justalurker said:Smart people don't have time for TV?
JL
And we have the time to sit around and talk about how we watch.
HMMMMMMM Pie
justalurker said:Smart people don't have time for TV?
JL
ddlsmith said:I guess that is why Fox is so "unpopular" (hint..hint..check the ratings) right? Because most Americans are morons and watch Fox?? And you are so superior and know so much more than the majority of us stupid, uneducated idiots, right??
Maybe your journalistic idol is Dan Rather? Now that's a piece of journalistic integrity!
FNC O'REILLY 2,181,000 [VIEWERS]
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,622,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,386,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,318,000
FNC GRETA 1,307,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,004,000
CNN ZAHN 673,000
CNN AARON BROWN 551,000
CNN COOPER 524,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 388,000
CNN DOBBS 379,000
CNNHN NANCY GRACE 366,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 240,000
MNSBC OLBERMANN/GANNON 208,000
It's seems as tho some people have a lot of time ?? don't you agree:Kentstater72 said:And we have the time to sit around and talk about how we watch.
HMMMMMMM Pie
jeslevine said:There are a lot more better things to do
If I want accurate news I get it from the wall street journal or on bloomberg TV. Everything else is reactionary BS, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
rtt2 said:The fact is news is NOT meant to be a source of entertainment. It should NOT be based on ratings.
I have got to give it to FOX News for transforming a medium. However, I still does not change the fact that News should be objective. The reason FOX has been so successful is because they are able to capture a person and have them sit and watch for hours.
Its is sad the way the American public has changed from wanting real journalism to its insatiable diet for newsertantment shows. From Fox News to Entertainment Tonight to Extra. No one wants just the facts they want sensationalism, crazy graphics and a place to turn that reaffirms their world view.
rtt2 said:No one wants just the facts they want [...] a place to turn that reaffirms their world view.
CDH said:And the WSJ is unbiased? I'm sure you don't mean that.
Anyone who has ever had a newspaper article written about themselves knows that there are inevitably problems with all media outlets. I think everyone should be skeptical about what they read. I miss Brill's Content, which spent considerable ink critiquing media bias.
Personally I subscribe to the New York Times (acknowledging that it is equally biased in the opposite direction of the WSJ), but it is the only paper that has such in-depth arts coverage. I also open my eyes/ears to other sources. I like to believe that multiple sources that are not simply based on Press releases or wire reports tend to give me a more nuanced outlook on the world. However, reading a lot of news from around and then flipping to the Fox News Channel is nothing less than a surreal experience.
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but media companies are businesses, and they have found that it is good business to cater to their markets. Unfortunately this has led to different outlets actually aiming their "news" reporting at different swaths of the political spectrum. The target audience for FNC is quite different from NPR, for example. Certain media companies appear to have stronger degrees of editorial control imposed upon them from their ownership than others.
Back to the topic of the thread: would Dolan actually have to sell his stake in Cablevision, or could he use shares as collateral for Voom HD LLC funding from third parties?
CDH.
ddlsmith said:Gosh you are so right, Al. Thanks for setting me straight. I had no clue. I will never watch Fox News again. Communists! Who'd a thunk it? How stupid could I have been? Thank you so much.
Excuse me, the Oscars are about to start and I don't want to miss seeing Roger get his statue for Fahrenheit....What!!??? He didn't get WHAT??? Must be communists at the Academy too....
Our Hero
rtt2 said:The fact is news is NOT meant to be a source of entertainment. It should NOT be based on ratings.
I have got to give it to FOX News for transforming a medium.
However, I still does not change the fact that News should be objective.
The reason FOX has been so successful is because they are able to capture a person and have them sit and watch for hours.
Its is sad the way the American public has changed from wanting real journalism to its insatiable diet for newsertantment shows. From Fox News to Entertainment Tonight to Extra. No one wants just the facts they want sensationalism, crazy graphics and a place to turn that reaffirms their world view.
kelljc said:Why are we talking about " Fox New's" , is it that they put out " the Real Facts, or " CBS's " facts, this is a "Voom" forum " not a Fox New's Forum "
T2k said:Exactly. Fox News is the same cabaret like New York Post - actually I do know in fact some universities' journalism depts use Fox News regularly as the perfect example how NOT to write - they analyze each one of the distortion, bias, faking, utter lack of integrity.
Fox News is the lowest point of the once great American news journalism - actually FOx is NOT journalism if we take that as a profession.
mr_snerdly said:You are right....FOX News is NOT journalism if we compare it to what journalsim is today. FOX doesn't distort everything toward the liberal viewpoint. Unlike NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe.....etc etc.....
FOX succeeds because it presents 2 sides of the story. They clearly state, this is the liberal viewpoint, and this is the conservative viewpoint. Other stations have one viewpoint they put out, with no discussion and they pass it off as news.
Sure some of FOX's newsmen are Conservative, and that shows. However, if they openly say "I agree with the conservative viewpoints", I still think it is balance because of all the liberal garbage out their.
All of the liberal outlets I metioned before still think they are "middle of the road"....that is a laugh.
rvsixer said:Wow. I trust there are VOOMer's out there that can spell and have intelligent political debates .
T2k said:No, it simply deliberately distorts everything toward this warmonger, instigating ultra-right-wing and right-wing neocon agenda.
Bullsh!t, sorry. this is the perception they made in your mind however the NEVER ever discuss REAL points, they simply cherrypick whatever they find comfortable to discuss - real lies, real disgusting facts about their super-neocon agenda never appear on screen, nor mentioned.
ROFL - this is your balanced view? LOL!!!
I think your own mindset is a perfect example how utterly distorted is most the Americans idea about what is 'balanced' and 'fair'...
Not more than Fox is 'fair' or 'balanced', ROFLMAO!
mr_snerdly said:T2k said:Precisley.
I remember how shocked I was (who was working on Wall St during 2001 Sep) watching the overwhelming war hysteria during the buildup against Iraq. Not the fact that we'll go to war - as many others I also did say 'yes' back then, based on simply an outright lie, as my Pres simply straight lied to me then and several times during since (I'll never believe them again, of course). No, I was simply shocked by the fact that anybody who was actually against the war was called unpatriotic. That was the point when my good-ol', commie-trained sensors were activated... we've seen this somewhere already... if you're not with me, you're my enemy... and don't forget McCarthy and his berserk rampant ravage...
Same thing happened to me when I first heard about Bush is hermetically kept away from ANY people opposing him, his lunatic , arrogant jesusfreak ideas.
Too many things, too many similarity - I did decide during January-February if another Bush-like ravaged religious freak or worst, some neocon warmonger somebody from the war criminal Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-line will win, I'll move my family from here. I simply don't want to raise my kids in such mentality...
Whoever said this clearly doesn't know history. If you researched history, you would find it is a FACT that Communists worked in the FDR and Truman administrations, holding high positions. Communist Cables were declassified in 1995 showing commuication between the Soviet Union and all of the poor innocent people you claim McCarthy went after. Yes, it was proven that the Rosenbergs were Soviet Spys. You probably didn't know that because the NY Times never wrote a story to tell people the cables were declassified and they in fact proved liberals wrong. In fact McCarthy didn't go after half of the spys history said he did, he just proved to be a good whipping boy.
Tell me this, if our governement knew that Soviet spys were working in our governement, why is it wrong that we try to expose them? If spys working for terrorist groups were working in our governement in an attempt to sabatoge us one day, wouldn't you hope we stop them?
One more thing, no one ever said if you are against the war you are unpatriotic.
Bush saying either you are with us or against us is not saying you are unpatriotic.
Plus Bush was telling countries who harbor terroists that if they were not with us, they were against us, not the citizens of the US.
Rumsfielf is a war criminal?...Where is your proof?
And finally, did you move?