[Yonivore]

After dealing with Yoni your IQ will drop a few points
Well, at least you feel that way. That happens when you encounter a superior intellect, GGA. Nothing of which to be ashamed.

[Spursmania]

The same reason people listen to MSNBC.

[Marcus Bryant]

What exactly was on Fox News?

[SpurNation]

What exactly was on Fox News?

Blah Blah Blah...Blah Blah Blah

It's the same on MSNBC

[Marcus Bryant]

Right. And that is why I view neither.

[Jacob1983]

The only thing interesting about Olbermann's show is when he does the worst person in the world bit. It's pretty predictable but it's entertaining to watch.

[DMX7]

Almost all cable news is terrible. Only the networks seem to give it to you relatively straight... relatively.

[SouthernFried]

Almost all cable news is terrible. Only the networks seem to give it to you relatively straight... relatively.

I quit watching the major networks news in the early 80's because of their bias.

The only real way to get a better picture...is to watch both sides. Preferably listen to the major networks and other left leaning networks like CNN and MSNBC...when a Republican is in office.

...and listen to FOX and talk radio when a democrat is in office.

I wish journalists would be as antagonistic to both parties, whenever either is in office. That would be the true "watchdog" role of the media, imho.

But, it's not the case. Journalists have become "activists" instead. So, to get a clearer, less bias view of what's happening...lean towards the journalists who are actively against whatever Party is in power at the time.