1/17/2007 11:50:58 AM

A recent list of the 15 top-rated cable news shows was published and Fox News had them all--except one: Larry King Live. CNN took out a full-page ad in an industry magazine to brag about Larry King joining Fox News on the list.

Here’s the funny part: Larry King Live was listed lower on the list than a repeat of The O'Reilly Factor. And they are cheering about that over at CNN? What a joke!

PS: I couldn’t find a link, but this information was broadcast on TV this morning.

1/17/2007 12:02:30 PM

Hooksaw, please respond to this argument:

Quote :

"If the population is roughly 50/50 "liberal/conservative"(I know that's not exact but lets just use it for the sake of my argument) and there are 5 "liberal" stations and only 1 "conservative" station...wouldn't the conservative station be the most likely to gets the best ratings if the other side of the population is spread among the 5 liberal stations? "

and this one:

Quote :

"let's say you accept the hypothesis that all mainstream media sources are biased to some extent, whether it be towards a liberal, moderate, or conservative viewpoint, depending on which source you're talking about. let's take that as a given. then the stereotypical or most-often perceived assignation of those biases is that Fox News is conservative, CNN and NPR are liberal, and MSNBC, ABC, etc, are moderate-to-liberal. if you concede these points, then the practical explanation as to why Fox News is #1 is not that it's what the majority of Americans identify most closely with or want out of a newscast--if that was the case, then Fox News would have greater than 50% market share. The practical explanation is that they have no competition for whatever the conservative market is that exists, and the much larger number of other networks are competing against themselves for the same non-conservative audience. As long as that conservative market is larger than whatever share of the moderates and liberals the most successful moderate-liberal network can grab, then Fox News is #1. i hesitate to make the analogy here b/c it's not particularly apt and the percentages aren't similar, but it's sort of like a Ralph Nader effect. "

Before continuing to just repeat that Fox news has the best ratings

1/17/2007 12:08:27 PM

theres no such thing as a source without bias. bias happens all the time...most of the time it happens unintentionally.

thats why its important to get multiple views and not rely on a single source.

1/17/2007 12:09:26 PM

^^if i were trying to insinuate something like that i would get ridiculed and mocked for not citing legitimate sources

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/17/2007 12:10:23 PM

^^^ Look, man, if you want to contact Nielsen Media Research to argue with them, be my guest. I'm not going to argue with you about it--these are the facts according to the way ratings are currently tracked and tabulated.

You could argue points versus share, but I don't give a shit about that. If you want to make such an argument, have at it. In any event, Fox News continues to crush the competition--deal with it.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ^^ I don't--some here like to make assumptions.]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 12:55 PM. Reason : V So, you admit that the others represent a segment of liberal news outlets?]

1/17/2007 12:30:31 PM

Do you even understand the damn argument? The numbers are probably right, I trust the numbers. But it isn't hard to beat everyone else when you are the only station that does what you do and the other side is segmented into multiple stations. You want a real judge over what people trust more than add up the numbers of all the "liberal" stations and add up the numbers of all the "conservative" stations and see which is bigger

this isn't insinuation its basic logic.

1/17/2007 12:36:56 PM

Quote :

"You want a real judge over what people trust more than add up the numbers of all the "liberal" stations and add up the numbers of all the "conservative" stations and see which is bigger"

so more people trust a bunch of shiesty lie-spreading liberal stations than one shiesty lie-spreading conservative station

1/17/2007 12:39:30 PM

Quote :

"the neoliberal agenda just spreads misinformation that sympathizes more with terrorists than US troops"

Goddam are you really this stupid? Don't use terms you don't even understand. Go look up the fucking definition of neoliberalism. Christ on a stick...

1/17/2007 12:43:52 PM

^^Yes, that's what I'm saying. This whole thread and Hooksaw's arguments are about how Fox news has the highest ratings. Why make a thread about that point if you aren't assuming in some way that that is a good thing.

1/17/2007 12:47:18 PM

^^wow...that one went right over your head, even with the disclaimer

Quote :

"cnn is a joke...the neoliberal agenda just spreads misinformation that sympathizes more with terrorists than US troops btw before you bash this post, realize this is exactly what you sound like, except on the opposite end of the spectrum"

1/17/2007 12:48:27 PM

Quote :

"The richest members of Congress are Democrats"

http://blog.kasusa.org/interest/2006/9/11/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-roll-call.html
Cutting out the Commentary. Btw, the list is from pre november 2006
1 Kerry D
2 Kohl D
3 Rockefeller D
4 Harman D
5 Issa R
6 Hayes R
7 Taylor R
8 Feinstein D
9 Chafee R
10 McCain R
So...top 10 is even. 13 of those ranked 11-30 are Republican. 16 of those ranked 31-50 are Republican (includes an extra person because of a tie).

1/17/2007 12:52:31 PM

what party are the top 4 from?

1/17/2007 12:53:03 PM

i didnt say he was necessarily wrong. I dont know how he was defining richest. Did he mean top 5 of 535? Did he mean the top 10%?

1/17/2007 12:56:10 PM

^^^^and you don't even realize what i am pointing out.

neoliberals are renown the world over for support for free market and organizations such at the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and trade blocks such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Famous neoliberal political figures would include people such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan.

You used a term that had nothing to do with the situation to try to make a stupid generalization, and while you might think you were being clever, you were just demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what neoliberalism is, deals with, or is related to.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 12:58:12 PM

you again missed the point

1/17/2007 1:04:12 PM

your point was that you tried to take the liberal argument agaist conservatives and spin it around the other way, only you misused the term NEOLIBERAL in the process.

you shouldnt have used that term. it does not refer to what you're discussing. have you smoked yourself that stupid?

1/17/2007 1:05:56 PM

yeah i've smoked myself that stupid

have you picked your nose so much that you dug out some of your brain

oh look i can ask retarded questions about screennames when i dont have anything better to say

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 1:07:30 PM

do not trust the LIEberal media!

1/17/2007 1:12:27 PM

^x8 Thanks for confirming my point. Here's another: Dennis Hastert (R) is worth less than $1 million--Nancy Pelosi (D) is worth about $50 million.

Pelosi and the Democrats: Keeping in touch with the little people--or not.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 1:20 PM. Reason : ^]

1/17/2007 1:18:03 PM

1/17/2007 1:19:29 PM

jesus christ...republicans are starting to sound like the whiney democrats did for the past 6 years.

1/17/2007 1:19:53 PM

BBC admit left-wing bias:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574

The New York Times admits left-wing bias:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

CBS apologizes for mistake--of left-wing bias:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/21/MNGET8SAB01.DTL

And so it goes

PS: DON'T got to college; profit at NY Times: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32628

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 1:53:14 PM

Quote :

". The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears"

Quote :

"quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional."

Sounds like a real conspiracy to me.

The BBC admitted it in an effort to CHANGE it. That definetly makes them worse than Fox News.....

You linked to an editorial about the state of news in this country that starts by saying that CBS admitted they made a factual mistake. Quite an apology for bias.

1/17/2007 2:08:00 PM

^ Jesus! A "factual" error that just happened to be potentially very damaging to President Bush right before an election? An unverified story that they were so hard and wet to air they couldn't even take the time to get right? un-FUCKING-believable!

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : PS: It's not a conspiracy; it's groupthink and it's happening in public view.]

1/17/2007 2:21:58 PM

Wasn't there some study done that showed that people who watched Fox News were less informed than people who watched other news outlets. Like, they were more likely to believe Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected, etc...

1/17/2007 3:30:45 PM

yes bridget that study was conducted. ill have to look for it, but i remember it because one of my professors used it in class as to why he didnt want us getting our news from them.

also hooksaw, did Bush serve every day of his time in the guard? and why is it treasonous for someone to go to vietnam but its perfectly ok for a guy to skip out on his service in the national guard? why is it ok that the guy who would call me a terrorist because I dont think the president should be a dictator said he "had better things to do" during vietnam?

1/17/2007 3:34:45 PM

wow, you read world net daily. what a trustworthy, balanced source:



PS: most of my news comes from our local friends at WRAL!

1/17/2007 3:57:09 PM

Science = good
Religious Fundamentalism = bad
America = fallible
Iraq = not doing so well
Homosexuals/non-Christians = ok

Apparently these are now liberal ideas.

1/17/2007 3:58:21 PM

who do you agree with?

conservative truths

or

liberal lies

or should I say...LIEberals!

1/17/2007 4:00:54 PM

Quote :

"Wasn't there some study done that showed that people who watched Fox News were less informed than people who watched other news outlets."

BridgetSPK

WOW! A study done by people who probably voted for a Democrat? Jeepers!

Quote :

"i remember it because one of my professors used it in class as to why he didnt want us getting our news from them."

RevoltNow

Mellow greetings,

Continue to trust in the new church of academia, younglings. The high priests and priestesses of pedagogy have your thought process well in hand. Be well.

1/17/2007 5:15:24 PM

i knew you wouldnt believe it.

The study in question was actually fairly simple. It was a simple test of two questions. Was Iraq connected to 9-11? Were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? The study was done in either 04 or 05. These questions were used because they have a correct answer. Participants were then scored on how well they did.
Other questions asked included how well informed people thought they were and where they got their news from.

Those who watched Fox thought they were the best informed, yet scored the lowest. I dont remember where the rest ranked, but I think NPR was the best informed.

edit-and why would I trust anyone on TWW over a man with a PhD in Political Science on a question of whether or not a survey was biased or not? you do realize that surveys have to go through peer review where facts are checked, and where they try to eliminate bias, dont you?

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:25 PM. Reason : e]

1/17/2007 5:24:06 PM

^ According to who?

BTW, I have to go--for now.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:27 PM. Reason : PS: Like you're believing the facts I'm giving you? ]

1/17/2007 5:26:06 PM

Quote :

"where they try to eliminate bias"

havent we already concluded that everything has bias

1/17/2007 5:27:56 PM

1. The 9-11 terrorists were from the Middle East. So is Saddam. Coincidence? You liberals sure like to think so.

2. We totally found some traces of mustard gas in some artillery shells that had been buried 15 years ago.

PWNT!!!1 GO FOX!

1/17/2007 5:30:21 PM

1. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Terrorists who had their base in Afghanistan did. Therefore, Afghanistan is the only country in the world that is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world.

2. The UN Inspectors didnt find WMDs. Therefore Iraq was a threat to nobody at all.

PWNT!!!1 GO CNN!

1/17/2007 5:32:45 PM

Quote :

"1. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Terrorists who had their base in Afghanistan did. Therefore, Afghanistan is the only country in the world that is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. 2. The UN Inspectors didnt find WMDs. Therefore Iraq was a threat to nobody at all. PWNT!!!1 GO CNN!"

Fixed it for you. It was very correct, until you drew your own conclusions, which were of course retarded.

1/17/2007 5:37:14 PM

Found it. The survey was 2003. Questions were "By October of 2003 has the US found WMDs in Iraq?" "What was the majority of world opinion? for the war, even, against the war" and "By October 2003 the US has found evidence of Iraqi support for 9-11"

20 percent of Fox News answered all three correct. CBS 30, ABC 39, CNN 45, NBC 45, Print Media 53, NPR/PBS 77.

On the Al Qaeda question. Of those who didnt pay much attention but watched Fox 44% were wrong. Of those that watched Fox and payed very close attention 80% were wrong. Amongst everyone else the rate of misperceptions went down when they spent more time paying attention to the news.

Interestingly, they also tested with both Party and support of the Pres. Those who supported Bush were much more likely to be wrong. When they controlled for that there was no difference between parties.

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu:2181/content/taps/psq/2003/00000118/00000004/art00002

1/17/2007 5:39:40 PM

Quote :

"havent we already concluded that everything has bias"

Of course. But the purpose of peer review is to try and eliminate that among professional, academic research.

1/17/2007 5:41:04 PM

^^GG on finding that. It still cracks me up.

1/17/2007 5:42:17 PM

surly this was conducted by LIEberals.

we need some Newsmax/WorldNetDaily commentary

1/17/2007 5:47:38 PM

No it must have been the Republinazi's on Faux News

We need some thinkprogress.org articles for the real facts

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ambrosia]

1/17/2007 5:53:25 PM

lets be real and honest here

the left does have plenty of uneducated, uninformed individuals that vote heavily for them, probably as many as the right does

thats only because the democrats promise them stuff (then never does anything for them)


this whole thing about how liberals are the only ones with an education or that they are the ones who are "well informed" is getting old


smells very elitist and kerry/kennedyesque

1/17/2007 6:00:10 PM

way to quote both republican talking points AND ignore the point of the article.

Quote :

"thats only because the democrats promise them stuff (then never does anything for them)"

Ignoring your english, we can probably agree that one could find evidence of this from both parties. Its pointless to talk about it.

Quote :

"this whole thing about how liberals are the only ones with an education or that they are the ones who are "well informed" is getting old"

What I said was that those who watch FOX news dont know shit, because Fox lies to them. The others, while there may be bias, do a better job of actually educating their viewers.
Ironically for you I mentioned that the study found that whether the person was a Republican or Democrat had NO EFFECT on their misperceptions.

1/17/2007 6:14:13 PM

omfg I made a typo... I'm a big dummie head


big deal

I wasn't going for talking points, it's a well known fact

both sides have idiots that vote for them

I read the article, I was just adding my .02

and btw, I don't watch fox news at all, but I don't watch the others either

I read news via papers and the internet

guess you left out this point

Quote :

"smells very elitist and kerry/kennedyesque"

either way, people have gotten hung up on being elitist assholes and it's kinda irritating after a while



[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 6:39 PM. Reason : OH NOES ANOTHER TYPO, LET ME DELETE IT BEFORE YOU POINT IT OUT]

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 6:38:37 PM

Quote :

"thats only because the democrats promise them stuff (then never does anything for them)"

you mean like how the republicans play the religious right for votes and never really do anything? you mean like how partisan politics works?

1/17/2007 7:38:15 PM

Both sides have plenty of uneducated people supporting them.

Only one side's leadership revels in it, though.

1/17/2007 8:28:00 PM

[old]

1/17/2007 8:56:07 PM

[yet Republicans still refuse to admit that they pander to stupidity]

1/17/2007 9:01:21 PM

everybody in the south and midwest are dumb as shit! people on the west coast and new england are all smart!

1/17/2007 9:07:31 PM