FOX NEWS HATERS

[DUCKRACER]

1. Do you believe that Fox News ratings are as high as the ratings polls say they are?

 

2. If you believe they are that high, why are they that high?

[suv_guy_19]

1. Yes. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.

 

2. Because American's don't seem interested in the news. They instead seem to want to see the opinion of talking heads put forward under the guise of news. The cable networks really aren't news at all. They're entertainment.

 

Does anyone know the ratings of the nightly news on the regular networks?

[Trimdingman]

1. Yes. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.

 

2. Because American's don't seem interested in the news. They instead seem to want to see the opinion of talking heads put forward under the guise of news. The cable networks really aren't news at all. They're entertainment.

 

Does anyone know the ratings of the nightly news on the regular networks?

 

A majority of the people like and agree with FOX. I have always been a Conservative, so they are not telling me anything that I didn't already know. When Obama bashes FOX, doesn't he realize that he is patronizing many millions of American VOTERS? The Democrats are obviously now in "circle the wagons" mode.

[suv_guy_19]

Patronizing?

[mustang84isu]

1. Yes. But I strongly disagree with those who claim cable news channels such as Fox or MSNBC are mainstream news. Cable news ratings do not come close to network news ratings such as CBS, NBC, and ABC. Each of the major networks has 5 million viewers, with ABC Nightly News coming in closer to 7 million. That's at least 15-17 million network news viewers to Fox's 3 million and MSNBC's 1 million.

 

2. Echoing suv_guy, Fox tells a certain segment of the American population what they want to hear. They want to believe the world is collapsing because it reaffirms their political, religious, or ideological beliefs.

[mustang84isu]

A majority of the people like and agree with FOX. I have always been a Conservative, so they are not telling me anything that I didn't already know. When Obama bashes FOX, doesn't he realize that he is patronizing many millions of American VOTERS? The Democrats are obviously now in "circle the wagons" mode.

As I just pointed out, far from a majority. If you factor in CNN, MSNBC, and the network news totals, the rough estimate of nightly news viewers is about 19 million, compared to Fox's 3 million. That's 15% of the population. You call that a majority?

[suv_guy_19]

Thanks for the ratings for network news Mustang. I've watched American evening news and it's certainly what I'd consider to be news. I suppose that more Americans care abour real news than I had assumed, which is very positive in my view. The cable networks aren't news at all (with the exception of CNN, sometimes). They're opinion pieces presented as news.

[Edstock]

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public — H.L. Mencken, early 1920's.

 

That includes the dogmatic and the intellectually lazy. Examples abound.

 

"That's 15% of the population. You call that a majority?" — of the hard-of-thinking, yes.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Edstock

[Trimdingman]

Patronizing?

 

How would you like it if someone told you that the news channel you watch does not express true American values, if it expresses your values. What they are saying is that your values are wrong. If some politician talks to you like that, the impulse is to kick his lousy ass out of office, or join a Tea Party. The Democrats know when they are beat, and are in desperation mode, calling up the fringe loonies. The people who are being PATRONIZED are the mainstream educated middle class. Bury your head in the sand. Ignore the groundswell of opposition forces. It won't prevent the inevitable collapse of the Democrats.

[mustang84isu]

How would you like it if someone told you that the news channel you watch does not express true American values, if it expresses your values. What they are saying is that your values are wrong. If some politician talks to you like that, the impulse is to kick his lousy ass out of office, or join a Tea Party. The Democrats know when they are beat, and are in desperation mode, calling up the fringe loonies. The people who are being PATRONIZED are the mainstream educated middle class. Bury your head in the sand. Ignore the groundswell of opposition forces. It won't prevent the inevitable collapse of the Democrats.

Like I said, 15% of news watchers watch Fox News. Most educated middle class Americans are not watching Fox News. Fox is not mainstream.

[napfirst]

Like I said, 15% of news watchers watch Fox News. Most educated middle class Americans are not watching Fox News. Fox is not mainstream.

please provide your link for the Fox news demographic.....especially education

[Roadtrip]

Admissions of Liberal Bias in the Network News:

 

“There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous. That’s different from the media doing it’s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.”

— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.

 

 

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”

— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

 

 

Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”

Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”

— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.

 

 

“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”

— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.

 

(The bogus National Guard story was such an egregious violation of journalistic ethics -- not to mention a blatant attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election -- that CBS was compelled to fire four CBS News executives over the matter.)

 

 

“Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don’t drive pickup trucks, most of them don’t have guns, most of them don’t go to NASCAR, and every day we’re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.”

— ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry’s concession speech on November 3, 2004.

 

 

“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”

— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.

 

 

“Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’...”

“The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush’s justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate....The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.”

— From the February 10, 2004 edition of ABCNews.com’s “The Note,” a daily political memo assembled by ABC News political director Mark Halperin and his staff.

 

 

“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”

— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.

 

 

“I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people — and to a lesser degree today, the TV people — come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries — which newspaper people used to have anyway — and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.”

— Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite to Time magazine’s Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine’s November 3, 2003 edition.

 

 

“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”

— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.

 

 

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”

— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

 

 

“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”

— Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.

 

 

“There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg’s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton’s health care plan ‘wacky?’...

“‘Reality Check’ suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: ‘Time Out!’ You’d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else — like Albania.”

— CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

 

 

“I think liberalism lives — the notion that we don’t have to stay where we are as a society, we have promises to keep, and it is liberalism, whether people like it or not, which has animated all the years of my life. What on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? It was people who wanted to change things for the better.”

— Charles Kuralt talking with Morley Safer on the CBS special, One for the Road with Charles Kuralt, May 5, 1994.

 

 

“I won’t make any pretense that the ‘American Agenda’ [segments on World News Tonight] is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and ‘Well, on the one hand this and on the other that’ — I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues.”

— ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC’s Equal Time, August 9, 1994.

 

 

“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”

— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.

 

 

“I’m not sure it’s useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that’s virtually impossible for the audience to sort out.”

— PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS’s ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.

 

 

“Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you’d have to call it [global warming stories] advocacy.”

— NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Andrea Mitchell at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.

 

HT: mediaresearch.org

[RaZor]

With the exception of during the NFL season, WWE & WWE Raw are, almost all of the time, the highest rated cable TV shows. Even then (during the NFL season), they come in second (such as last week with 5.7 million viewers of WWE on Monday night @9PM & another 5.4 million viewers For the 10PM show -- to 12 million for Monday Night Football).

 

Many of those same people (that watch WWE and go to their events) call WWE/RAW a sport -- but that doesn't mean that it is. Look on any sports coverage (print/digital/otherwise) and you won't see it covered as a sport. It's entertainment. Very much like FOX in regards to "news". Probably many of the same viewers.

 

Didn't I see it some where even FOX says that its news coverage ends at 5PM. The rest is commentary. However, they have been exposed countless times making commentary during their "news" coverage. That is not journalism. A true journalist will never let you know what their (or their employer's) opinions are . . . and do not make comments on the news - they just report it (which also means what they chose to report on).

 

I remember reading an article last year that one news media reviewing organization said that Al Jazeera had more balanced coverage than Fox (during the period that they actually documented what was reported and commented on by each organization).

[suv_guy_19]

Actually, I've heard that Al Jazeera is quite good with the news, much like the BBC.

[DUCKRACER]

As I just pointed out, far from a majority. If you factor in CNN, MSNBC, and the network news totals, the rough estimate of nightly news viewers is about 19 million, compared to Fox's 3 million. That's 15% of the population. You call that a majority?

This is cable news only

 

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings...news/cable-news

[napfirst]

1. Yes. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.

 

2. Because American's don't seem interested in the news. They instead seem to want to see the opinion of talking heads put forward under the guise of news. The cable networks really aren't news at all. They're entertainment.

 

Does anyone know the ratings of the nightly news on the regular networks?

Really?...so by your logic it's not popular because it has a large audience?........then explain why people watch it.......if it's not good or something they enjoy?

[suv_guy_19]

I didn't say that it wasn't popular, I said that popularity doesn't necessarily equal valuable news content.

[napfirst]

I didn't say that it wasn't popular, I said that popularity doesn't necessarily equal valuable news content.

You guys amaze me trying to explain away Fox's popularity because you disagree with their ideology....people listen/watch to Fox because they present both sides....have numerous liberal contributors..........you won't get that from MSNBC or CNN

[suv_guy_19]

But that's just the point. News isn't about having a bunch of talking heads on the screen. Network News doesn't do that, where Cable 'News' does.

[ford-boy]

Just after the unemployment numbers came out at 10.2%, I watched CNN and FOX that morning. FOX had an indepth segment with pollster Frank Luntz interviewing a group of voters. Most expressed anger that there are no jobs on the horizon. It was their biggest issue..... WAYYYY more important than the health care debate. I then switched to CNN to hear the commentator announce the 10.2% numbers. They then cut to a employment agency to interview a young girl who had just rec'd an invite to a job interview. They talked about how happy she was to get the interview. As far as I'm concerned, FOX gives the viewer REAL food, something to actually chew on while the rest provide ultra processed infant pablum.

[napfirst]

Just after the unemployment numbers came out at 10.2%, I watched CNN and FOX that morning. FOX had an indepth segment with pollster Frank Luntz interviewing a group of voters. Most expressed anger that there are no jobs on the horizon. It was their biggest issue..... WAYYYY more important than the health care debate. I then switched to CNN to hear the commentator announce the 10.2% numbers. They then cut to a employment agency to interview a young girl who had just rec'd an invite to a job interview. They talked about how happy she was to get the interview. As far as I'm concerned, FOX gives the viewer REAL food, something to actually chew on while the rest provide ultra processed infant pablum.

Exactly...........just look at the difference since obama has taken office........everyone -Fox, tries very hard to protect him.....how many have even mentioned in their reports of the latest employment numbers that the stimulus bill was passed on the promise of the unemployment rate staying below 8%......if that were Bush it would be the lead story on the front page of the nyt

[Versa-Tech]

1. Do you believe that Fox News ratings are as high as the ratings polls say they are?

 

2. If you believe they are that high, why are they that high?

1. The ratings are what they are. What are you implying?

 

2. More people trust Fox News than any other cable network.

[DUCKRACER]

1. The ratings are what they are. What are you implying?

 

2. More people trust Fox News than any other cable network.

 

Thanks Versatech. Question 1 was to see if people thought that FOX was lying about their numbers. It seems they do acknowledge the high numbers for FOX.

 

Napfirst. Yep, I agree. Sometimes I force myself to watch Olberman and Maddow. They seem angry. bitter and sarcastic.

[stephenhawkings]

1. Do you believe that Fox News ratings are as high as the ratings polls say they are?

 

2. If you believe they are that high, why are they that high?

1. polls can be manipulated to say what ever you want, so take them all with a grain of salt.

2. they might be high, but not numerically, probably high on oxycotin!

[ford-boy]

1. polls can be manipulated to say what ever you want, so take them all with a grain of salt.

2. they might be high, but not numerically, probably high on oxycotin!

 

The numbers cited here aren't polls, they are electronic talleys of viewers. It's not an opinion. Think of it as number of cars sold so there is nothing to be manipulated. FOX either has a bigger audience than CNN or it doesn't, period.