The most trusted NEWS source in America?

[corianderstem]

Isn't Shepherd Smith known for being rather reasonable even by the usual lefties? So it's not so surprising coming from him.

but nice to see someone at Fox bringing it up.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Isn't Shepherd Smith known for being rather reasonable even by the usual lefties? So it's not so surprising coming from him.

but nice to see someone at Fox bringing it up.

Yeah, he actually seems pretty reasonable, but also to no suprise Fox gets a lot of email saying he doesn't belong on their network.

[anitram]

Do we really need to post these again:

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

the UMD study that we've been talking about for the past 5 pages or so. the one that shows that viewers of Fox News believe lies.

Well, not every study that is done is accurate. I find it a bit strange that your so eager to classify millions of people a certain way based on one study that sampled only a fraction of the people that watch the network.

if you're claiming that Olbermann is more "biased" than O'Reilly, i might be inclined to agree with you. but you seem to think that, somehow, this stands in for the entire network, and keep repeating this as if it has any relevance or bearing whatsoever as to what's being discussed in here.

Well, its certainly a more accurate assessment than a study done on a small fraction of people that watch the Fox network.

we do not see on MSNBC the direct, clear links in the framing of the issues between Fox News and the GOP.

we do not see MSNBC make donations of a similar size and scale of Fox to the GOP.

we do not see the demonstrable ignorance in the MSNBC audience that we do in the Fox audience.

1. This is debatable

2. You have a point here.

3. I thought the "study" only involved Fox news? If you only watched Chris, Keith and Rachel, you would indeed be ignorant on on certain aspects of several issues.

the major difference is that Fox acts as a propaganda arm of the GOP, and MSNBC has a business model that strives to shore up the other end of the market for liberal viewers who want combative hosts delivering to them news that feels good. while MSNBC may have stolen their model, it does not follow marching orders from the DNC (or the White House) in the way that Fox follows orders from the GOP.

MSNBC used to be a good news channel. But in my opinion, its more biased than even Fox now.

and MSNBC has smarter viewers than Fox. so it seems clear that while their hosts may be biased, they are not peddling deliberate lies and misinformation or playing into non-truths (i.e., Obama and his birth certificate, the Black Panther freak-out back in October

I seriously doubt the viewers of either channel or CNN are smarter than the other. To peddle that view or conduct a study attempting to show that either way indeed shows some serious political bias. "They are dumb, and we are smart". LOL Thats what all political extremist like to believe.

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by BVS

This really is a shitty yardstick you're using. These two shows are different formats, and neither are news. The quicker you understand that, the better.

Both involve the news on news channels. The difference between the two shows boils down to the fact that one has opposition views and the other does not. Both shows are the most widely watched shows on both networks. Whats your yardstick?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

Whats your yardstick?

Looking at the news programs and the actions the networks take, not their commentary hours.

[Irvine511]

http://nation.foxnews.com/gov-haley-...al-smears-ease

[HBK-79]

Wow. I've been to Canada, Italy and Australia, and none of these countries have all these "talking heads" shows.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by HBK-79

Wow. I've been to Canada, Italy and Australia, and none of these countries have all these "talking heads" shows.

Interesting

Makes me wonder... would the Tea Party even exist without the conservative talking heads?

It truly would be a different America without them.

One can only dream

[HBK-79]

Originally Posted by BVS

Makes me wonder... would the Tea Party even exist without the conservative talking heads?

Obviously, no.

Radio and cable TV are fuel to the fire.

But don't quote me on what I just stated. The only news that I was able to watch in other countries came out of the TV's in my hotel rooms.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by BVS

Interesting

Makes me wonder... would the Tea Party even exist without the conservative talking heads?

It truly would be a different America without them.

One can only dream

i'd imagine so. of course every country is always going to have far right political groups, but by and large they're seen as a joke, at least here. and you certainly don't have them on the news very often, nor do bills not get voted in because god forbid one of them might disagree with it.

no government's perfect and i certainly don't agree with a lot of things here either, but it is at least nice to only see such politicians on tv once in a blue moon.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, there's been those stories floating around about Fox News helping to fund and create the Tea Party groups and such, so yeah, without them it'd be much harder for a Tea Party to exist.

Harder, but not necessarily impossible, however. They just perhaps would not have quite the traction they do now.

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Elie Wiesel | Fox News Elie Wiesel | Holocaust Winner | Mediaite

Yeeeeeeah, you know that "Epic fail" thread in the Lemonade Stand area? I'd say this pretty well qualifies. Sheesh .

Angela

[MrsSpringsteen]

Tucker Carlson filled in for Sean Hannity Tuesday night on Fox News and made a shocking claim: Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick should be executed.

Carlson led a panel discussion pegged to President Obama's recent phone call with the Eagles owner, in which he applauded the Eagles for giving Vick a second chance following his time in jail over his dogfighting scandal.

But Carlson is not as forgiving as Obama or the Eagles.

"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances," Carlson said. "But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."

YouTube - Fox News' Tucker Carlson thinks Michael Vick should be executed

[corianderstem]

I have mixed feelings about Obama "backing" Michael Vick. Yes, okay, second chances are well and good, and he served his time, but I think too many people are treating it like a "forgive and forget" kind of thing. I don't think what he did should be so easily forgotten. That kind of cruelty doesn't just go away after some jail time.

At least the White House (?) came out with a follow-up comment that Obama didn't condone the crime, or something like that. It made me feel a little better about it.

But "executed"? Oh, fuck off, Tucker.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

But "executed"? Oh, fuck off, Tucker.

That pretty much covers it.

[Canadiens1131]

BREAKING: Cable TV news personality says dumb thing, sparks message board discussion. Ratings slightly up.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Tucker Carlson filled in for Sean Hannity Tuesday night on Fox News and made a shocking claim: Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick should be executed.

Carlson led a panel discussion pegged to President Obama's recent phone call with the Eagles owner, in which he applauded the Eagles for giving Vick a second chance following his time in jail over his dogfighting scandal.

But Carlson is not as forgiving as Obama or the Eagles.

"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances," Carlson said. "But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."

Sounds to me like this is less about what a horrible person Michael Vick, and more about what a horrible person Obama is.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Sounds to me like this is less about what a horrible person Michael Vick, and more about what a horrible person Obama is.

Yep-no limits on the extreme statements in order to make Obama look bad.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have zero respect for Michael Vick. Animal abusers piss me off .

However...

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I have mixed feelings about Obama "backing" Michael Vick. Yes, okay, second chances are well and good, and he served his time, but I think too many people are treating it like a "forgive and forget" kind of thing. I don't think what he did should be so easily forgotten. That kind of cruelty doesn't just go away after some jail time.

At least the White House (?) came out with a follow-up comment that Obama didn't condone the crime, or something like that. It made me feel a little better about it.

But "executed"? Oh, fuck off, Tucker.

Ta-da, you pretty much stated everything I was going to say.

Angela

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well NFL=not for long, as long as you can make money for us. At least he did do time.The head of the HSUS supports Vick getting a dog again.

My dog that I loved so much died two years ago. She was attacked once by a rottweiler at her vet's office (she survived that but it was just the year before she died) while I was taking her to the door and it was probably the most horrific experience of my life so far. I just can't imagine anyone intentionally doing what he did to dogs.