PDA

View Full Version : White house in battle with FOX news


Twodogs
10-19-2009, 03:50 PM
I'm just looking for comments on this. My thought is, that in an attempt to delegitimize FOX, the White house has instead done it to the presidency.

Charles
10-19-2009, 04:12 PM
Works for Fox. Stupid move on the part of Obama's handlers.

Chas

Twodogs
10-19-2009, 04:26 PM
Yes indeed, I heard somewhere today that FOX has already experienced a 30% jump in ratings. Can that be true?

Twodogs
10-19-2009, 04:29 PM
Snippet http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/10/19/2009-10-19_bam_team_again_rips_fox_news_but_says_aides_wil l_appear_on_shows.html

Sandy G
10-19-2009, 06:55 PM
Doncha jes' LOVE all this "On the Job training" Obie-Wan Yomama & Co. are going thru ?!? Wonder if they've found all the latrines 'n' hidey-holes in their new digs...

d-ray657
10-19-2009, 08:19 PM
In the campaign, Obama stated that he would engage in dialogue even with those who are enemies of America. He is holding true to his promise by engaging in dialogue with Fox.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
10-19-2009, 08:29 PM
In the campaign, Obama stated that he would engage in dialogue even with those who are enemies of America. He is holding true to his promise by engaging in dialogue with Fox.

Regards,

D-Ray

Dialogue? He's attempting to crush any criticism of his policies.

But he did look pretty kewl when he bowed down to the King of the Sodomies.

Chas

noonereal
10-19-2009, 08:53 PM
Something needs to be done about Fox.

Their motives are suspect and they are clearly detrimental to the future of our country.
We need legislation that forces them to be honest when portraying themselves as a news network.

Grumpy
10-19-2009, 09:36 PM
Something needs to be done about Fox.

Their motives are suspect and they are clearly detrimental to the future of our country.
We need legislation that forces them to be honest when portraying themselves as a news network.


What about MSNBC ?

d-ray657
10-19-2009, 10:35 PM
Something needs to be done about Fox.

Their motives are suspect and they are clearly detrimental to the future of our country.
We need legislation that forces them to be honest when portraying themselves as a news network.

No, Fox should continue to have the right to spout their asinine, hateful view of the world, because the First Amendment protects the rights of all to have their say.

The First Amendment does not, however, prevent the President or his administration from countering Fox's misinformation with more accurate information and from characterizing Fox's excuse for reporting as the biased garbage that it is.

My view of free speech has always been that the proper response to statements and ideas with which you disagree, is to more effectively present your point of view. If some one is using fallacies or falshoods to support their arguments, point out the fallacies and falsehoods. I have seen no report that Fox's broadcasting license is at risk, and has been pointed out it's ratings are surviving.

It's interesting to see how many people see a threat when a public official publicly criticizes broadcasting organization owned by a huge media conglomerate. People need to be more concerned by the extent to which corporate dollars dictate the information that is going to be made available to the public.

Finally, I will acknowledge that MSNBC is overdoing the rhetoric as well. I haven't watched as much of it since the election. It was fun for a while to follow the election there - sort of like listening to your home town announcer call the ball game. I do think that MSNBC has its place in providing variety in the marketplace of ideas, but the public is better served when it focuses on the facts more than on the fox.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
10-20-2009, 07:09 AM
I, for one, will sleep better tonight knowing that the President and his administration are telling us the truth.

I've had the misconception that they are the biggest liars of all.

Chas

merrylander
10-20-2009, 07:27 AM
The guy who played the father on the TV show Ponderosa, Lorne Greene used to read the nightly news on the CBC before he got into acting. That's what we need here - news readers, not celebrity wannabees. And when they thank the XYZ company for sponsoring the news, then you know it must be the truth.

Frankly you can take FOX (and everything else Murdoch owns), CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC and shove them.

d-ray657
10-20-2009, 08:00 AM
I, for one, will sleep better tonight knowing that the President and his administration are telling us the truth.

I've had the misconception that they are the biggest liars of all.

Chas

See, free speech at work.

Regards,

D-Ray

Twodogs
10-20-2009, 04:18 PM
, and has been pointed out it's ratings are surviving.


D-Ray

Surviving? FOX beats all the other cable news COMBINED. The O'Reilly factor has been #1 in it's time slot for 8 years! Now their ratings are skyrocketing due to this silliness with the Obama administration (not that they needed any help). I enjoy getting my news from FOX for the simple reason that their anchors actually smile, and act pleasant. The lesbian and that other dude on MSNBC look like they are on the verge of chewing a gun barrel every night.

noonereal
10-20-2009, 05:12 PM
Surviving? FOX beats all the other cable news COMBINED. The O'Reilly factor has been #1 in it's time slot for 8 years now!

Why is that exciting?

There is one fundamental difference between the left and the right nut shows. Most left nuts don't watch the lesbian and Oberman (as seen in the ratings) yet the right fanatics can't get enough. Anyone have a meaningful explanation?

Fast_Eddie
10-20-2009, 05:18 PM
Surviving? FOX beats all the other cable news COMBINED. The O'Reilly factor has been #1 in it's time slot for 8 years! Now their ratings are skyrocketing due to this silliness with the Obama administration (not that they needed any help). I enjoy getting my news from FOX for the simple reason that their anchors actually smile, and act pleasant. The lesbian and that other dude on MSNBC look like they are on the verge of chewing a gun barrel every night.

As I've pointed out before, there is a lot of misleading info being spread by all of them. #1 in it's time slot? Dream on. #1 vs. other cable news nets maybe. Biggest fish in a very, very small pond. The "vast" Fox News audience is about 1% of the U.S. population. As much as we broadcasters are fealing the heat, we're still way above the cable folks. "Comin' down fast, but I'm miles above you". I'll worry when Beck can attract more viewers than Jeff Probst.

Twodogs
10-20-2009, 05:36 PM
My point was that FOX is doing considerably better than "surviving". Let's talk about the New York Times best seller list instead.:D

Charles
10-20-2009, 06:00 PM
Why is that exciting?

There is one fundamental difference between the left and the right nut shows. Most left nuts don't watch the lesbian and Oberman (as seen in the ratings) yet the right fanatics can't get enough. Anyone have a meaningful explanation?

While not a fanatic, at least in my eyes, I'll kick out a couple of points.

People can watch what they want, it's still a free country. And Fox draws the numbers. It's as simple as that.

Now I was watching the toe sucker (Morris), who is now in Rupert's hip pocket and a self promoter with the best of 'em, but he laid out a few interesting viewpoints.

According to his survey, and my numbers are approximate, 25% of Americans watch Fox News a few times a week. Naturally, the Conservatives make up the majority of viewers, but something like 17% of Democrats and 46% of Independents are in this group.

His point was, while the White House doesn't care about the Conservatives (lost cause), they are concerned about the Democrat and Independent viewers, because they may go over to the "Dark Side".

In other words, Fox has become too big to ignore.

And this ill conceived war with Fox is only drawing more viewers into their camp. The Obama Administration would be wise to go on Fox and make their case. They won't get a pass like they do on the other networks, but even Fox realizes that an ambush will hurt their ratings.

Just some thoughts,

Chas

Charles
10-20-2009, 06:03 PM
As I've pointed out before, there is a lot of misleading info being spread by all of them. #1 in it's time slot? Dream on. #1 vs. other cable news nets maybe. Biggest fish in a very, very small pond. The "vast" Fox News audience is about 1% of the U.S. population. As much as we broadcasters are fealing the heat, we're still way above the cable folks. "Comin' down fast, but I'm miles above you". I'll worry when Beck can attract more viewers than Jeff Probst.

Are you sure about your numbers? 1% doesn't sound right to me.

Besides, who is Jeff Probst? I have never heard of him.

Chas

Fast_Eddie
10-20-2009, 07:21 PM
O'Rilley is watched by about 2.5 million folks. Jeff Probst is the host of Survivor. Ratings are way off this season. Only about 14 million viewers.

For all his hot air, Bill can't get a fraction of the viewers a cheap game show gets.

Not denying his impact. Just putting it in perspective.

Fast_Eddie
10-20-2009, 07:24 PM
Here's a Newsmax (not exactly left wing) article citing O'Rilley viewership:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/oreilly_ratings_cnn_msnbc/2009/04/29/208733.html

And some article talking about broadcast network shows:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/02/survivor-greys-practice-bones-ratings.html

They vary a bit from week to week. But I'm certainly very close.

Fast_Eddie
10-20-2009, 07:31 PM
Well, shoot. I looked up the population of the U.S. and you're right. 1% is wrong. He doesn't even reach 1%.

Charles
10-20-2009, 07:49 PM
Here's a Newsmax (not exactly left wing) article citing O'Rilley viewership:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/oreilly_ratings_cnn_msnbc/2009/04/29/208733.html

And some article talking about broadcast network shows:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/02/survivor-greys-practice-bones-ratings.html

They vary a bit from week to week. But I'm certainly very close.

Well, now I know.

Comparing "news" shows to "survivor" shows is apples and oranges. Let's compare "news" shows to "news" shows.

I'm assuming that 10X amount of people watch "survivor" type crapola as opposed to crummy "news" shows. Or "political" shows. Just wonder how the percentage of "likely voters" plays into the Nielsen Ratings.

Hopefully, the "survivor" crowd doesn't show up at the polls, they're too ignorant to vote. No wonder the country is on the decline.

And no fukkin' wonder I want to buy a sailboat.

Chas

Charles
10-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Well, shoot. I looked up the population of the U.S. and you're right. 1% is wrong. He doesn't even reach 1%.

No offense Edward, but I think you're cooking the books somewhat.

Less than 1% of the American public watches Faux News? I think that you're bullshittin' yourself, for whatever your reason is.

But you're not bullshittin' me.

Have a good evening, I need to eat supper,

Chas

wajobu
10-20-2009, 09:01 PM
Um, Rachel is doing just fine Jay.

Fast_Eddie
10-20-2009, 09:12 PM
No offense Edward, but I think you're cooking the books somewhat.

Less than 1% of the American public watches Faux News? I think that you're bullshittin' yourself, for whatever your reason is.

But you're not bullshittin' me.

Have a good evening, I need to eat supper,

Chas

Didn't say that. Less than 1% watch O'Rilley in any given week. That is their highest rated show.

Don't really care how you paint it. My point is valid. O'Rilley isn't as big in real life as he is in Fox propaganda.

You know, I'm with you on the boat idea. I can't count how many times I've posted facts and then come back later to see this kind of development. No one disputes my facts. No one says I'm wrong. Just change the subject. I posted my sources and gave solid information. And what do I get? "I'm sure the Survivor folks don't vote." Really? Ok, say 50% turn up to vote for President. 1% watch O'Riley. I mean, do the math!

Geez. Just 'cause you don't like what I say doesn't make me wrong.

Not sure why I waste my time. No mountain of evidence will convince some people of anything. No worries. I should know better by now.

Take care,

Ed

d-ray657
10-20-2009, 09:23 PM
Surviving? FOX beats all the other cable news COMBINED. The O'Reilly factor has been #1 in it's time slot for 8 years! Now their ratings are skyrocketing due to this silliness with the Obama administration (not that they needed any help). I enjoy getting my news from FOX for the simple reason that their anchors actually smile, and act pleasant. The lesbian and that other dude on MSNBC look like they are on the verge of chewing a gun barrel every night.

Neither the O'Reilly Factor nor Countdown should be rated as news shows. They are both entertainment. Rate them against Leno or Letterman, but don't call them news. It's like getting all of your news from the editorial page. One might glean a few bits of information from an opinion piece, but the writers don't pretend that they are reporting the news in an op-ed piece. Fox, however, pretends to be neutral when it's story selection, attitude and delivery all show that to be false.

Note: I wrote this several hours ago before my internet crashed. It still seems relevant.

Regards,

D-Ray

Fast_Eddie
10-20-2009, 09:58 PM
Good point D-Ray. At least as much "news" in the Daily Show clip I posted in another thread as O'Rilley. I used to enjoy watching Olberman, but I'm olber it.

lol. I made a funny.

d-ray657
10-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Good point D-Ray. At least as much "news" in the Daily Show clip I posted in another thread as O'Rilley. I used to enjoy watching Olberman, but I'm olber it.

lol. I made a funny.

I was a late-comer to Countdown - most often I wasn't home in time. When I was able to start watching, I thought - great, someone from our side to feed them bastids some of their own medicine. The question now is if that medicine serves the public interest.

The decline in civil discourse results in people hearing sound bites rather than words of substance. I would rather citizens be able to choose their position based on logic rather than fury. Of course, I'm hoping for the type of Utopia that briefly existed in Athens - unless you were one of the slaves making that Utopia possible.

Regards,

D-Ray

d-ray657
10-22-2009, 06:32 AM
Here's a little more information on the effectiveness of shining a spotlight on Fox's motives and bias. The article certainly appears balanced, insofar as it points out the risks of the debate, and cites (some) credible sources for the criticism of the President. It also cites some interesting numbers about the price the the republican party pays for casting its lot with Rush and Ruppert.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28532.html

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
10-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Here's a little more information on the effectiveness of shining a spotlight on Fox's motives and bias. The article certainly appears balanced, insofar as it points out the risks of the debate, and cites (some) credible sources for the criticism of the President. It also cites some interesting numbers about the price the the republican party pays for casting its lot with Rush and Ruppert.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28532.html

Regards,

D-Ray

That was a fairly evenhanded article. I'd like to take this further, but with 3 hrs of sleep I'm beginning to run out of gas.

Take care,

Chas

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 12:52 AM
That was a fairly evenhanded article. I'd like to take this further, but with 3 hrs of sleep I'm beginning to run out of gas.

Take care,

Chas

Here's a couple of reasons why I think the President's decision to engage the right-wing media is a worthwhile risk.

First, the President has had considerable success with his sometimes unconventional approach to politics. His savvy embrace of the internet culture created a new kind of grass roots network, and was a fundraising sensation.

I also saw genius in the way candidate Obama initially approached the race issue. He made a celebration of differences something bigger than black or white, talking about finding common ground in red states and white states, etc. He was able to acknowledge that he intended to break barriers with out highlighting that overcoming racial barriers was part of the task.

He has already shown that the right-wing media is willing to take the bait when he engages them. As the article pointed out, the fury of the response underscores his message that the loudest voices in the GOP are losing touch with middle America. Moreover, he is able to engage them without doing so on their turf. Although some might say that Obama is giving credibility to Ruppert and Rush by responding directly to them, it gives them less credibility than if he appeared in their studios and exchanged niceties with them.

If the risk pays off, the President can better focus the public's attention on his plans for the country than on the talk-show agenda.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
10-24-2009, 05:37 AM
Ruppert should be tried for treason.

merrylander
10-24-2009, 07:30 AM
I see Charles Krauthammer is against it so it must be a good idea.

BlueStreak
10-24-2009, 02:33 PM
Something needs to be done about Fox.

Their motives are suspect and they are clearly detrimental to the future of our country.
We need legislation that forces them to be honest when portraying themselves as a news network.


I disagree.

I would say something needs to be done about the media in general. There are time when I wonder who runs this country. The government, the people, or the media? As I see it, the tail is wagging the dog, and this is the cause for all of the confusion and misinformation floating about. Instead of reporting the news the media generates it. Oh, don't get me wrong, the two major parties have their agendas to be sure.
But more and more the fight appears to be between Rupert Murdoch and George Soros, two men who are not even citizens of this country, rather than Republican v.s. Democrat.

Our system is supposed to be a government for the people, as elected by the people to serve the interests of the people. But, somewhere along the line, the media began to manipulate, rather than report. It has been going on much longer than FOX or MSNBC have been around, but it seems to have gotten much worse with time.

The thing I get a big kick out of is this;
"I heard (Insert propaganda here.) on (Insert bullshit outlet here.) and checked it out on SNOPES. It's true!."

Really. Who owns SNOPES, and what is their bias? Well, where did you hear about it first? I heard about Snopes for the first time from----Limbaugh.
Hmmmmm.....:rolleyes:

"History shall be very kind to me, indeed. As I intend to write it."--Winston Churchill.

Do I have my bias? Of course I do. We all do.

Dave

merrylander
10-24-2009, 03:54 PM
BTW Ruppert finally did get himself sanforized as a U.S. citizen, it is getting so they will let just about anyone in.

d-ray657
10-24-2009, 05:39 PM
BTW Ruppert finally did get himself sanforized as a U.S. citizen, it is getting so they will let just about anyone in.

Gotta be especially galling to someone who earned it.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
10-25-2009, 09:54 AM
Having done it by the rules it is a royal PITA to hear all the BS about reforming immigration laws.