CNN vs. FOX: It's on bitches!!!

[hater]

:corn:

A vicious war of words has broken out between TV networks Fox news and CNN.
On Monday a Fox website reported journalists from several news organisations being used as 'human shields' to stop a British air strike on a Gaddafi compound.
The 40 journalists were bused to the site on the invitation of Libyan government officials.
The Fox report said the trip was part of a plan by Gaddafi officials to prevent the planes releasing their bombs.
Nic Robertson, a veteran CNN correspondent who was part of the CNN crew mentioned in the Fox story, called the rival network's report 'outrageous and hypocritical.'
Mr Robertson added that a Fox journalist was part of the trip, a fact left out of the network's web report.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html#ixzz1HR5BV62R

[hater]

IMO this needs to be settled by mud wrestling matches between a few Fox/Cnn female anchors

[Marcus Bryant]

The gradual move from the war porn of the First Gulf War to actual participation is not surprising for cable "news."

[Marcus Bryant]

News, war, entertainment, and politics mixed together makes a most foul stench.

[MannyIsGod]

Have no idea how anyone can watch any of those networks anymore. Rachel Maddow has the only watchable show on any cable news network.

[coyotes_geek]

Have no idea how anyone can watch any of those networks anymore..........

I was with you up to here.

[Marcus Bryant]

Naturally American politics in the 21st century would consist of allegiances to, and arguments about, cable networks.

[MannyIsGod]

I was with you up to here.

To be fair I don't even watch her anymore but even if you don't agree with her I think an honest analysis of her show is that its extremely fair and you don't see her shouting down her opponents in some stupid political theater. In other words, if there was a conservative equivalent to her show it would be just as good.

[MannyIsGod]

Naturally American politics in the 21st century would consist of allegiances to, and arguments about, cable networks.

Most people with half a brain have moved on from those shows and probably get 10x as much information from the blogosphere now anyway.

[Marcus Bryant]

One hopes, but that media is flawed in its own way, and for much the same reasons.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats true, but you do have access to rational discourse if you follow rational blogs. That requires some discerning but at least you have the option. On cable news you just have 24 hour non stop bullshit.

[Marcus Bryant]

How many actually bother to do that? That's part of the problem.

The main is that the "blogosphere" is just as dominated by personalities, agendas, advertisers, group think/conventional wisdom, etc...

So someone reads a blog that they like because it supports what they believe or because it is well-known and it affirms their beliefs or they believe it because it is well-known. The same basic problem remains, which is that the individual accepts the opinions of others and the conventional view of the issues of the day based on appeals to authority, or more likely because they've heard of it and their friends like it.

The solution, as always, is to educate yourself and to encourage that.

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, the blog will be consumed by video soon enough and we'll all be posting YouTube clips before long.

[MannyIsGod]

Marcus I'm not going to argue that the majority of people out there don't think for themselves. I agree with that 100%. I'm just happy to have access to some decent viewpoints via blogs. I gotta take what I can get at this point.

I hope your youtube prediction is wrong.

[Marcus Bryant]

True, for those who appreciate it, having access to the store of human knowledge at your fingertips is a wondrous thing. I would submit that the proportion of the population who does so continues to decline.

Not to mention that the possibilities of nefarious psychological use of this technology is of real concern.

[hater]

To be fair I don't even watch her anymore but even if you don't agree with her I think an honest analysis of her show is that its extremely fair and you don't see her shouting down her opponents in some stupid political theater. In other words, if there was a conservative equivalent to her show it would be just as good.

well tbh, I usually have CNN on because the other options are 100 times worse. Mainly because CNN "tries" to be a little balanced and they usually have tons of ppl they interview all over the world.

NBC is just lame and Fox, they don't even "try" to hide the fact that they make up shit as they go.

Basically there are no better options out there. I am starting to have the international channels on (French/British/Russian/Japan/AlJazera news)

[MannyIsGod]

English Al Jazera is actually very very good. I've watched them some. The BBC is good as well. I've never watched French or Russian channels and the Japanese love way too much text on the screen.

[Marcus Bryant]

As the consumer internet rose, American politics became increasingly more ideologically polarized and increasingly more stupid.

Whereas before you had the possibility of politicians moderating their stances and putting the good of the country and their fellow citizens ahead of their own ambitions and party, now we have politicians who fall over themselves to prove their ideological purity and bona fides, as they are catering to a polity that consists of individuals residing in their own personal media echo chambers, oblivious to any other concerns.

[boutons_deux]

"As the consumer internet rose, American politics became increasingly more ideologically polarized and increasingly more stupid."

Repug/VRWC polarization started in the 80s, and Gingrich's highly polarizing, burnt-earth, smash-mouth, shut-it-down shit started in 1994 mid-terms, well before Internet was popular. Internet is just a communications pathway, not a cause.

[coyotes_geek]

"As the consumer internet rose, American politics became increasingly more ideologically polarized and increasingly more stupid."

Repug/VRWC polarization started in the 80s, and Gingrich's highly polarizing, burnt-earth, smash-mouth, shut-it-down shit started in 1994 mid-terms, well before Internet was popular. Internet is just a communications pathway, not a cause.

Seems like a good post to borrow this nugget from a different thread.......


But it's pretty damn hard to know really what her fractured, run-on jibberish means.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lmao

[rjv]

chomsky's manafacturing consent says it all about the media. a spot on analysis of where american 'journalism' has gone.

[Cry Havoc]

Thats true, but you do have access to rational discourse if you follow rational blogs. That requires some discerning but at least you have the option. On cable news you just have 24 hour non stop bullshit.

http://idorosen.com/mirrors/robinsloan.com/epic/ols-master.html

Made in 2005. Accurate in a few respects, even if they got a little goofy with the mergers. Pretty amazing.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Rachel Maddow has the only watchable show on any cable news network.

:lmao

I chuckle when she says in her promo "here's a story no one is talking about" indeed, Rach. Indeed.

[hater]

English Al Jazera is actually very very good. I've watched them some. The BBC is good as well. I've never watched French or Russian channels and the Japanese love way too much text on the screen.

I know ppl around here hate the french. But French news is pretty damn good. Russian too.

[boutons_deux]

Rachel's a little bit shrill and overboard (it is show biz), but her content is great.

Last night, her trashing of Kasich's crap for Ohio was great.

The Michigan, Wi, OH Repugs are doing crazy things, but of course employees and taxpayers get screwed, corporations and Wall ST make out like the crooks they are. If those 3 states are emulated by other Repug states, there's going to a very entertaining disaster.

[PublicOption]

http://wwitv.com/tv_channels/b2742.htm

[lazerelmo]

Looks like Fox is winning

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/22/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-march-21/86707

[Cry Havoc]

Looks like Fox is winning

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/03/22/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-march-21/86707

The lowest common denominator is usually the most plentiful. A news network designed to appeal to only people of IQs over 130 would have atrocious ratings.

[TeyshaBlue]

The lowest common denominator is usually the most plentiful. A news network designed to appeal to only people of IQs over 130 would have atrocious ratings.

It's not like you would get to watch it or anything.














Sorry, but you teed it up for me. I had to take the swing. It's a character flaw of mine.:lol

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The lowest common denominator is usually the most plentiful. A news network designed to appeal to only people of IQs over 130 would have atrocious ratings.

I guess these people can read Tibetan script :lol

[hater]

The lowest common denominator is usually the most plentiful. A news network designed to appeal to only people of IQs over 130 would have atrocious ratings.

PBS Newshour had pretty decent ratings. Of course nothing in ballpark of Fox/TMZ news.

In other words, should ratings be the goal of a news show/network??

[Agloco]

IMO this needs to be settled by mud wrestling matches between a few Fox/Cnn female anchors

Agree. Gotta get my girl Brooke out there with Kiran.

[lazerelmo]

PBS Newshour had pretty decent ratings. Of course nothing in ballpark of Fox/TMZ news.

In other words, should ratings be the goal of a news show/network??


If you want to stay on the air, it is.