Muppets Attack Fox News (interview, Clinton, rating, vs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least MSNBC has the balls to come out and say they are left leaning. FOXs news is still parading around with this fair and balanced nonsense but this is to be expected for this particular right leaning group.
At least MSNBC has the balls to come out and say they are left leaning. FOXs news is still parading around with this fair and balanced nonsense but this is to be expected for this particular right leaning group.
Not sure about "faux news" (whatever that is; haven't heard of that station) but when you look at some actual data, you realize that Fox News is very fair.
For instance,
2008 Presidential Election Coverage
Fox News
40% of McCain stories were negative
40% of Obama stories were negative
Compare with another "news" station which shall remain nameless:
73% of McCain stories were negative
14% of Obama stories were negative
(Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism, Oct. 29, 2008)
Who can spot the unspoken assumption present in this argument?
Not sure about "faux news" (whatever that is; haven't heard of that station) but when you look at some actual data, you realize that Fox News is very fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
I have posted that quite a few times. It's easy to find a link.
"On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally).
For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall)." (my emphasis)
This is your often-repeated "proof" of Fox's fairness?
Even though it explicitly states that Fox is not fair and balanced?
Did you even read this link before repeatedly posting it?
"On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally).
For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall)." (my emphasis)
This is your often-repeated "proof" of Fox's fairness?
Even though it explicitly states that Fox is not fair and balanced?
Did you even read this link before repeatedly posting it?
Did you read it? On Fox News, 40% of both McCain and Obama stories were negative. If Fox News was as biased as the libs claim, it would be more like 20% McCain and 80% Obama.
In the link I provided, where does it say that "Fox is not fair and balanced?"
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,146,502 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
The fact that Jersey Shore even made it on the air tells us all we need to know about the general American public and how important their tastes are.
You are exactly right.
Kardashians,Oprah,Dr.Phil,Springer et al and the rest of that type flotsam and jetsam are the proof of the IQ of the vast majority of American TV viewers.
In the link I provided, where does it say that "Fox is not fair and balanced?"
Poor choice of words, apologies. I meant to say that the article clearly and distinctively shows that Fox is biased (as it does with MSNBC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Did you read it? On Fox News, 40% of both McCain and Obama stories were negative. If Fox News was as biased as the libs claim, it would be more like 20% McCain and 80% Obama.
"On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally).
For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall)." (as quoted from your link)
You either don't understand this rather simple point, or you don't want to understand it. Which is it?
I'll repeat it for you: On Fox news, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm.
You'll find your 40% in my quote: Fox told 40% negative stories about both Obama and McCain, but they told 11% more on Obama than the norm and 17% less on McCain. What is this if not biased?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
