CPI = facepalm

11/8/2010 10:13:37 PM

So what better measure do you have?

11/8/2010 10:20:24 PM

The same measure of CPI before the government started gaming it to avoid COLA increases that they didn't want to pay for.

11/8/2010 10:25:37 PM

11/16/2010 5:15:51 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/fox-news-chief-obamas-socialism-left-of-france/

Quote :

"Fox News chief: Obama's 'socialism' left of France (CNN) – Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes isn't holding back when it comes to his opinion of President Obama, saying in a recent interview that he espouses a version of "socialism…too far left" even for some European countries."

11/17/2010 4:02:07 PM

^The interview gets worse

Fox News Chief Blasts NPR 'Nazis'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20101118/ts_dailybeast/11039_foxnewschiefrogerailesblastsnationalpublicradiobrassasnazis_1

Quote :

"They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view. They don’t even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. They are basically Air America with government funding to keep them alive"

Later, in an apology to the Anti-Defamation League, not NPR execs, he states that he should have used the term "nasty inflexible bigot".

He then starts complaining, in the letter of apology to the ADL, about the rabbis who complained about Glenn Beck's constant use of the term "Nazi" as a descriptor of his rhetorical targets.

11/19/2010 9:26:11 AM

b-b-b-but... Dan Rather!

11/19/2010 9:51:59 AM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/fox-news-reject-ad-dont-tell/

Quote :

"Fox News has declined to air an ad advocating for repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military, a source at the public policy think tank Palm Center informs Raw Story. The 30-second spot by the Center, called "Business As Usual," includes testimony from military leaders of NATO allies arguing that lifting the ban on gay soldiers is a "non-event" and does not diminish combat effectiveness. "Fox's reason was that the policy is 'on hold' so plans for repeal are 'incorrect'," Cathy Renna, a spokeswoman for the Center, told Raw Story. The ad includes testimony from Major General (now Lieutenant General) Walter Semianiw, Chief of Military Personnel in the Canadian Forces, and Major General Simon Willis (retired), former Head of Defence Personnel in the Australian Defence. "There is no negative impact of having men and women of any sexual orientation fighting together," says Semianiw in the ad. Adds Willis, comparing the lifting of the ban to Y2K: "It was a non-event, and it continues to be a non-event.""

11/24/2010 12:11:24 AM

http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/30/cbs-super-bowl-commerical-rejected-mancrunch/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/30/nbc-rejects-pro-life-ad-featuring-obama/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071207/rejected-ad/

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=661760

That took me eleventy-one seconds.

11/24/2010 2:38:53 AM

The CBS ad you're referencing was intentionally designed to never air, since they'd get more attention if it didn't. It was poorly done and put up for a very competitive spot as a super bowl ad. That is an entirely different situation.



[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM. Reason : 2nd one is a super bowl ad too? you might want to spend more than eleventy-one seconds next time.]

[Edited on November 24, 2010 at 2:56 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2010 2:52:33 AM

11/26/2010 1:26:42 PM

Looks like they are phasing back in the wonky images.

11/29/2010 3:52:16 PM

From Fox and Friends:

12/23/2010 1:10:12 AM

^Clearly out-of-context. But still funny.

...That image is way out-of-context, right? As in, it might have made some reasonable amount of sense within the segment it aired on? If not, that's not even bias or anything... that's just incompetence on the part of the people who write the footers.

[Edited on December 23, 2010 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

12/23/2010 1:19:30 AM

He's obviously a Holocaust survivor, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. They said that apparently, they were either trying to put both on the screen, or mixed them up. So, I guess he could have been a Nobel Peace Prize survivor too.

12/24/2010 2:21:45 AM

At the folks house and its FNC 24/7. This shit is ridiculous. They have some former CIA guy on talking about the guys they nabbed today (yesterday?) and he's like "this is the age we live in and its either don't fly or put up with the inconviences". Then the blonde host says "thats true and I hope in the new year they extend this to the bus and rail lines too".

The message of giving up your liberty for the police presence is subtle and ever present and I can imagine the consistent watchers eventually just become the message.

12/25/2010 10:49:14 AM

Fair and Balanced

1/4/2011 2:20:16 PM

I've been enjoying the high-school picture of Loughner that FoxNews keeps showing. It really hypes up the "this dude was fucking crazy" angle pretty good

1/10/2011 3:20:20 PM

Is anyone saying that he's not fucking crazy?

1/10/2011 3:27:23 PM

well, liberals, but yeah

1/10/2011 3:52:16 PM

wut?

1/10/2011 3:56:05 PM

dude, it's burro.

he's got an 8th grade reading comprehension.

1/10/2011 5:24:20 PM

Instead of "One Shining Moment" its:

1/12/2011 4:23:17 PM

This looks at both CNN and Fox:

1/14/2011 4:43:53 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/hannity-invade-iraq/

[quote]HANNITY: There’s two things I said. I say why isn’t Iraq paying us back with oil, and paying every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers — and why didn’t they pay for their own liberation? For the Kuwait oil minister — how short his memory is. You know, we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation, as these sheiks, etcetera etcetera, you know were living in hotels in London and New York, as Trump pointed out, and now they’re gouging us and saying ‘oh of course we can withstand [these prices].

1/16/2011 9:27:18 PM

1/16/2011 10:22:54 PM

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101190031

Quote :

"PPP: Public Trust In Fox News Is Plummeting Fox News' 2010 featured the network's hosts and contributors aggressively campaigning and fundraising for the GOP, trafficking in over-the-top rhetoric, and hyping an unending cavalcade of manufactured scandals (like Obama supposedly giving a major chunk of Arizona back to Mexico). 2010 also marked the network's hiring of Sarah Palin, their continued employment of serial misinformer Glenn Beck, and the revelation that Fox execs are deliberately slanting the network's news coverage. In likely related news, Public Policy Polling released their second annual TV News Trust Poll, which found that, in contrast to a year ago, a plurality of Americans now distrust Fox News. "

The most distrusted name in news!

1/21/2011 8:54:56 AM

1/21/2011 12:06:34 PM

Not that the information in the Chart is not true, but the story is posted on Media Matters which doesn't exactly like Fox News.

Also why is MSNBC not included in this list, their programming is different from NBC's so no way should they be omitted.

A few things I take from the Chart.

People really don't trust ABC and CBS, while a higher percentage now distrusts Fox News they have the highest amount of trust outside of PBS.

Also after reading the release this survey was done January 14th to 16th. Interesting to note that this happened after Gabrielle Giffords was shot and the liberal bloggers launched an offensive against Palin, Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh. I think its also interesting to note that Liberals almost doubled their distrust which means the campaign against Fox News is working. It would be interesting to see if that influenced independents.

While I know Fox News is the voice of Conservatives in the TV News world most of the other networks while not far left lean more to the left. Which is why Fox News is watched more by Republicans. I personally like the 6:00 pm Special Report with Brett Baier.

1/21/2011 12:19:24 PM

Quote :

"Fox News they have the highest amount of trust outside of PBS. "

i think the relative difference is more important. according to the chart:

(1) NBC and CBS have the highest amount of relative trust versus distrust outside of PBS"... Fox is below them.

(2) "highest amount of trust" in these cases means "least relative distrust"


I agree that media matters has a leftward bias in the particular selection and presentation of stories exposing factual inaccuracies in the conservative media. and MSNBC is slanted nearly as much as FOX in the opposite direction.

the overall point however, is that the viewing public increasingly sees Fox "Fair and Balanced" News as less trustworthy and more biased than previous. it confirms the old adage about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time.






[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM. Reason : fixed my wording to be more precise. thx burro.]

1/21/2011 12:27:01 PM

Quote :

"and the revelation that Fox execs are deliberately slanting the network's news coverage."

really?

Quote :

"Fox News' 2010 featured the network's hosts and contributors aggressively campaigning and fundraising for the GOP"

really?

Quote :

"like Obama supposedly giving a major chunk of Arizona back to Mexico"

REALLY?

come on... you are gonna take a survey on "trust" as reported in the same article as those fucking statements? Not to mention that the poll was run by the fucking Democratic Party

Quote :

"not quite. according to the chart: (1) NBC and CBS have "highest amount of trust outside of PBS"... Fox is below them. "

can you fucking see? The Fox Number is the second highest to PBS. 42 > 41 > 40

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2011 12:29:06 PM

you can repeat "really really really really really" like some mindless parrot all day long.

but those are accurate statements regarding Fox News.

1/21/2011 12:30:38 PM

Quote :

"The Fox Number is the second highest to PBS. 42 > 41 > 40"

statistical margin of error makes that meaningless. the meaningful metric is the relative difference in those who say they "trust" versus those who say they "distrust"

but okay, i wasnt' precise in my own language. got me there.

1/21/2011 12:32:35 PM

and -4, -3, and 0 are statistically meaningful differences, too? come on, dude

1/21/2011 12:33:17 PM

its a relative ranking. look, my point (which i have not done a good job of focusing on here) is that the relative trust in FOX is spiraling into a nosedive.

look at the shift from 2010

1/21/2011 12:40:48 PM

haha. backtrack.

and yes, look at the shift. is it convenient that they did the poll during the democratic offensive on FoxNews after the Arizona shooting? naaah...

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2011 12:42:11 PM

The text is media matters interpretation, but the chart is a direct screen shot from the poll. Going directly to the source:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-second-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html

Quote :

"PPP's annual look at the public's trust in various TV news outlets finds that Fox News' credibility is on the decline, that the traditional networks are seeing an up tick in their numbers, and that PBS is at the top of the heap."

And to this point

Quote :

"is it convenient that they did the poll during"

So when else should they do there annual poll that they conducted in January of last year an again in January of this year?

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2011 1:01:51 PM

yes, and the poll was, in effect, run by the DNC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

Quote :

"Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm"

What You Look For Is What You Find

And, as noted before, the poll was run during the DNC's campaign to smear FoxNews.

1/21/2011 1:04:42 PM

Just like they smeared Fox News by saying it was well trusted in last years poll?

1/21/2011 1:09:33 PM

I wouldn't call "49 percent" "well-trusted," but you can't deny that the timing of the second poll is dubious

1/21/2011 1:15:27 PM

Quote :

"So when else should they do there annual poll that they conducted in January of last year an again in January of this year?"

Not saying that they shouldn't do it at the same time but the general population, the possibility for bias is high due to recent events.

1/21/2011 6:40:50 PM

Quote :

"So when else should they do there annual poll that they conducted in January of last year an again in January of this year? "

why do they need an "annual poll?" You'll note that their poll from last year says nothing about being an "annual poll". Again, I find it hilarious that they came out again, more than likely because they didn't like the results from last year and realized that they could take advantage of the current DNC smear campaign and use the coincidental timing of their previous poll to say it was an "annual poll"

1/21/2011 6:50:32 PM

Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC, guess they finally got tired of him consistently getting smoked by the Factor

1/21/2011 10:24:45 PM

1/21/2011 10:25:43 PM

Why would they ditch their highest rated show? This makes no sense.

1/21/2011 10:30:45 PM

probably because the host was bat-shit insane? I imagine flipping out at the 2008 RNC didn't help

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 10:51 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2011 10:50:47 PM

Quote :

"They are, of course, Nazis. They have a kind of Nazi attitude. They are the left wing of Nazism. These guys don’t want any other point of view. They don’t even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. They are basically Air America with government funding to keep them alive"

Holy fucking shit. I know this is old. I just don't check this thread very often. But holy shit!

It's one thing to have an opinion that Obama is more socialist than Europe. Many may disagree, and there may be evidence or whatever to disprove that notion.

But to say "he's left wing of Nazism." It's like he doesn't know where Nazism lies on the political spectrum. EVERYTHING is left of Nazism. He's not technically wrong, it's just misleading as fuck (IE, he's not saying Obama is not as conservative as a Nazi, he's saying he is worse than a Nazi). But being worse than a Nazi would make him an ultra conservative, backwoods, redneck with the American flag tattooed across his back and the Confederate flag tattooed on his gooch.

Quote :

"HANNITY: There’s two things I said. I say why isn’t Iraq paying us back with oil, and paying every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers — and why didn’t they pay for their own liberation? For the Kuwait oil minister — how short his memory is. You know, we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation, as these sheiks, etcetera etcetera, you know were living in hotels in London and New York, as Trump pointed out, and now they’re gouging us and saying ‘oh of course we can withstand [these prices]."

Anyone know if there is a clip of Hannity saying that the war isn't about oil? If there is, he did an insta-flop. A John Kerry. I mean shit, if you're car is broken and a mechanic walks into your garage without your permission and knowledge and fixes your car and then demands the bill, that would be fucked up. Even though some good may have come out of it, there was never an agreement of service, just like Iraq didn't ask us to help out (ok ok, I know. It's different in that Saddam wasn't going to ask to be overthrown).

Quote :

"I wouldn't call "49 percent" "well-trusted," but you can't deny that the timing of the second poll is dubious"

It's "well-trusted" in comparison to the other networks. 8 points higher than CNN and the only network with a positive trust/distrust difference.

Perhaps you're right that the negative "smear" campaign against FNC by the liberal media in the recent few weeks has added a bias. But at the same time, the FNC's continuous smear campaign against the liberal media could have added bias to the 2010 results too. Lets face it, the conservative and liberal media smear each other. Perhaps the recent events had a more profound influence though. I'm not saying you don't have a point. I think you do. In a few months or so, if the poll was run again, it would be interesting to see how things have changed, if any.

Quote :

"Not to mention that the poll was run by the fucking Democratic Party"

Aren't you always the one pointing out ad hominem statements? The very least you can do is avoid making them yourself if you're going to jump on a person's ass for doing so. If this was the first year of the poll, you may actually have a valid circumstantial argument (ie, MediaMatters would show their networks ahead of FNC, wouldn't they?). But when you look at the pervious year, and it shows FNC with a dominant lead over everyone else, it should alleviate the doubt in the polling method.

Quote :

"why do they need an "annual poll?" You'll note that their poll from last year says nothing about being an "annual poll". Again, I find it hilarious that they came out again, more than likely because they didn't like the results from last year and realized that they could take advantage of the current DNC smear campaign and use the coincidental timing of their previous poll to say it was an "annual poll""

Please, take a statistics class. If you're going to do trending, it is important that you keep your polling incements consistent. If you're not going to do the increments consistent, the data is worthless, as you're introducing bias in the polling (as you stated before, timing can introduce bias).

Quote :

"[quote]and the revelation that Fox execs are deliberately slanting the network's news coverage."

really?[/quote]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Assertions_of_conservative_bias

Quote :

"A leaked memo from Fox News vice president Bill Sammon to the News staff during the height of the debate over Health care reform in the United States has been cited as an example of the pro-Republican party bias of Fox News. His memo asked the staff to "use the term ‘government-run health insurance,’ or, when brevity is a concern, ‘government option,’ whenever possible." This memo was sent shortly after Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised Sean Hannity on his Fox show that: "If you call it a public option, the American people are split," he explained. "If you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

Quote :

"Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[72] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation.""

Quote :

"Fox News online columnist Mike Straka referred to anti-war protesters at the September 24, 2005, march in Washington, D.C. as "jobless, anti-American, clueless, smelly, stupid traitors" and "protesters from hell."[149][150][151]' This is in sharp contrast to the laudatory treatment the network gave to conservative and libertarian protesters of the Tea Party protests mentioned above."

1/21/2011 11:33:57 PM

Quote :

"If this was the first year of the poll, you may actually have a valid circumstantial argument (ie, MediaMatters would show their networks ahead of FNC, wouldn't they?). But when you look at the pervious year, and it shows FNC with a dominant lead over everyone else, it should alleviate the doubt in the polling method."

already addressed this.

Quote :

"Please, take a statistics class. If you're going to do trending, it is important that you keep your polling incements consistent. If you're not going to do the increments consistent, the data is worthless, as you're introducing bias in the polling (as you stated before, timing can introduce bias)."

Or, as I stated, given their obvious liberal bias, being run by the DNC, they wanted to take advantage of the situation and make up for the embarrassment from the previous year and seized on the opportunity. There is very little evidence that they wanted to do any trending originally

1/21/2011 11:53:42 PM

Quote :

"already addressed this."

And I disputed it. Noting that they lacked "annual" in the previous poll means nothing. If they don't do one for next year at the same time, I have no problem in admitting I was wrong. But so far, you don't have a leg to stand on and you're grasping at straws.

Quote :

"Or, as I stated, given their obvious liberal bias, being run by the DNC"

And, as I pointed out, this is an illogical conclusion. Saying they are obviously biased because they are run by the DNC is nothing more than an ad hominem statement.

Let me say this. You're dismissing the poll because you're a Republican. That is just as logical as your statement, and we both know that both statements are bullshit.

Quote :

"they wanted to take advantage of the situation and make up for the embarrassment from the previous year and seized on the opportunity."

Or it was coincidental...

Quote :

"There is very little evidence that they wanted to do any trending originally"

There is very little evidence that they didn't want to do any trending.

1/22/2011 12:15:58 AM

1/22/2011 10:59:59 AM