So, if CNN says where the million man march will be, at what time, etc (generally facilitating it) then they are promoting an agenda? What if local news stations says where a KKK rally will be held?
Push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
So, if CNN says where the million man march will be, at what time, etc (generally facilitating it) then they are promoting an agenda? What if local news stations says where a KKK rally will be held?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's an example of a new Faux News lie that the White House needs to respond to:
During the October 15 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity distorted remarks by Dalia Mogahed, a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, by claiming that Mogahed shared "thoughts about spreading Sharia law" on a British television channel and falsely suggesting that Mogahed said that "[t]here's a lot of Americans who think Muslim countries should be governed by Sharia law."
In fact, Mogahed said that she was "sure there are people out there" who believe that "the United States and Britain and other countries should be open to, the concept of, you know, integrating Sharia into laws in Muslim-majority societies"; during the exchange, she did not discuss what "a lot of Americans ... think" about Sharia law.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160047
In fact, Mogahed said that she was "sure there are people out there" who believe that "the United States and Britain and other countries should be open to, the concept of, you know, integrating Sharia into laws in Muslim-majority societies"; during the exchange, she did not discuss what "a lot of Americans ... think" about Sharia law.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160047
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Mogahed made clear that she sees her job as conveying Muslim opinion, not engaging in advocacy
Mogahed: "[M]y role is not one of a lobbyist; it's one of a researcher." During Mogahed's appearance on Muslimah Dilemma, a caller to the program asked how Mogahed could "use her role to make people in America accept that not everybody wants to live their way and accept the law in a Muslim land." Mogahed responded: "I think what my role is, is very clear to me: to convey to the advisory council and through the advisory council to the president and to other public officials what it is Muslims want. I'm not here to advocate for one point of view or another, I'm simply a researcher who is able to convey accurately and in a representative way the actual views of Muslims so that they're speaking for themselves rather than having others speak for them." She went on to state, "[M]y role is not one of a lobbyist; it's one of a researcher."
Mogahed: "[M]y role is not one of a lobbyist; it's one of a researcher." During Mogahed's appearance on Muslimah Dilemma, a caller to the program asked how Mogahed could "use her role to make people in America accept that not everybody wants to live their way and accept the law in a Muslim land." Mogahed responded: "I think what my role is, is very clear to me: to convey to the advisory council and through the advisory council to the president and to other public officials what it is Muslims want. I'm not here to advocate for one point of view or another, I'm simply a researcher who is able to convey accurately and in a representative way the actual views of Muslims so that they're speaking for themselves rather than having others speak for them." She went on to state, "[M]y role is not one of a lobbyist; it's one of a researcher."
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Bush was virtually raped in the media for doing just that - in the Joe Wilson saga.
You sorry liberals can't have it both ways.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How did you like 'Loose Change?'
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Respectable journalists should stop appearing" on Fox News
Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question. Whether we journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists-I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson-should stop appearing on its programs. A boycott would make Ailes too happy, so let's try just ignoring Fox, shall we? And no, I don't want to come on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
An editorial piece in "newsWeek" magazine, written by the leftist son of a social-activist lawyer from Chicago. And the same man who said people shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because of his religion.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
John Aravosis Says Fox is a Political Operation
John Aravosis Says Fox is a Political Operation
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910180005
John Aravosis Says Fox is a Political Operation
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910180005
And Cal, how do you frame Ailes - wouldn't he be a former (and in my opinion current) political operative for the right, grandson of fascist sympathizers, who once said...
"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"
Did Ailes just write an opinion piece that's being taken seriously, published in Newsweek, telling everyone to avoid MSNBC?
NO?
So you're just just trying to muscle in another talking point.
No thanks, not interested in playing.
Did Newsweek run any stories about the outrageous bias in MSNBCs coverage of Obama during the election and since? When Chris Mathews said this:
YouTube - Chris Mathews: My Job Is To Make Obama Presidency Successful
"I'm going to do everything to make this new presidency work. That's my job."
Or this:
YouTube - Chris Matthews' thrill up leg
"I felt this thrill going up me leg (when he hears Obama speak)"
And mind you, Mathews and Olberman aren't performing the roles of commentators there, they are reporting the news, covering the event.
That would be like if O'Reilly and Hannity were covering an event together, Of course, that wouldn't happen, Fox News would HAVE THEIR NEWS DIVISION DO IT- and you'd see Brett Bair and a panel of 4 mixed opinions or something like that instead.
Do we really need to also delve into the entire GE /Obama White House / MSNBC connections?
So, MSNBC needs to label itself as left, and take the arrows shot at it from the right - fine - I don't care. They are left - waaaaayyyy left. They should embrace it... go for it... Just like Fox should just admit it is right. Ailes certainly has taken the Fox News down that road - it was why he was hired. You don't hire an old advertising/campaign guy for the right if you don't think he isn't going to move you in that direction. That is Ailes profile, his past is why he has this job. Murdock wanted to move Fox News to the conservative side of the coin. Once again Cal, you don't seem to understand my point here.
They are all biased. Whether you stick promos for Beck in the middle of your newscast, with a 60 second spot that addresses the very issue you were talking about in your 'legit news' right before the break, or you allow commentators to cover national events ala MSNBC and Olberman, you are allowing your bias to show.
Oh, during Fox's coverage of the convention their non partisan analysis included Laura Ingraham and Karl Rove, along with pre recorded stuff by O'Reilly. They also spent large amounts of time talking about the Obama/Ayers connection during the convention. That is fine - I don't care... I don't turn into fox thinking I am going to get anything different. I don't turn into MSNBC thinking that I am going to get non-biased coverage.
Newsweek is biased too... go for it Newsweek... Maybe Murdock can by US News and do the same thing... The LA Times went after MSNBC's bias, so did Politico. And once Murdock buys a national news magazine, they will go after MSNBC as well...
The forth column is a joke... it is driven by Nielsens, rate cards, audience polls, boards, quarterly profits and Wall Street. Murdock knows this, GE knows this, everyone in the business knows this. Find your niche, sell the heck out of it, and make your stockholders happy. Murdock's News Corporation stock holders are probably quite happy with Ailes direction of Fox News. Right, right and more right...
They are all biased. Whether you stick promos for Beck in the middle of your newscast, with a 60 second spot that addresses the very issue you were talking about in your 'legit news' right before the break, or you allow commentators to cover national events ala MSNBC and Olberman, you are allowing your bias to show.
Oh, during Fox's coverage of the convention their non partisan analysis included Laura Ingraham and Karl Rove, along with pre recorded stuff by O'Reilly. They also spent large amounts of time talking about the Obama/Ayers connection during the convention. That is fine - I don't care... I don't turn into fox thinking I am going to get anything different. I don't turn into MSNBC thinking that I am going to get non-biased coverage.
Newsweek is biased too... go for it Newsweek... Maybe Murdock can by US News and do the same thing... The LA Times went after MSNBC's bias, so did Politico. And once Murdock buys a national news magazine, they will go after MSNBC as well...
The forth column is a joke... it is driven by Nielsens, rate cards, audience polls, boards, quarterly profits and Wall Street. Murdock knows this, GE knows this, everyone in the business knows this. Find your niche, sell the heck out of it, and make your stockholders happy. Murdock's News Corporation stock holders are probably quite happy with Ailes direction of Fox News. Right, right and more right...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Has White House Push Back Been Effective?
Following White House communications director Anita Dunn's recent critique of Fox News serving as an "arm" of the Republican Party, Fox News did not devote any live coverage to what it had previously referred to as the October 17 "tea part[y]" protests by Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?, an organization that planned "to show the MSM [mainstream media] that we as the American Public are absolutely fed up with their journalistic malpractice."
By contrast, Fox News devoted significant promotion and live coverage of the April 15 tax day tea party and the September 12 "March on Washington."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910190001
Let me first point, I agree with the principle you're supporting here 100%. The news media has largely perpetuated a lie for the past century as they thrust increasingly left leaning agendas on the public under the guise of impartial, objective news reporting.
But, I still maintain that the FOX NEWS division is the most centrist one available in the mainstream media today. The NEWS DIVISION is the most balanced presentation of the news available. Watch the 6 PM news for a couple nights and compare that to the evening news on NBC, ABC, CBS, or the other two cable networks. Again, I emphasize the NEWS DIVISION, such as Fox News Sunday or the evening news program Special Report w/Brett Baier.
Once again, you're squirming around.
Even if we were to agree that the News Division was right leaning, and when contrasted with the other networks, it would appear that way. That doesn't mean that they are aligned with the GOP or a political arm of the Republican party, as you and Obama and Annita Dunn have essential argued.
Note- you said ANALYSTS... commentators.
But you failed to note that those two analysts (and I would tend to say that Rove is a good analyst based upon his experience) among an equal number of liberal and partisan Democrat analyst as well.
You mean his t.v. show?
You didn't mention the specific event, so I don't know specifically what you're talking about. However, the network routinely has equal number of representatives on any news program.
Rightly so- though that was mostly the COMMENTATORS doing so.
Unfortunately, they were the ONLY ones doing this. There was media silence everywhere else.
We've had this discussion before, you won't embrace reality.
If the media were purely driven by ratings, then you'd see more outlets abandoning the leftwing bias demonstrated so unapologetically by MSNBC. You'd see an effort to hire more commentators like Fox. When you consider the success of Fox News' evening ratings, how they beat all of the competition COMBINED, if this was a profit driven pursuit, then you'd expect more organizations to try to emulate the most successful model, rather than continuing the descent of MSNBC.
so, just to be clear - you are throwing in the big 3 here - correct? I think they are biased as well... but, you are including them as well - right?
They certainly are a voice for the philosophies of the right/GOP. They don't have to be card carrying members to be parroting the same ideals, which they are. They are Ailes' reflection. And once again, if the News division is supporting their programing with reflections of their commentary, promoting their commentary, etc. they are coloring their news broadcast. I did watch them once last week - they had 5 promo spots for their commentators during the news, often timed to reflect the 'hard' news they were reporting on at the time. If you have a story regarding Obama's noble prize, and then show an O'Reilly commercial with a snippet of him attacking the validity of the prize - it colors your news program.
Cal - you were talking about analysts (opinion) as well...
So, who did Fox have as left rebuttal - I can tell you who CNN had...
.
We were talking about the DNC - at least that is what you started out with, and I continued... now maybe you want to switch events -
OK - what world do you live in Cal? Fox News averages about 2.8 million viewers - the rest - 23 million, so Fox News sits at about 12 percent or so... wow - they really are dominating the market aren't they? They probably dominate their cable market because the other side has more choices. Once other choices are opened up for the right - Fox's share will go down. It could be why it has taken a while for anyone to crack into this - how hard are you willing to work for say even 1/3 of Fox's News audience? It would make sense for CNN - and perhaps they will be the one to move over, they are running right at 1 million now. But, that would be a wash for them to move right - and the investment would be rather large. They would probably have to go after some commentators on Fox, and promise larger salaries. The economics might not be in there for them.
I said before, someone else will go conservative - I am not sure, but they will... they move like dinosaurs, but someone will do it.
Cal - Fox is what Fox is - it isn't centrist. It only appears that way to you because you are right as well. It reflects your viewpoints. They have crafted a product that reflects their market share. They made it palatable and pleasing to you, you are their target audience. Great - go out and buy the products advertised on their shows.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
WorldNetDaily, followed by the Drudge Report and Fox Nation, falsely claimed that during a January 12 speech, White House communications director Anita Dunn boasted about the White House's "control" over the media. In fact, Dunn was discussing the Obama campaign's strategy for controlling the campaign's message, not the media; moreover, her comments were made before Obama had taken office and before she became communications director.
This is awkward. Last month Fox News purchased a full-page ad in the Washington Post blasting its television news competitors for having ignored the "tea party" story, and especially the Sept. 12, anti-Obama rally in the nation's capitol. The clear implication behind the bogus claim was that the liberal media were blind to conservative protests.
But uh-oh, over the weekend, the tea party protesters were back on the pavement, this time picketing media outlets, and guess what? Fox News ignored them.
This is awkward. Last month Fox News purchased a full-page ad in the Washington Post blasting its television news competitors for having ignored the "tea party" story, and especially the Sept. 12, anti-Obama rally in the nation's capitol. The clear implication behind the bogus claim was that the liberal media were blind to conservative protests.
But uh-oh, over the weekend, the tea party protesters were back on the pavement, this time picketing media outlets, and guess what? Fox News ignored them.
Do you have a link to this.
I can't comment without having seen it.
So, according to your cut and paste, they were telling the truth, Ms. Dunn had infact said that.
Actually, it took an add asking how the other networks had missed the story of the 9/12 Rally in Washington, D.C.
The clear implication was that they missed a very large story.
It doesn't venture into the "why".
You do know that this observation undermines the previous claims of activist journalism.
Depends on who's numbers you trust.
I don't trust your numbers.
I do trust the people I know who were there though, and they continue to insist the numbers were significantly higher than tens of thousands.
Though the NY Times did provide very flattering coverage in the A section of their paper for it
And it wasn't hostile like the limited tea party coverage, nor did it call the group "radical leftists" or liberals, despite all the socialist groups that turned up.
I don't see any reason why you would exclude them...
And I will repeat, that the Fox News journalist are the most fair and objective in the industry.
But you tell me, what is the political agenda of Chris Wallace or Bret Baier?
Again, I disagree.
The NEWS division, the journalists, are the most fair and objective of organization on television. If you think that they are far right, then that demonstrates how radically left the rest of the industry consistently is.
Fox is further differentiated because they have COMMENTATORS on in the evening that unabashedly express a philosophy that is contrary to the one that Obama and his administration are advancing.
You watched them ONCE last week.
And they ran promos for their prime time broadcasts.....
That's your smoking gun? That's how you want to validate this ridiculous political attack from the White House on the ONLY network that dares report news critical of them?
No, I was talking about MSNBC using their commentators to cover significant campaign events in the role of journalists. Olberman and Mathews covering the news....
Rebuttal? If the program has a panel, it will usually consist of 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
If you aren't aware of this, you've demonstrated that you don't know anything about the network or it's programing and that despite your aggressive enthusiasm to demonize and delegitimize dishonestly.
Off the top of my head, it'll be Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Mort Kondracke, and I can't think of all the "Democrat Strategists" that routinely make their way through D.C. and do the network rounds.
As for who specifically appeared on TV during the DNC convention... which day, which show, and why would I even know or remember that?
The possibility to obfuscate with a data dump of numbers presented itself and you couldn't resist the temptation.....
Probably? Did you add that qualifier in so no one would call you liar, you could just plead ignorance?
If that were the case- then the combine ratings of the other news networks would at least EQUAL that of Fox News in the evening, wouldn't it? That's what you're clearly implying there.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work out like that, does it.
Let's get some ratings information from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html]the Huffington Post:
O'Reilly averaged 3.295 million viewers in Q3 of 2009. (up 12% from previous year)
Hannity averaged 2.603 million (up 9% from the previous year)
Greta van Susteren (is she a conservative Republican too?) averaged 2.150 (Up 16%)
Special Report with Bret Baier averaged 1.99 million viewers. (Up 20%)
and at 5 PM, Glenn Beck has averaged 2.403 million viewers. (up 85%- this is a figure from Huffington, so I'm not sure where it comes from if that's compared to his old HLN ratings or the old show at 5PM on Fox)
(I don't know if those viewership numbers include the rebroadcasts later in the night, but since they're all coming from the Huffington Post, the comparison should certainly be fair to MSNBC and CNN)
And all of those programs showed strong growth in their audience size.
The same can't be said for either CNN or MSNBC.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year
"The Rachel Maddow Show" averaged 996,000 total viewers (Maddow began the program in September 2008, so a comparison for the quarter would be inaccurate; compared to September 2008, though, Maddow's September 2009 total viewer average is down 40%).
At CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17%
"Lou Dobbs" averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%.
Larry King and Campbell Brown were both down just slightly in total viewers.
But lets take a snapshot and compare all the ratings.
As I stated, IF YOU ADD UP THE VIEWERS OF ALL THREE NEWS NETWORKS, including headline news, YOU STILL DO NOT EQUAL THE RATINGS OF FOX NEWS.
And- Fox News is experiencing a surge in viewership while the other networks are LOSING viewers.
So, you're probably a liar or just wrong...
Why would they do that?
Then they'd have the White House trying to destroy them.
Rahm Emanuel and David Axlerod made that abundantly clear this weekend.
Isolate it, delegitimize it or ridicule it, and make it an example to any other network that has the integrity to challenge this administration.
YouTube - Rahm Emanuel on White House's War with Fox News
But, what you're saying is that you think it's appropriate for this White House to seek to destroy and damage the ONLY voice in News that is displaying any objectivity and criticism towards the them. That's a very dangerous position to take.
Last edited by a moderator:
And I trust someone I know who was there and has seen 70,000 people on the mall in the past, he has seen 250,000 people on the mall, he has seen 500,000 people on the mall, he has seen over a million people on the mall. When he states 70,000 to 100,000 I believe him. You keep saying Cal that your friends haven’t been part of protests before. They don’t know what 100,000 people look like on the Mall – they haven't been part of protests before that involve tens of thousands of people or perhaps even 100,000 people. If you don’t have experience with those numbers – then how can you accurately gauge?
And guess what CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC all covered the gay protest with approximately the same amount of air time they did with the 9-12 protest. That is who is in the ad cal – not NYT. Who is playing favorites? Fox gave the gay protest 3 minutes – next day – with borrowed footage. Who covers all the news - obviously not Fox. Fox covers the news that they think will be appealing to their viewers. Gay protests aren't appealing to their viewers so it gets 3 minutes, next day, buried. 9-12 protests gets tons of coverage - it gets marketing before the event - lots and lots of it, it gets a huge amount of coverage after the event, including a full page ad. Fox marketed the protest like a professional PR firm... Because that is what they are for the 9-12 movement-they are the PR firm behind it.
And you can be the most fair reporter in the industry – but, when the stories you are allowed to read on the air deal with flash point issues, or if every other commercial on your broadcast is for right wing pundits, then your playground is skewed. Fox is skewed because 1 hour is devoted to news and 8 hours is devoted to right wing pundits… One good teacher does not make for a good school.
And those commentators – the amount of them, their obvious right wing bent, and the amount of publicity that they generate, along with the amount of additional air time they get within the 'news' hour (such as commercials, using them as talking heads during broadcasts, etc), skew the station Cal. If I had Wallace and Baier on MSNBC and surrounded them with Olberman, Harry Smith, and the like – and ran commercials during their news broadcast that touted those pundits over and over and over again, my station would be considered ‘left’, and correctly so.
I could watch Baier, but to watch him on Fox is painful – to watch those annoying commercials for Beck over and over again. Perhaps I should tivo him and then fast forward during the commercials.
Sweetheart – you brought up a point that Fox out shines all its competitors combined – well, they don’t. They don’t even come close – I had numbers – you didn’t. Sorry if the cookie didn’t crumble like you said it did. Talk about obfuscation… anyone can claim anything cal – show me the numbers…
Really-
CBS News – 5.7 million
ABC News – 7.6 million
NBC News – 8.3 million
FOX News - 1.9 million
You keep adding the big 3 to your discussion – I even asked you in the beginning if you wanted to do that – you did.
So, lets play with the big boys Cal.
Three times as many people watch lowly CBC (Katie Couric sweetheart) than Fox –
People have a choice cal – they still chose broadcast news over alternative news – they continue to tune into the big three in spite of the options given to them on cable/satellite/web. And those are liberal – all 3 of them.
Cry foul, cry cable news only – no it isn’t cable news only Cal – wake up – you need to compare apples to apples. When ESPN can garner 21 million viewers for a football game (Monday Night Football), and broadcast (NBCs Sunday Night Football) gets 20 million – they are now apples and apples.
MSNBC doesn't get as many viewers because people watch NBC instead... CNN doesn't get as many viewers because people watch CBS instead.
Fox is a small player – they will continue to be a small player because of their right wing skew. They are the only player on that side of the field. Once someone else takes up that format, they will become even a smaller player. There are only so many people who want to watch their news in that type of format – if another station wants a piece of the pie – all the pieces get smaller, not bigger. Fox has grown over the last 2 years, but is now leveling off – they might see a bit of resurgence as the 2010 elections heat up – but, they need an event like that to complement their numbers…
Fox News is right wing – it is how they are marketed, it is how they are presented, it is how the entire network colors itself. Fox now has to take the good with the bad. Some success, but people see the entire station, including their news as right wing. That is their decision, they now live with the consequences.
And I know people that were there that have seen large crowds on the wall as well, they vehemently dispute the number provided by your friends. And among the people I'm relying upon are democrat DC attorneys.
So, as credible as your claim may (or may not) be, I'm going to simply have to disagree with you.
Regarding yet another Gay Pride event, even if you want to pretend the turn out was equal- which I dispute.... I don't think the 9/12 Rally people had room for a big gay line dancing stage, gay marching bands, or room for those guys to ride around on roller skates wearing a g-string with sparkly wings and roller skates.
But disregarding the turn out, the nature of the event was vastly different. I've never seen tens of hundreds of thousands of non-activists, regular middle-Americans show up to peacefully assemble at the capital to politely ask for more responsible government before. That's significant. That's a story, and a story that continues to develop.
Regarding the coverage, Fox did report on the event both leading up to and the day of. However, it wasn't just a rally, it was a series of events. Fox spent more of their time covering the President's involvement speaking at the big gay dinner that evening rather than the gay line dancing, or the marching militant homosexual socialists strutting about.
If you think that the annual, touring Gay Pride event in D.C. was as significant as the 9/12 Rally, then we'll have to disagree.
So, you've now lowered the bar so low that merely running a commerical promoting a later broadcast that YOU disagree with justifies your efforts to demonize and delegitimize it.
I disagree with your ratio completely.
Fox News has news until 5 PM, when Glenn Beck airs. He's certainly not a friend of the GOP. Then straight news from 6PM (Shep Smith) and 7PM (Bret Baier). 8PM O'Reilly- who has an opinion, but certainly gives both sides a hearing. As seems to be the policy at Fox News, guest present both sides of an argument. For example, one pro, one con. One democrat strategist, one republican strategist.
Hannity at 9PM, same policy.
Greta Van Sustren at 10PM. She's not a Republican or a conservative at all.
And that's the prime time line up.
So where's the 8 to 1 ratio you speak of? It doesn't exist, you're simply repeating lies in an effort to win your point. There's really no depth that you won't sink.
Again, thanks for confirming, the NEWS on the network is quality and fair, you just don't like the opposing commentary.
I did... Fox News competes against the other CABLE NEWS NETWORKS.
Would you like me to repeat them.
I'll gladly do that....
And I responded with this:
Probably? Did you add that qualifier in so no one would call you liar, you could just plead ignorance?
If that were the case- then the combine ratings of the other news networks would at least EQUAL that of Fox News in the evening, wouldn't it? That's what you're clearly implying there.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work out like that, does it.
Let's get some ratings information from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...uffington Post:
O'Reilly averaged 3.295 million viewers in Q3 of 2009. (up 12% from previous year)
Hannity averaged 2.603 million (up 9% from the previous year)
Greta van Susteren (is she a conservative Republican too?) averaged 2.150 (Up 16%)
Special Report with Bret Baier averaged 1.99 million viewers. (Up 20%)
and at 5 PM, Glenn Beck has averaged 2.403 million viewers. (up 85%- this is a figure from Huffington, so I'm not sure where it comes from if that's compared to his old HLN ratings or the old show at 5PM on Fox)
(I don't know if those viewership numbers include the rebroadcasts later in the night, but since they're all coming from the Huffington Post, the comparison should certainly be fair to MSNBC and CNN)
And all of those programs showed strong growth in their audience size.
The same can't be said for either CNN or MSNBC.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year
"The Rachel Maddow Show" averaged 996,000 total viewers (Maddow began the program in September 2008, so a comparison for the quarter would be inaccurate; compared to September 2008, though, Maddow's September 2009 total viewer average is down 40%).
At CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17%
"Lou Dobbs" averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%.
Larry King and Campbell Brown were both down just slightly in total viewers.
But lets take a snapshot and compare all the ratings.
As I stated, IF YOU ADD UP THE VIEWERS OF ALL THREE NEWS NETWORKS, including headline news, YOU STILL DO NOT EQUAL THE RATINGS OF FOX NEWS.
And- Fox News is experiencing a surge in viewership while the other networks are LOSING viewers.
So, you're probably a liar or just wrong...
But let me amend that... you're probably just a liar.
When we were discussing the tone of their coverage.
Network news programs are institutions with much greater exposure and access into homes. But you note that all 3 of them are liberal, but do they present themselves as such? Or do they continue to lie to the public as they insist that they are fair and objective?
Additionally, if you really want to view this with a market perspective, which way are their ratings trending right now?
The network news is experiencing a steep decline in viewership while Fox News continues to gain audience.
If they're such a small player with such small, ideological audience, why is the White House investing so much attention and political capitol in attacking them? That doesn't make much sense, does it?
You slipped earlier and acknowledged that the NEWS coverage on Fox was in fact fair and objective. And we both agree that Fox is the ONLY network that showcases opinions that challenge this White House. You just said that clearly, "they are the only player on that side of the field."
So, according to you, FOX is the ONLY network that presents a critical voice of the government in the television media. Yet, you embrace the efforts to have them targeted and destroyed for purely political reasons?
And those consequences are what, exactly?
"Targeted and Made to Pay" as you've stated earlier?
They should be used as an example, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's chief political advisor David Axlerod stated during interviews this weekend. They clearly expressed a threat to other news organizations to not start asking them hard questions lest they will be targeted and punished as they seek to do to Fox.
It would seem that you and the Obama administration only like "free speech" when it agrees with you. When it obstructs or exposes your agenda, to quote you, they become a "target" and have to "pay the price".
Why doesn't the administration simply answer the questions being asked?
Why not confront the charges and challenges being made? So far, all of those "lies" have turned out to be accurate.
And day after day, foxpaws, you demonstrate you're utter unwillingness to address any of these issues with a shred of honesty or integrity. You've unintentionally revealed more about yourself in this thread than I think you wanted too...
But if you run into Mark Rudd at another social affair, tell him all of us at LVC say "hi."
Last edited by a moderator: