Most Trusted Network in (American) TV News

[Bud Struggle]

Suprise. It's Fox!

Really.

No joke.

Poll: Fox is most trusted name in news

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

[Nolan]

In the country where a large percentage of the population believe that their imaginary friend created the world 6000 years ago and that a flood covered the whole planet but didnt leave a trace, this is not all that surprising. :closedeyes:

What the hell?

[Kingpin]

Even if the results are true and represent the opinion of United States citizens, we have to be careful on what conclusions can be derived from this information.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ,

just because many people believe something doesn't make it true.


Therefore I am still of the opinion that Fox News and their conglomerate News Corporations, sucks shit and does not accurately portray events and has shitty programming. (just my opinion)

[Drace]

I am sorry, have you seen Glenn Beck?

[Nolan]

I am sorry, have you seen Glenn Beck?

*shudders*

[Robert]

I see Black Panthers, PETA, Code Pink activists, 9-1-1-truthers (they guys who say 911 was an inside job by Bush :rolleyes:), pro-choicers, Anti-G-summit protesters, as well as your garden variety liberal -- Ralph Nader, Lanny Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Michael Moore, to name a few -- on Fox with regularity that no longer surprises. Not me anyway.

Fox has a conservative point of view, but they do at least offer a microphone to those with opposing views, unlike The Deplorable One and his protegée.

That's why Fox's viewership is triple and quadruple the competition.

[Drace]

Fox has a conservative point of view, but they do at least offer a microphone to those with opposing views, unlike The Deplorable One and his protegée.

They might be there physically but none of their voices can surpass Becks.

[Nolan]

I see Black Panthers, PETA, Code Pink activists, 9-1-1-truthers (they guys who say 911 was an inside job by Bush :rolleyes:), pro-choicers, Anti-G-summit protesters, as well as your garden variety liberal -- Ralph Nader, Lanny Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Michael Moore, to name a few -- on Fox with regularity that no longer surprises. Not me anyway.

Fox has a conservative point of view, but they do at least offer a microphone to those with opposing views, unlike The Deplorable One and his protegée.

That's why Fox's viewership is triple and quadruple the competition.

Because we all know how open-minded FOX is.

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah, the dumbasses at Fox invite on people like Ralph Nader to attempt to box them in and concede some conservative talking point:

crnSOFKkSPE

Most of the time though, when they have a "liberal" on, it's a fake liberal, so the liberal ends up agreeing with the conservative unlike the way Nader shut down O'Reilly in that video.

The rest of the time is spent promoting Bush/conservative/Libertarian talking points.


Actually not even Ron Paul can get through:
R7JPvbVsDdY

I hate Ron Paul, and I hate O'Reilly, but you learn in third grade that you can broaden your perspective by listening to what people have to say and I'm sure it's ethical journalism to let the other side speak.

That's why people who watch Fox News are also less informed about the world. Even people who don't watch the news at all are more informed than a Fox News viewer.

I prefer MSNBC where they have conservatives on (like Pat Buchanan) and they make their points. I remember one morning I woke up early and Joe Scarroborrogh (sp?) was talking about what a declining society we are in and I found myself agreeing with him.

They're also good at correct conservative talking points, esp. conservative racial hatred and libertarian economics. But mostly I get my perspective/news from journals I read and leftist websites. One or two long articles are better than watching the news all day.

[Manifesto]

In the country where a large percentage of the population believe that their imaginary friend created the world 6000 years ago and that a flood covered the whole planet but didnt leave a trace, this is not all that surprising. :closedeyes:

Ok I'll give you the flood but not very many people believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[Nolan]

Ok I'll give you the flood but not very many people believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Oh yes they do. I was raised in a family that believes just that. In fact, I've never met a Christian who doesnt believe the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old. And I live in the heart of the Bible Belt.

[Robert]

I was raised in a family that believes just that. Well, that settles it I guess.


Because we all know how open-minded FOX is.

You appear not to dispute my claim that a wide variety of viewpoints are presented on Fox News. Good for you.

[IcarusAngel]

About 30-40% of Americans think that God created man about 6 to 10 thousand years ago.

"Between 1982 and 2006, the number subscribing to the creationist view has ranged from 44 to 47 percent, while those who buy the naturalist take on things account for 9 to 13 percent. The middle-ground theistic position gets 35 to 40 percent of the vote. There's no clear trend over the 24 years; if anything, the naturalists have gained a few percentage points. Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief, while surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll give it a slim majority, at 51 to 53 percent....

How does the U.S. compare with other countries in terms of belief in evolution? Not so hot. A study of attitudes in 34 countries published in Science in 2006 shows that the United States ranks last in popular acceptance of evolution except for Turkey. Almost 40 percent of Americans in this study flatly rejected evolution, whereas the comparable numbers in European countries and Japan ranged from 7 to 15 percent. That may partly reflect U.S. high school kids' dismal math and science scores relative to other developed countries, which to my mind underscores a home truth: the more you know, the less you take on faith. "




In his book When Time Shall Be No More, historian Paul Boyer states that, "surveys show that from one third to one half of [all Americans] believe that the future can be interpreted from biblical prophecies." I find this absolutely stunning.
I haven't seen that particular number, but I've seen plenty of things like it. I saw a cross-cultural study a couple of years ago -- I think it was published in England -- that compared a whole range of societies in terms of beliefs of that kind. The US stood out -- it was unique in the industrial world. In fact, the measures for the US were similar to pre-industrial societies.
Why is that?
That's an interesting question. This is a very fundamentalist society. It's like Iran in its degree of fanatic religious commitment. For example, I think about 75% of the US population has a literal belief in the devil.
There was a poll several years ago on evolution. People were asked their opinion on various theories of how the world of living creatures came to be what it is. The number of people who believed in Darwinian evolution was less than 10%. About half the population believed in a church doctrine of divine-guided evolution. Most of the rest presumably believed that the world was created a couple of thousand years ago.
These are very unusual results. Why the US should be off the spectrum on these issues has been discussed and debated for some time.
I remember reading something maybe ten or fifteen years ago by a political scientist who writes about these things, Walter Dean Burnham. He suggested that this may be a reflection of depoliticization -- that is, the inability to participate in a meaningful fashion in the political arena may have a rather important psychic effect.
That's not impossible. People will find some ways of identifying themselves, becoming associated with others, taking part in something. They're going to do it some way or other. If they don't have the option to participate in labor unions, or in political organizations that actually function, they'll find other ways. Religious fundamentalism is a classic example.
We see that happening in other parts of the world right now. The rise of what's called Islamic fundamentalism is, to a significant extent, a result of the collapse of secular nationalist alternatives that were either discredited internally or destroyed.
In the nineteenth century, you even had some conscious efforts on the part of business leaders to promote fire-and-brimstone preachers who led people to look at society in a more passive way. The same thing happened in the early part of the industrial revolution in England. E.P. Thompson writes about it in his classic, The Making of the English Working Class.
In a State of the Union speech, Clinton said, "We can't renew our country unless more of us -- I mean, all of us -- are willing to join churches." What do you make of this? I don't know exactly what was in his mind, but the ideology is very straightforward. If people devote themselves to activities that are out of the public arena, then we folks in power will be able to run things the way we want.

http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/sld/sld-1-11.html

[Manifesto]

Oh yes they do. I was raised in a family that believes just that. In fact, I've never met a Christian who doesnt believe the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old. And I live in the heart of the Bible Belt.
Well I assume that is around Kansas and sorry that you had to deal with people that ACTUALLY believes that now. I dunno it could be that I live in a blue state but even the Republicans here that I do know would never believe the Earth is that young. As for FOX it is pretty funny that people trust them.

EDIT: 40-44% really? That is actually amazingly high, thats bad. How about Europe?

[IcarusAngel]

40-44% is not a "small minority" of Americans. That's a huge number. This can also be traced back to the fact that the business community even encouraged religious fanaticism in the first part of the twentieth century as a way to divert attention from public issues.

The new way to divert attention is to believe that free-markets will solve all issues.

[Robert]

For more open-minded religious leaders, you might look to the Catholic Church:

Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man. The Pope declared:

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.


That was Pius XII in 1950.


Here is John Paul II in 1996:


When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.”

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Oh yes they do. I was raised in a family that believes just that. In fact, I've never met a Christian who doesnt believe the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old. And I live in the heart of the Bible Belt.
What... the... FUCK.

In general, when the beliefs of a large number of people conflict with reality, then either the beliefs have to give way, or those people will soon have reality come crashing down upon them. You know, I think it would be fun if creationists took over the discipline of biology (and maybe also geology, while they're at it) in the United States. Really. It would be hysterical. I'd love to see the faces of American capitalists when their technological base crumbles before their eyes due to the madness they have promoted.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

And on the issue of Fox being "the most trusted network in news" - this is what happens when the political landscape is entirely divided between right-wing populism and elitist, insular middle-class liberalism. The right-wing populists take over the working class by default, through lack of opposition. Fox is popular because no one is even trying to compete with it in its core market.

[I Can Has Communism]

Check this out: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428. Its an excellent documentary called 'Outfoxed'.

[#FF0000]

You appear not to dispute my claim that a wide variety of viewpoints are presented on Fox News. Good for you.

They might have them on but the way they run interviews (at least from what I've seen) is just atrocious. Really pointed questions, absurdly obvious agenda...etc.

I mean this isn't even coming from me as a communist but as a guy who really likes intellectual/journalistic honesty and integrity (like, more than a friend :wub:). FOX news is absolute trash.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I see Black Panthers, PETA, Code Pink activists, 9-1-1-truthers (they guys who say 911 was an inside job by Bush :rolleyes:), pro-choicers, Anti-G-summit protesters, as well as your garden variety liberal -- Ralph Nader, Lanny Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Michael Moore, to name a few -- on Fox with regularity that no longer surprises. Not me anyway.

Fox has a conservative point of view, but they do at least offer a microphone to those with opposing views, unlike The Deplorable One and his protegée.

That's why Fox's viewership is triple and quadruple the competition.

As was pointed out on another forum where this was reported, 43% of Americans believe that the Earth was created by God at some point in the last 10,000 years. I imagine that group overlaps considerably with the 49% of people who trust Fox as a news source.

This is an unfortunate statistic for the American people because it further perpetuates the notion internationally that they are all idiots, which I (and everyone here, I would imagine) know is not true.

It is common knowledge outside the US, and in some circles within the US, that Fox is one of the most dishonest and disingenuous broadcasters in the Western world. They might invite political opponents on from time to time but that does nothing to mitigate the fact that they are blatantly politically motivated and regularly choose lies, distortions and sensationalism over fair, factual broadcasting. I saw Jenna Jameson, the porn star, being interviewed by O'Reilly once. It was ten minutes of her being called a slut and a whore. Having people who disagree with you on your show doesn't make you fair or impartial.

Here are a couple of videos to watch, more for entertainment value than to make a point which I don't think has to be made in this boards.

The Huffington Post host a "best of" of Fox lies and distortions. I know the Huffington Post has its own agenda but the videos speak for themselves.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html?slidenumber=0#slide_image

This one is a personal favourite of mine. Rick Sanchez totally owns Fox on a lie they published about CNN. Watch it all the way through, because he really starts tearing into them at the end.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/09/18/nr.sanchez.on.fox.news.cnn

[Dean]

Suprise. It's Fox!

Really.

No joke.

Poll: Fox is most trusted name in news

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

Its not very surprising, considering how polarized the US media is now. If republicans don't trust anything but fox, which seems to be the case, and democracts also trust different networks (mostly NBC but also CNN et. al.) thats a very obvious explanation.

"Trusting" a media outlet is a highly political issue. I trust media based on its attention to analysis and balanced reporting. For this reason, the most trusted US-based media is for me, Al Jazeera English and the Christian Science Monitor but I don't always agree with their editorial positions.

[Havet]

Well this explains a lot

[RGacky3]

I don't know about the poll, but keep in mind its by Politico, started by people from the Washingtom post, and run by a former assistant to Ronald Reagon. So just keep that in mind, I'm not saying anything.

But anyway, if this were actually true, its extremely sad, give the blatent lying, corporate whoredom, and vast radical right wing bias.

[Robert]

I know the Huffington Post has its own agenda

Yeah, me too.

Try this: which is more fair and balanced, Fox News or Revleft?

Answer: Fox News.

[The Red Next Door]

My country people don't surprise me no more.

[ComradeMan]

As a non-American here, can someone outline what the alternatives to FOX are?

PS What kind of Christians have you got there in the Bible Belt? :cool: The Vatican for one has long accepted the idea of evolution for example and most Jews I know don't take Genesis literally either....

[Robert]

As a non-American here, can someone outline what the alternatives to FOX are?

The Christian Broadcasting Network (http://www.cbn.com/).

I don't know of any other channels here in rural Oklahoma.. There may be some in California.

[Bud Struggle]

As a non-American here, can someone outline what the alternatives to FOX are?

PS What kind of Christians have you got there in the Bible Belt? :cool: The Vatican for one has long accepted the idea of evolution for example and most Jews I know don't take Genesis literally either....

The Vatican used the Bible a part of the Church--the Bible is interpreted by the Church inlight of Christ's revelation to the Church. The Catholic church can say that the Bible means whatever they say it means. The Evangelicals are in a bit of a bind--they have no "Church" to interpret the Bible for them so the only way they can "understand" the Bible is to take every word of it literally. Hense they are trapped into the oddnesses and archaicisms that you find in a 2000+ year old text.

They are trapped by the wording of the text.

[ComradeMan]

The Vatican used the Bible a part of the Church--the Bible is interpreted by the Church inlight of Christ's revelation to the Church. The Catholic church can say that the Bible means whatever they say it means. The Evangelicals are in a bit of a bind--they have no "Church" to interpret the Bible for them so the only way they can "understand" the Bible is to take every word of it literally. Hense they are trapped into the oddnesses and archaicisms that you find in a 2000+ year old text.

They are trapped by the wording of the text.

Well there is the Jewish concept of "pardes", the four levels on which to read the scriptures, the literal, the deeper and so on. I think literalists are scarey whatever their background.... It does seem strange to me that so many American comrades have such negative experiences of Christianity and they all seem to be connected to rightwing fundamentalist stuff too.

[Nolan]

Yeah, me too.

Try this: which is more fair and balanced, Fox News or Revleft?

Answer: Fox News.

Nope. Just two completely different ends of the spectrum. Why do you think we allow you here?

[Robert]

Why do you think we allow you here? To try and avoid claims of censorship and thereby make yourselves look tolerant. You aren't fooling anyone, of course. But it's okay. I actually appreciate your letting me post here. On edit, let me add that some of the communists here have manifest doubts about the workability of communism, and so they "let" dissenters post out of a morbid curiosity that maybe, just maybe, Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and the rest of the rogue's gallery did not have all the answers. What else explains the continual posting in OI by some of the hardest leftists here? They can't claim we are fascist bourgeois homophobes and then engage us in debate at the same time. One really brilliant guy, I notice, posts ONLY in OI! I won't embarrass him by "outing" him, but I figure he'll be the next to defect over to the reformist side.

But no, there is a significant difference between you and Fox. This board expressly tells me I am tolerated here but not welcome. (I admit I can't find this in the rules now ... maybe it has changed.)

The membership here routinely hurls vulgar invective at me simply because I am bourgeois, and one of you even told me to "die" in assigning negative rep, anonymously of course. Bet you didn't know that about your commie pals. Unless (cough, cough) it was you.:lol:

The liberals such as Michael Moore, who is lionized on this board, are invited onto Fox News to occupy a seat right at the table across from the admittedly conservatives hosts, be it O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. Differing views on abortion, death penalty, the war in Afghanistan, immigration and health policy are affirmatively sought out and broadcast on Fox. Bret Baer, Greta Van Susteren, and Shepard Smith are fairly apolitical and friendly to all their guests.

Oh yes, Fox is far more balanced.

[Drace]

Yeah, me too.

Try this: which is more fair and balanced, Fox News or Revleft?

Answer: Fox News. Except that this is a forum for leftists while Fox is a major news organization that reaches millions of people. And whereas we have discussions among ourselves, the objective of the network is to broadcast news and information, which it does so in a very biased way.


Differing views on abortion, death penalty, the war in Afghanistan, immigration and health policy are affirmatively sought out and broadcast on Fox. Bret Baer, Greta Van Susteren, and Shepard Smith are fairly apolitical and friendly to all their guests.Oh bullshit we all seen Glenn Beck and his M&Ms.

Oh yea and That Shepard Smith guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_cqUdpPNdc&feature=related

[Robert]

Oh bullshit we all seen Glenn Beck and his M&Ms.

Yeah, so I notice. I hear more about Glenn Beck here than I do anywhere else. I'm sure Fox appreciates the advertising.

Look, I'm having fun arguing this, but whatever the merits of Fox News, I do sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have met you guys and to kick around on OI the most important question we all must face: how should we live?

Now bite me, I'm not saying anything else nice to you.

Forever.

Until Christmas.

[Nolan]

To try and avoid claims of censorship and thereby make yourselves look tolerant. You aren't fooling anyone, of course. But it's okay. I actually appreciate your letting me post here. On edit, let me add that some of the communists here have manifest doubts about the workability of communism, and so they "let" dissenters post out of a morbid curiosity that maybe, just maybe, Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and the rest of the rogue's gallery did not have all the answers. What else explains the continual posting in OI by some of the hardest leftists here? They can't claim we are fascist bourgeois homophobes and then engage us in debate at the same time. One really brilliant guy, I notice, posts ONLY in OI! I won't embarrass him by "outing" him, but I figure he'll be the next to defect over to the reformist side.

Cool story bro. Too bad its a strawman. Why on earth would you think anyone thinks Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and friends were perfect or had all the answers? Now I know every side has their crazies, but this is a political ideology, not a religion. :rolleyes:

What exactly is wrong with debating fascist bourgeois homophobes? Theres nothing "reformist" about that. But yeah, I'm sure half of the board are closet reactionaries. :lol:



But no, there is a significant difference between you and Fox. This board expressly tells me I am tolerated here but not welcome. (I admit I can't find this in the rules now ... maybe it has changed.)

And that's surprising why?


The membership here routinely hurls vulgar invective at me simply because I am bourgeois, and one of you even told me to "die" in assigning negative rep, anonymously of course. Bet you didn't know that about your commie pals. Unless (cough, cough) it was you.:lol:

*damn he's good*


The liberals such as Michael Moore, who is lionized on this board, are invited onto Fox News to occupy a seat right at the table across from the admittedly conservatives hosts, be it O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. Differing views on abortion, death penalty, the war in Afghanistan, immigration and health policy are affirmatively sought out and broadcast on Fox. Bret Baer, Greta Van Susteren, and Shepard Smith are fairly apolitical and friendly to all their guests.

Oh yes, Fox is far more balanced.

You know what? I dont really care who they have on to slander on a nightly basis.

But if you really think Fox is balanced, watch this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer

Of all the corporate media, Fox is the shittiest. No, Fox has nothing on Revleft, Stormfront, or anything in-between.

[Robert]

And that's surprising why?It isn't "surprising." I don't even care. The point is simply that Fox is more tolerant -- change that to "welcoming" -- of opposing views than you are. Your every post further confirms it.


Why on earth would you think anyone thinks Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and friends were perfect or had all the answers?Maybe that was an exaggeration on my part, but I can't square your simultaneously debating me and restricting me. Actually I can, but I don't want to be contentious.


You know what? I don' t really care who they have on to slander on a nightly basisYou don't? It appears to be bugging the hell out of you.


What exactly is wrong with debating fascist bourgeois homophobes?That's a cute flame. Well done.:lol:


No, Fox has nothing on Revleft, Stormfront, or anything in-between.

If by that you mean that Fox is anything like Stormfront, you owe Fox a written apology. That was just awful!

[Nolan]

It isn't "surprising." I don't even care. The point is simply that Fox is more tolerant of opposing views than you are. Your every post further confirms it.

Keep repeating it and cross your fingers and hit your heels together. Maybe itll become true.


You don't? It appears to be bugging the hell out of you.

Nah. ;)


That's a cute flame. Well done.:lol:

:cool:

[Drace]

It isn't "surprising." I don't even care. The point is simply that Fox is more tolerant of opposing views than you are. Your every post further confirms it.Fox itself isn't a single entity. Its not actually a fox if you didn't know :rolleyes:
They occasionally let someone with opposing views get on. It then turns into "OMFG YOUR A SOCIALIST. DO YOU NOW LOVE STALIN" kind of bashing.

They also have several advantages in such one on one debates. Editing, cutting off the mic, going to commercial, ending the debate whenever they want to, making retarded comments and not letting them talk, etc.

But trolling with you seems to work better.

[Bud Struggle]

Fox itself isn't a single entity. Its not actually a fox if you didn't know :rolleyes:
They occasionally let someone with opposing views get on. It then turns into "OMFG YOUR A SOCIALIST. DO YOU NOW LOVE STALIN" kind of bashing.

They also have several advantages in such one on one debates. Editing, cutting off the mic, going to commercial, ending the debate whenever they want to, making retarded comments and not letting them talk, etc.

But trolling with you seems to work better.

Hmmm, but you fail to take note that those kinds of "interviews" aren't actually in the news programs. They are in the commentary shows. O'Reilly and Hannety aren't "news." They are just commentaries. And they pull in huge audiences. The reason shows like that are on in the first place is the ratings NOT the politics. It's all purely just business. If Bob Avakian could pull in O'Reilly's numbers he'd be on every night instead. But the more liberal the network--the fewer the viewers. The more centrist CNN has a good deal less viewers than Fox and the Liberal (not Leftist, of course) MSNBC follows far behind.

Fox is the leader because it is the least idealogue. It just gives people what the people want to see because it makes them the most money.

And Robert isn't a troll--the second someone disagrees with you--he's a troll or a racist or a this or that. :rolleyes:

[IcarusAngel]

MSNBC has a lot of viewers. It's like 600,000 to Fox's million. Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are watched by a lot of viewers.

Of course, if you put a political science type show on the air and Fox News on, most people will watch fox news because most people aren't educated. Of course MSNBC isn't exactly a step above, but it is more honest in its analysis.

The fact that Robert likes Fox News coincides with the declining quality of his posts. I appreciate the things he said about my family situation but he has not contributed to the forum much.

And forum discussion and TV networks devoted to news are two completely different things. Forums are for people who have specialized in a certain area. Although highly impersonal, their more realistic as to what people truly want to enjoy and participate in.

[Drace]

Hmmm, but you fail to take note that those kinds of "interviews" aren't actually in the news programs.

There is an equal number of bias in the news program as well. Also, have you seen or heard of the "Revolutionary Holocaust' documentary that Fox aired? What business does a news network, claiming neutrality, have to show such biased information?


The reason shows like that are on in the first place is the ratings NOT the politics. It's all purely just business.Hiring extreme conservatives douchebags that hound on the opposition is business?
There is also much evidence of Fox News ignoring stories that go against its view, suppressing information, including bias and its right wing commentary on every single story, cherrypicking, using the right words, altering phrases, etc.

Have you ever seen the Russian News?
Its a women who dresses very professionally that shows no expression, no laughter, no comments, etc and simply reads off the board. That's what NEWS should be like.
Not entertainment.

[Bud Struggle]

What business does a news network, claiming neutrality, have to show such biased information?
Hiring extreme conservatives douchebags that hound on the opposition is business? Well yes. There is an entertainment factor to some of these commentary shows the people like and tune into see. And when people tune in to see them--the network makes money.


There is also much evidence of Fox News ignoring stories that go against its view, suppressing information, including bias and its right wing commentary on every single story, cherrypicking, using the right words, altering phrases, etc. Again, they give the people what they want to see. If Revolutionary Left stories sold airtime--Fox would be a Commie network. Fox really has no other bias than to make money for Rupert Murdoch. Fox does nothing other than to reflect as best it can the opinions of its viewers. People LIKE to see O'Reilly trounce some Liberal--they just do. People like to see WWE wrestling--what can I say?


Have you ever seen the Russian News?
Its a women who dresses very professionally that shows no expression, no laughter, no comments, etc and simply reads off the board. That's what NEWS should be like.
Not entertainment. I understand your view--but that's why you are (most likely) poor and Mr. Murdoch is extremely rich. (I didn't mean that as an insult--it's just how things work in this Capitalist world.)

[Drace]

Well yes. There is an entertainment factor to some of these commentary shows the people like and tune into see. And when people tune in to see them--the network makes money.And thats the problem. News has been turned into entertainment.


Again, they give the people what they want to see. If Revolutionary Left stories sold airtime--Fox would be a Commie network. Fox really has no other bias than to make money for Rupert Murdoch. Fox does nothing other than to reflect as best it can the opinions of its viewers. People LIKE to see O'Reilly trounce some Liberal--they just do. People like to see WWE wrestling--what can I say?What? As if Fox does not at all influence people's opinions? That it just gives news to people who want to hear such bias?

How is it fair that a right wing organization can have its stories reach millions of people while the opposition is cut off?

And what if we presented a Leftist documentary on Fox news. Do you think everyone would just stop watching?

Or hell. Lets say we somehow got the money to fund a Leftist news organization as big as Fox news. Do you think it would not change anyone's opinions at all?


I understand your view--but that's why you are (most likely) poor and Mr. Murdoch is extremely rich. (I didn't mean that as an insult--it's just how things work in this Capitalist world.)No sir, Murdoch is wealthy due to the material conditions which have led to his ownership of the means of such news production alongside with the exploitation of the labor power and its use of wage-slavery to chain the proletariat which ironically are the means of subsistence of the Fox News corporation. :closedeyes:

Of what relation is there of wanting a non-biased news source to not owning kapital?

[#FF0000]

Yeah, me too.

Try this: which is more fair and balanced, Fox News or Revleft?

Answer: Fox News.

Which presents itself as a News organization and thus should actually be held to the standards of journalistic integrity, rather than an internet forum with a clear and stated agenda?

Answer: Fox News

And simply having people of an "opposing ideology" show up doesn't mean much if you just have them around to make your own agenda look better by asking a bunch of loaded, bogus questions.

[Drace]

if you just have them around to make your own agenda look better by asking a bunch of loaded, bogus questions. You want some M&Ms?

[Bud Struggle]

And simply having people of an "opposing ideology" show up doesn't mean much if you just have them around to make your own agenda look better by asking a bunch of loaded, bogus questions.

Isn't that what you have the OI section of RevLeft for? :D

And following on the heels of the Fox poll:

It's Glenn Beck as America's second favorite TV personality.

Oprah Winfrey (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Oprah+Winfrey) may be the queen of television, but she has some surprising new company.
A new Harris Poll (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Harris+Interactive+Inc.) shows Ms. Winfrey on top as America’s favorite TV personality.
Debuting on the list in second place is Fox News (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/FOX+News+Network+LLC) commentator Glenn Beck (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Glenn+Beck).
The poll, conducted each year, had Oprah regaining her first-place position after trailing talk-show hosts Ellen DeGeneres (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ellen+DeGeneres) and Jay Leno (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jay+Leno) last year.
Beck, a nationally syndicated radio host, premiered his Fox News television show last year.
The highly charged political program has generated controversy and ratings during the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency.
The poll also found Conan O’Brien (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Conan+Oa+Brien) topping the list among 18- to 32-year-olds -- the so-called Echo Boomers.
Leno was the favorite among men, and Jon Stewart (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jon+Stewart) topped the list among liberals.
The poll was conducted Dec. 7-14, 2009, among 2,276 adults surveyed online.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/01/25/2010-01-25_oprah_glenn_beck_are_americas_favorite_tv_perso nalities_poll_.html

[#FF0000]

Isn't that what you have the OI section of RevLeft for? :D

Saw that one coming.

But no, FOX does it to people in front of an audience while claiming to be as unbiased as a network can be and claiming to be serious journalists. We toss pointed and loaded questions at you purely for our own amusement. They're dishonest charlatans and we're just petty.

[Chambered Word]

Why trust anyone?

[RGacky3]

Yeah, me too.

Try this: which is more fair and balanced, Fox News or Revleft?

Answer: Fox News.

Heres the difference, and its a major damn difference, and if you did'nt think of this difference I have to question your intelligence. FOX NEWS CALLS ITSELF A NEWS PROGRAM, meaning A political, unbias NEWS, revleft is a goddamn political discussion forum FOR revolutionary leftists, we have the damn hammer and sicle and red and black flag on the logo, and the anarchist A, are you freaking kidding me.

With that aside, I actually believe, looking at the OI in revleft, that revleft is actually more fair and balanced, even though its not trying to be.


Again, they give the people what they want to see. If Revolutionary Left stories sold airtime--Fox would be a Commie network. Fox really has no other bias than to make money for Rupert Murdoch. Fox does nothing other than to reflect as best it can the opinions of its viewers. People LIKE to see O'Reilly trounce some Liberal--they just do. People like to see WWE wrestling--what can I say?

Actually thats untrue, it took four years for Fox to turn a profit, and the profit it has now while doing straight propeganda (which I have to say is quite genius, to the point that Stalin would tip his hat), actually makes up for many of Rupert Murdochs other right wing media outfits that don't turn any profit, This IS making money yes, no doubt, but its also, more importantly, straight radical right wing propeganda.

People like Jon Stewart show that progressives can make money, but the fact is, the majority of wealthy media outfits, have the right wing perspective (class based), and especially Rupert Murdoch, who is a right wing radical, so no, its not entirely always about making money, but to a point your right.


Fox is the leader because it is the least idealogue. It just gives people what the people want to see because it makes them the most money.


Thats absolutely untrue, it uses what people want to see, and it uses it to both make money, and to push the far right wing agenda. The problem with progressives, in my opinion, is they are too sensible, and don't understand the way media manipulation works, in other words.

If a guy is making a speech about the cure for cancer, and someone jumps up and whips his dick out on the stage, what do you think is going to get more air time?

The fact is there is nothing innately exciting about the right wing viewpoint, nor the left wing, its the fact that fox are good at propeganda, thats IT.

[mikelepore]

Fox News is so right wing that even Bernard Goldberg, a conservative author who whines that conservative journalists are oppressed by the "liberal media", sometimes complains (slightly) about it.

Goldberg wrote about the war coverage:

"Personally, some of Fox News 'fair and balanced' coverage was a little too rah-rah, flag-waving for my taste. I didn't need to hear Shepard Smith refer to the Iraqi soldiers as 'the bad guys.' But the truth is, I can't get too worked up over it."

[In _Arrogance_, hardcover first edition, 2003, page 230.]

[The Red Next Door]

I see Black Panthers, PETA, Code Pink activists, 9-1-1-truthers (they guys who say 911 was an inside job by Bush :rolleyes:), pro-choicers, Anti-G-summit protesters, as well as your garden variety liberal -- Ralph Nader, Lanny Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Michael Moore, to name a few -- on Fox with regularity that no longer surprises. Not me anyway.

Fox has a conservative point of view, but they do at least offer a microphone to those with opposing views, unlike The Deplorable One and his protegée.

That's why Fox's viewership is triple and quadruple the competition.
Yes, They do allow opposing views on there but guess what for. So they can make them look like an idiot and make them look bad as possible and then when people say something they don't like, They scream "CUT HIS /HER MIKE!"

[The Red Next Door]

No wonder when I came back from Germany was so depress and want to go back there.:D but seriously trusted Network my ass. When they have people with opposing views on there, they either make them look like a fool or don't give them the chance to talk. Like for example Glenn The shithead fuck Beck had Sam Webb and a member or head of the democratic socialist party on his show, He does the candy/cookies thing and cut right to commercial before they are even finish talking. Then if someone say something that hurt their little cappie heart, they cut their mikes. Fox news the most untrusted network in America.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAyCNxl8I54

[Conquer or Die]

You appear not to dispute my claim that a wide variety of viewpoints are presented on Fox News. Good for you.

Sunsara Taylor, slightly hot vocalist for the Bob Avakian cult (that is, chief member of the young people's Revolutionary Communist Party of America) has been on Fox News no less than two times. Both times the host assumed that she spoke for the left and how they "hated" free speech because they shouted at lawmakers and interrupted a speech due to the existence Guantanamo Bay. Not only were they clearly interfering with free speech, they also spoke for the "left." This assumption is confirmed by the myriad conservative celebrity book sellers who tell us that the left hates free speech, and incidents with persons of any faction of the left are the rule, especially college students. These authors and viewpoints find their way to the editorializing room of Fox News.

Glenn Beck is drawing (to quote Maureen Dowd's brother's analysis "pulitzer prize winning") conclusions about progressivism, fascism, and communism being linked through tenuous arrangements. This theory is taken from who else but the assumptions of such conservative celebrities like Rush Limbaugh (who created the term "feminazis") and Jonah Goldberg (author of liberal fascism). He Literally went McCarthy on an advisor to the president and culls support amongst the anti-liberal establishment. He has made inroads to christian supporters by not mentioning his mormonism and having evangelists on his show such as the late Jerry Falwell.

Fox News also has two legitimate presidential candidates with their own television shows. Both are legitimately considered far right candidates.

And Michael Moore is on every news channel and entertainment channel because he is a popular entertainer. Draw your conclusions about that, but money is money.

Which is why Fox New's "variety of viewpoints" is a joke. Conservative commentators and rightward spin mingle with liberal extremes who are shown to be representative of a whole. By having Sunsara Taylor on the show or the chairman of the CPUSA they are not finding hard hitting analysts but rather scapegoats to bash and assume. They cloak the liberal and left establishment with loud voices and must haves (like Michael Moore) so they can continue to further cycles of insinuation from conservative celebrities (who frequent shows far more than any serious left counterpart).

There is an answer to this poll. Smart people read, not listen to news. Readers are found in college (liberal and muslim according to the conservative celebrity establishment) and newspapers (liberal and useless according to the conservative celebrity establishment) while watchers who read less are predominantly conservative. They prefer quicker, easier to watch, repetitive, and more opinionated sources for news. Watchers are simpler people than readers. Therefore more conservatives watch news than liberals and conservatives trust simpler news than do liberals.

Moreover, Fox News partisans draw lines. Everything else is liberal besides their familiar bastion. They are more xenophobic in their choices. I've had the opinion for a while that CNN caters to the lowest common denominator and sells entertainment instead of quality news. I wouldn't say I trusted CNN or that I respected it as any sort of high quality source. I would put the same line down for Fox News. The difference is that I have a specific conservative friend who admits that while he believes Fox News is conservative he also believes that CNN and other stations are liberal. He might put down stock for Fox News as a defense mechanism for his home bastion of conservatism as a reaction to what he believes to be liberal bastions everywhere else. If we assume that Fox News watchers are more ignorant then this xenophobia makes much more sense.

Fox News operates a self fulfilling prophecy. It sends a signal to 50% of Americans and tells them what they want to hear more consistently than anything else. It doesn't challenge, it makes people feel good. It sells Glenn Beck's picture books and Ann Coulter's guest appearances. It's back scratching done for a less intelligent audience.

So no, your point and this poll are not taken as any sort of confirmation of Fox News being absolved of misdeeds.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I trust them because at least they have a more consistent point of view - as fucked up as it is.

The media that pretends to be impartial while basically reading us faxes sent to them from the pentagon, corporate PR firms, and think tanks, pisses me off more than Fox. Induvidual FOX news hosts and the things they say on the other hand...:cursing::cursing::cursing:!

[RGacky3]

I trust them because at least they have a more consistent point of view - as fucked up as it is.

Yeah, at least with Fox they are 100% clear about their message.

[Dimentio]

Suprise. It's Fox!

Really.

No joke.

Poll: Fox is most trusted name in news

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

I want to delve into why Fox is so trusted? Is it maybe because it is clearly taking sides?

I have noticed a difference between Europe and the United States regarding how to win a debate. In Europe, if you start to scream, get angry or begin to use overtly emotional arguments, you will lose the debate. In the USA, you could win a debate using these means.

I think that is because that the USA has a public culture of anti-intellectualism where the establishment is distrusted (which could be both positive and negative), while in Europe the public culture is more intellectualist (which also could be both positive and negative).

[Jimmie Higgins]

So has FOX news been attacking the immorality of O'Keefe (the guy with the "pimp prank" on ACORN) with he same ferocity as they went after ACORN now that he's been caught in a very immoral act? Has Sean Hanidioty called for tough punishment; the disbanding of the conservative organizations O'Keefe wrote for and worked with?

Just curious.

[Robert]

Jon Stewart's recurring guest appearances on Fox News, as a critic of Fox News, is the reason Fox is killing the competition. Fun stuff. The last link is from just this week.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iPgFSiaycEONBPFc_OuIBgxmbeAg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pK7sK0i4A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVuXgy3CVY

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002030062

[Ele'ill]

I see Black Panthers, PETA, Code Pink activists, 9-1-1-truthers (they guys who say 911 was an inside job by Bush :rolleyes:), pro-choicers, Anti-G-summit protesters, as well as your garden variety liberal -- Ralph Nader, Lanny Davis, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Michael Moore, to name a few -- on Fox with regularity that no longer surprises. Not me anyway.

Fox has a conservative point of view, but they do at least offer a microphone to those with opposing views, unlike The Deplorable One and his protegée.

That's why Fox's viewership is triple and quadruple the competition.

Shouting matches are not an adequate method for debating an issue.

I think most people in the United States would rather watch five year olds dressed like beauty queens toss midgets into a pit filled with lions than watch an actual documentary on lions.

Entertainment rather than education and sensationalism rather than level headed debate.