why do people even listen to Foxnews?

[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:

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:

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 compe ion. 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.

From the LATimes corrections page:

"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.

[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.

From the LATimes corrections page:



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

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.