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.
I find it interesting that in a forum dedicated to politics, which news "brand" is watched or the highest rated somehow enters the topic of conversation so much. If you're bragging that your particular news organization had the highest number of viewers on a big political night, I don't understand why that's such a big deal. Does it console you in some way that because you watch the same news as a majority of other people that you must have the right idea?
When I turn on Fox News, for example, nary is there a time when the giant, 36 point font at the bottom of the screen doesn't say "BREAKING NEWS" with some stupid ticker about Obama and their latest manufactured controversy. If I turn on CNN, the giant "BREAKING NEWS" is in a slightly different font and sometimes located elsewhere on the screen but it too has some other manufactured controversy. This may be what you expect from competing news organizations and that's all fine and great.
But, since when is it considered an intellectual advancement that you prefer one news organization over another? Are people so proud of their inability to think for themselves that they've locked into one news organization to tell them what to believe, how to research, and how to think? Whatever happened to reading things like John Locke's Second Treatise of Government to get an idea of what Jefferson was thinking when he wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It seems we replace that with "last night on Bill O'Reilly...." and somehow we're proud of the minimalized, directed, one-dimensional thought process.
Then, some people even have the stones to go online and brag about how much their, and I quote the Fox News advertisement, "America's most watched television news network," is not mainstream and yet somehow is America's most watched TV network. I have breaking news for those who are so "into" the news network wars. And, yes, I know it's not in 48-size font so it may be hard to digest or catch your attention but:
If your TV network news brags about being the most watched news network in America then you don't also get to complain that there is some "mainstream" news network out there with an ulterior motive. Well, I suppose nothing is stopping you, but for those watching, I've always wondered how they never connected the dots that if you're watching America's most watched news network, you're also watching the mainstream media.
And, by the way, one brilliant marketing ploy is to play an "us vs. them" game for brand loyalty - you see Ford and Chevy do this, Apple and Samsung, Apple and Microsoft, and, yes, Fox and CNN and other news networks. This builds brand loyalty and forces people further into their respective holes. It makes them "loyal" and, if that's happening with the news you're receiving, you should always be wondering if you're liking what you hear because you agree with it on some strong philosophical and thought-based principle or if you're liking what you hear because your favorite news organization said so.
In other words, the entire premise of this thread and others like it is stupid. It pits brand loyalty into American politics. And then people blame our government for being too polarized... I have a feeling people's brand loyalty helps create the polarized atmosphere we see in government.
I thought MSNBC has the worst coverage, talking too much about the Florida governor's race - well that is until it became apparent Crist was going to lose and then having odd calls, waiting too long on some, too early on others and generally talking around the election results without actually giving the results much time or credence.
I thought CNN's coverage was pretty good. Decent selection of people with differing views on the panel and they had the best graphics. Devoted plenty of time to the results but skewed a bit too heavy towards the Senate races and I was quite interested in several Governor's races.
FOX was decent too. Didn't like their graphics as much but they did a fairly good job with coverage of the various races, not spending too much time on any one thing (e.g, Senate, House, Governors). Their panel was just so-so but I appreciated their coverage of the actual results.
All in all, I think FOX and CNN had decent coverage of the election but MSNBC was absolutely dismal. I didn't bother with any of the network news coverage.
Saw some of all three, liked CNN the best. John King has his stuff down pat and I think he really knows all those counties when is doing his thing. MSNBC was the worst, all gloomy. Fox was ok, not a fan of the bias from the anchors. CNN has bias in the panels but no from the anchors.
I watched ABC for a bit, that's where Nate Silver was.
But really, unless you have a great desire to listen to talking heads, all the major internet news sites work just fine.
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.
