Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who refuses to watch Fox cannot be trusted.
Ok, got your attention? Hear me out. Most leftists only listen to MSNBC, CNN, NPR, NBC etc. They REFUSE to listen to Fox.
Ever wonder why they are sooooo clueless as to what is really going on? They are only getting ONE point of view. One side.
It's so sad it's laughable.
On the flip side, I will say the same thing. I watch MSNBC (as much as I can tolerate their madness) but I watch CNN a ton. I also follow some liberals on twitter.
You have to be willing to listen to both sides or you are just a hack and ill informed. Hence, our media and their one sided views.
Oreilly is not a news show, it's a political commentary show just like every show on MSNBC. Fox also has dedicated news shows like CNN. Understand the difference.
Grow up.
Obviously a guy ranting about how the country is going into the toilet because gay marriage exists is 'political commentary', not news. I said news to distinguish it from X Factor and Big Bang Theory. Why do I even have to explain this?
And the news stories aren't 'dedicated', they're manipulative-- either because they're selected according to whether or not they promote the Fox agenda, or because they're covered in a manipulative way, or because they're just flat out fake.
This article also goes on to say that Fox News is watched by 8% of the adults.
Quote:
And second, I'm not sure what the point of posting this is. It is better to not watch any news at all than to watch Fox (another point made in the article), but obviously we're not talking about people who don't really know or care about news or information, and who probably don't really have any political affiliation.
Seems like you are purposely ignoring the point. Fox News seems to be important to the secondary news market like HuffPost. Hence it's month old stories keep looping around on the internet.
Catchy or controversial topics on Fox are very quickly picked up by everyone else. Some anchor said XYZ about Muslims. Now this story is going to be discussed on Jon Stewart, and looped all over YouTube and HuffPost for days and days.
Quote:
And I really don't think it's realistic to expect that every single person who watches Fox News on a regular basis is going to be watching it 24/7 so that the viewership of a single program is an accurate reflection of how many people might be watching a different program on the same station at a different time. It's like saying CBS isn't watched by many Americans because only 14 million out of 300 million people watched Thursday Night Football last year. 2.4 million viewers is huge, and The O Reilly Factor is the top-rated news show in the US. The reason Stewart and Huff Post focus on them is because Fox is influential without being informative, which means it's easy to catch them lying.
2.4 M may be huge, but other times of the day, the viewership is 100K.
Stewart talks about Fox all week .... if not, he wouldn't even have a show.HuffPost loops Fox stories because it is an easy target and they dont have original content.
Quote:
And even outside of TV, Fox News is still hugely influential on the right and their stories are reposted, shared, and passed on by everyone, and they play a huge part in shaping the perspectives of most of the posters on this board, along with even LESS credible sources of information like Breibart or americanthinker.com.
This is hilarious. CNN and NPR are just as full of propaganda as Fox. People should distrust the mainstream media. Determining who is "best informed" may just be a matter of determining who's version of propaganda is the "correct" version.
Actually they are not.
We need to stop these false equivalencies. CNN may be factually inaccurate at times (as all MSM), but they are significantly more accurate than Fox. NPR is probably the most accurate of the TV channels.
The author took the results of multiple studies and used them to potentially explain why the polarization exists... where are you getting the impression that anyone is saying anything other than that? I didn't hear anyone complaining about the other thread on here that links to Salon, mostly because it involves a self-professed liberal saying 'We are losers'. And somehow posting links to left-wing sites is bad, but sites like Breitbart, Americanthinker and globalwarmingisascam.blogspot.wordpress.advertiseh erenow.com prove once and for all that liberals are stupid and conservatives are right?
And don't think that I haven't noticed that you haven't actually addressed any of the points made. You just called it poorly written and poorly done without saying why you think so. This is why your opinion is much weaker than the opinion expressed in the article.
So where do you get your news, southbel?
But I did address the primary point of the article. The Salon article wanted to say the reason for polarization that exists today is due to Fox News. The link they tried to draw was tenuous at best and a logical leap was required to even try to get there. Correlation does not equal causation. Face it. It was an opinion piece (e.g. propaganda) that had phrases like "conservatives are becoming more conservative because of propaganda, whereas liberals are becoming more liberal while staying very much checked into reality." Yeah, hard hitting journalism there. Not propaganda at all.
As to me and my usual news sources. Honestly, I tend to use Google News feed that just aggregates news stories since I'm on the computer all of the time because of my business. Beyond that, I tend to have CNN on in the background but it's usually muted.
I can only says I've never read (or even heard of?) the sources you quoted up in your comment there.
Anyone who refuses to watch Fox cannot be trusted.
Ok, got your attention? Hear me out. Most leftists only listen to MSNBC, CNN, NPR, NBC etc. They REFUSE to listen to Fox.
Ever wonder why they are sooooo clueless as to what is really going on? They are only getting ONE point of view. One side.
It's so sad it's laughable.
On the flip side, I will say the same thing. I watch MSNBC (as much as I can tolerate their madness) but I watch CNN a ton. I also follow some liberals on twitter.
You have to be willing to listen to both sides or you are just a hack and ill informed. Hence, our media and their one sided views.
Read the article.
1. Most liberals watch CNN, not MSNBC.
2. More liberals listen to NPR than MSNBC.
3. Both CNN and NPR are more informative than FOX, which is less informative than not watching any news at all.
4. It's not about 'sides'... but it is interesting that you see it that way. Just because Fox represents your 'side' doesn't mean its audience is informed. Saying people need to watch both before they can be informed is like saying that people need to eat garbage before they can ever know how delicious a steak is.
We need to stop these false equivalencies. CNN may be factually inaccurate at times (as all MSM), but they are significantly more accurate than Fox. NPR is probably the most accurate of the TV channels.
Oh really? Why do you think this? I've seen blatant lying on CNN before and NPR is a constant streaming barrage of propaganda. Fox is bad to. On that one point we go agree.
Obviously a guy ranting about how the country is going into the toilet because gay marriage exists is 'political commentary', not news. I said news to distinguish it from X Factor and Big Bang Theory. Why do I even have to explain this?
And the news stories aren't 'dedicated', they're manipulative-- either because they're selected according to whether or not they promote the Fox agenda, or because they're covered in a manipulative way, or because they're just flat out fake.
Obviously you don't get it so I'll go into a little more detail.
These shows all fall into the same category, they are political commentary shows. They aren't news shows and it's important to understand the difference.
Oreilly, Hannity, Maddow, Schultz.... even MSNBC or the hosts are going to tell you that. They are comparable programming.
If you are going to compare news shows you need compare something like Shepard Smith, Wolf Blitzer or the Networks. Those are comparable programming, there is nothing on MSNBC that fits into this category.
This article also goes on to say that Fox News is watched by 8% of the adults.
Seems like you are purposely ignoring the point. Fox News seems to be important to the secondary news market like HuffPost. Hence it's month old stories keep looping around on the internet.
Catchy or controversial topics on Fox are very quickly picked up by everyone else. Some anchor said XYZ about Muslims. Now this story is going to be discussed on Jon Stewart, and looped all over YouTube and HuffPost for days and days.
2.4 M may be huge, but other times of the day, the viewership is 100K.
Stewart talks about Fox all week .... if not, he wouldn't even have a show.HuffPost loops Fox stories because it is an easy target and they dont have original content.
Fox news is not influential. Numbers don't lie.
Your argument seems to be that Fox News is only popular because of people who like to make fun of it.
That's actually pretty funny.
Also... what happens if you take 2.4 million and add 100k? And then if you add another 100k? Etc., etc. Are you getting my point about the ratings yet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
