Gateway Pundit: FOX News Beats CNN, MSNBC, Headline News... Combined »
Posted By pc25 7 months, 2 weeks ago in News
Evidently, Americans don't approve of the gutter journalism and liberal bias of the other major networks.
FOX News beats CNN, MSNBC, Headline News combined.
Read Full Story at gatewaypundit.blogspot.com »
572 Views Share Story 39 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 39 (view all)
-
85%
pc257 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
how can this be with such fair and balanced reporting as demonstrated by Olbermann the other day
Reply
Gateway Pundit: Kook Actress Garofalo: Tea Parties Were About Hating the Black Man
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/17/gateway-...-
79%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the filth, the degradation the reporters on CNN and NBC was an outrage.
Reply
Here's a lady that finally had enough.
Watch behind the scenes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWcgPvBLkD0
And PC we know the liberals on propeller will not come out and comment on this one.
Notice all the songs and crap they've put up to block any kind of tea party story from making the front page.
Scared are you? -
-
-
-
85%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HA! Fox covered this because it's news. That's what news organizations are supposed to do, cover it and let people decide.
Reply
The rest of the drive by media filters the news then tells people what to think, if you fall for it that is......... -
86%
ADAGUY7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I think both people that watch CNN , MSNBC should get cable. Everyone knows that an antenna just picks up shiit."
Reply
Hey genius, just so you'll know, both CNN as well as MSNBC, ARE cable programs, and are not available with an antenna.
Fox, on the other hand is available with an antenna.
Okay, you can take your left foot out of your mouth and insert the right one.
(the only time you open your mouth is to swap feet!)
-
-
-
91%
pc257 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They displayed how much in the tank they are for Obama...........especially that stupid broad over at CNN.......they had to shut down her e mail account.........the irony of her story is that she was rejected for a job over at FOX..........LMAO
Reply
'Anti-CNN' TEA Party Reporter Rejected for Gig at Fox News - Twice
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/04/...
CNN's Susan Roesgen, whose anti-TEA Party pseudo-reporting made her a legend in her own mind, and a biased Obama-flack hack in ours, is in the news on her own (de)merit again today.
One peculiar line from one of her peculiar rant-filled reports was that the TEA Parties were being "anti-CNN" because they were "highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox."
Well it turns out she wasn't always so anti-Fox. According to Gawker, Miss Roesgen not once but twice applied to get a gig at the EEE-vile Murdoch machine.
From the Gawker:
Back in 2005, though, according to a Fox News source, Roesgen really wanted to work for that right-wing conservative network. She sent a tape of her on-air work to Fox's then-programming chief Kevin Magee in January 2005, and followed up with another reel to Magee's successor Bill Shine in September 2005. Needless to say, she didn't get the gig.
Sour grapes for the Lass, perhaps? It seems the old adage, amended slightly, holds true; Hell hath no fury like a reporter scorned.
IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY, PARTISANSHIP, and ADORATION of OBAMA on display for the world to see..........CNN another hack third rate network................
-
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive
-
83%
nostalgia7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow those ratings are astonishing!
Reply
How long are those other networks going to be able to keep going?
Where are all of those Obama supporters? Don't they know their favorite networks are going down the tubes?
You don't think the far left is much fewer in number than they claim do you? ;>) -
75%
stephen-johnson7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As long as you have a mainstream media beholden to liberal intellectuals who are hostile to traditional middle America, Fox News will win the ratings battles. Because there are a lot more traditionalists in this country than the intellectuals - who are cloistered from real America in their Beltway and academic bunkers - realize.
Reply -
-
100%
diogenes21st7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but I do consider myself an independent and a progressive - which by the way can exist in either of the two parties or any number of third parties. So maybe this does or doesn't count as responding to RRJ's expectations of who will respond.
Reply
Before everyone gets too self-congratulatory, think about the basic premise here: Fox is the most-watched channel, therefore what? It's the most truthful? The most journalistic? The best source? It's always right (no pun intended)? All you can deduce from this fact is that it is the most popular. I won't dispute that, it has been for some time. But Brittany Spears sells more albums than Yo Yo Ma. So what? Does that make her a better musician? Maybe, maybe not. Books like "Twilight" and "The Da Vinci Code" routinely outsell more serious literature by a wide margin. Does that make them better books? Maybe, maybe not. You would have to spend some time investigating and analyzing to draw an informed opinion.
Fortunately, when it comes to news sources, many independent, non-partisan studies have done just that.
Did you know:
That when the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press conducts its regular surveys of news sources and what people read, watch and listen to, Fox News is often at the top of most popular, but that Fox viewers consistently score at the bottom of Current Events knowledge, U.S. Constitutional knowledge and knowledge of world geography and geopolitics? And to show that these studies are not slamming conservative sources, Rush Limbaugh listeners came in the top 5 best-informed in the latest study (along with Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, PBS viewers and newspaper readers). Is Fox not doing its job, or are its viewers not paying attention? I think that's an interesting question to ask of the most-watched news channel in the country, whether you like Fox or not. -
100%
diogenes21st7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Several university - including Columbia - studies of news coverage over the past decade show that Fox News spends the most time covering celebrity news of any broadcast or cable news channel. It spent less time covering the war in Iraq over the past 6 years than CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and even some local news channels. Would you consider that a part of what a high-quality, informative news channel should be doing? Should we at least be asking that question?
Reply
While you may like it that a news channel you approve of is the most popular, would you be willing to perform the thought experiment of stepping back for one moment and asking whether what's happening isn't that quality is beating mediocrity, but rather that true quality and professional news reporting are being crowded out by opinion and ill-informed reporting? It is just a question. Questions should never be seen as a threat to anyone.
Take that CNN reporter at the Chicago Tea Party rally. Someone she was interviewing proclaimed that Lincoln stood for liberating the people from taxes. That was erroneous. Lincoln imposed what was in essence the first Federal income tax in 1861. Taxes were high under Lincoln to pay for the Civil War, for crying out loud. And it was the wealthy who he taxed hardest. That reporter was asking the gentleman involved to back up his opinion. He could not do it. How is that her fault? It is the job of journalists to ask questions, especially when someone makes an outlandish claim. Are we now to celebrate ignorance as a righteous cause and condemn the questioning of erroneous and ignorant statements? Is that what the Right stands for? Is that what America stands for? Is that what some of you stand for?
It is my fervent hope that any responses to this post will not be name-calling or dismissive disinformation, but rather the start of a conversation. Are all thinking, questioning, analytical people to be reduced to what stephen-johnson in his post calls "liberal intellectuals who are hostile to traditional middle America"? By "traditionalists" does he mean folks that aren't curious, aren't well-read, folks who wouldn't know that Lincoln was a big taxer? That the original Boston Tea Party wasn't about taxes, but rather about parliamentary representation? Is this what we're proud of now -- my opinion, right or wrong and if you disagree with my view of the world you must be a liberal elitist?
All I'm doing is asking you all to think for a minute about what all of this might mean. If that is too radical for you, then we really have lost the American spirit, and I'm afraid, the democracy that came with it.-
Neutral
cloud157 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no problem with a reporter asking an interviewee to back up their opinion. I just thought she had been pushed over the edge and was obviously irritated, which led to her attacking the man. She was interrupting him and would let him get through a sentence, whether that sentence was factually right or not. I think in a normal situation if she were interviewing the man 1 on 1 without the heckling in the background she would have let him finish his point, and then corrected him on his mistakes.
Reply
I'm in no way defending the guy, his point was as you pointed out wrong. And I also thought it was wrong for him to bring his 2 year old to a rally like that, unless he had nobody to baby sit. I just thought she was frustrated and lashed out in an unprofessional way. -
100%
buckncindykill7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, the person she was interviewing was clearly nervous and somewhat agitated. The reporter sensed it, and pounced on him. That's not reporting in my mind. You must be objective to report current events; not abuse the individual you are interviewing.
Reply
Second; it is true Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the war. He was, as you stated the first to impose income taxes. But don't you think he did this out of necessity (finance the war?)
Lincoln's first belief was that he would do whatever it took to preserve the Union; regardless how he FELT about certain issues. If he needed to raise taxes to preserve the Union, he would do it, and whatever he needed to do about slavery he would do it...........
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
Finally; if the reporter knew anything about Lincoln policies on money and taxes, why didn't she question him on it? Instead of berating him out of some sort of pre-conceived agenda?
-
-
-
100%
diogenes21st7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is my fervent hope that any responses to this post will not be name-calling or dismissive disinformation, but rather the start of a conversation. Are all thinking, questioning, analytical people to be reduced to what stephen-johnson in his post calls "liberal intellectuals who are hostile to traditional middle America"? By "traditionalists" does he mean folks that aren't curious, aren't well-read, folks who wouldn't know that Lincoln was a big taxer? That the original Boston Tea Party wasn't about taxes, but rather about parliamentary representation? Is this what we're proud of now -- my opinion, right or wrong and if you disagree with my view of the world you must be a liberal elitist?
Reply
All I'm doing is asking you all to think for a minute about what all of this might mean. If that is too radical for you, then we really have lost the American spirit, and I'm afraid, the democracy that came with it. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
43%
skyking2p7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fox is the uninformed answer to the comedy channel. A place where all the faithful can coalesce around the tv and shout and rage at Obama and left. Sort of like the McCain/Palin rallies during the election. The socialist haters. The big government haters. The tax haters. The Obama haters. The immigration haters. Muslim haters. Clinton haters. Minority haters. Hollywood haters.
Reply -
33%
Wolfie20077 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dio2
Reply
Yes, anyone a democrat or republican and be a progressive but it's difficult to be a Conservative and a progressive. Conservatives definitely believe in individual property rights. Whereas, Progressives believe that all property ultimately belongs to the state. Progressism is just another left wing nutism. Hense, liberal progressive.-
75%
diogenes21st7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First point, Wolfie, is that whether I'm a progressive, a liberal, a conservative or a Martian, you did nothing to address any of the facts or questions I raised. Instead you name-called, by presuming to lump my view of the world into "nutism." Minor league stuff, Wolfie, bush (Bush?) league stuff.
Reply
Secondly, I'm going to guess that you consider yourself a conservative, or maybe a reactionary, but at the very least, somebody who stands in opposition to liberalism. One of the big problems with today's garden-variety conservatives is that when cornered they feel they can just change the definition of words to suit their needs of the moment - a bizarre form of linguistic relativism.
Look to the dictionary, where the words are kept and where we turn to make sense of the language we share. Progressive says nothing about property rights (what a strange point to single out, btw). It says one who believes in progress and change, especially for the better. It doesn't talk about left or right or property rights or taxes or anything else of that ilk.
So 1) quit making up definitions to try to escape painted corners and 2) address the main question and issue on this thread, which is "How does the popularity of anything equate with its legitimacy, correctness, factualness or intrinsic value?"
As Bertrand Russell said, "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing"; and "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand"; and, "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way". Just saying.
-
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.