That's because liberals aren't funny or entertaining. Al gore and Hillary are going to try and start their own network..good luck..
And they still didn't get it right You'd think that we'd have some sort of major election reform by now (electoral college, an approved set of more reliable voting machines, etc.), but not yet. Do you really think that was more a case of bias than just wanting to beat the other networks to the punch? I think it was network competition, not ideology that drove those bogus predictions.
One GIANT omissions that you and others leave out.....when Rather and Brokaw and Jennings give the "NEWS" , thats exactly what it is supposed to be...'just the facts mamm' When people tune into O'reilly and Hannity they are watching " TV SHOWS and Personalities who choose a couple issues of the day to openly debate....Thats a big difference....when you watch Geraldo you know what you are getting is HIS view....when you tune into CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER....You SHOULD be getting just the facts, but instead you get his slant and skew of things.....So what is worse? Who is more vulnerable to be hoodwinked? I'd say tis somebody tunning in to hear what they think are the facts form a 'reliable' news source.
Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a child? Do you know the f*cking difference between reporting the news and political commentary? Do you? I don't think you do. When someone reports the news, they should not have a bias in their reporting, you should be reporting the facts. When someone is giving commentary that is completely different. They are giving their opinion of the facts. End of story. The mainstream news does not do this, they report the facts with a bias, that is not right. Fox also reports the news and when they do, they report the facts. On their evening commentary programs, they give, well commentary of course. There is a very explicit difference. If you don't know this, I would recommend you going to journalism school and learning something.
Fact-Free News By Harold Meyerson Wednesday, October 15, 2003; Page A23 Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is? Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong. Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction. In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three. The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three. Now, this could just be pre-sorting by ideology: Conservatives watch O'Reilly, liberals look at Lehrer, and everyone finds his belief system confirmed. But the Knowledge Network nudniks took that into account, and found that even among people of like mind, where they got their news still shaped their sense of the real. Among respondents who said they would vote for George W. Bush in next year's presidential race, for instance, more than three-quarters of the Fox watchers thought we'd uncovered a working relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, while just half of those who watch PBS believed this to be the case. Misperceptions can also be the result of inattention, of course. If you nod off for just a nanosecond in the middle of Tom Brokaw intoning, "U.S. inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction today," you could think we'd just uncovered Hussein's nuclear arsenal. So the wily researchers also controlled for intensity of viewership, and concluded that, "in the case of those who primarily watched Fox News, greater attention to news modestly increases the likelihood of misperceptions." Particularly when that news includes hyping every false lead in Iraq as the certain prelude to uncovering a massive WMD cache. One question inevitably raised by these findings is whether Fox News is failing or succeeding. Over at CBS, the news that 71 percent of viewers hold one of these mistaken notions should be cause for concern, but whether such should be the case at Fox because 80 percent of their viewers are similarly mistaken is not at all clear. Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and the other guys at Fox have long demonstrated a clearer commitment to changing public policy than to reporting it, and an even clearer commitment to reporting it in such a way as to change it. Take a wild flight of fancy with me and assume for just a moment that one major goal over at Fox is to ensure Bush's reelection. Surely, anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were in cahoots, that we've found the WMD and that Bush is revered among the peoples of the world -- all of these known facts to nearly half the Fox viewers -- is a good bet to be a Bush voter in next year's contest. By this standard -- moving votes into Bush's column and keeping them there -- Fox has to be judged a stunning success. It's not so hot on conveying information as such, but mere empiricism must seem so terribly vulgar to such creatures of refinement as Murdoch and Ailes.
No I don't agree with most of your post, which I thought would have been clear by my obvious tongue in cheek reply. I don't believe that Fox manipulates the news. I do believe that they have upset the balance of politics, but at least on TV news programs, there was no balance before Fox. Balance at least where I come from means opinions on both sides. All liberal news networks means there is no balance. The south has historically been a Republican stronghold, this isn't a new trend. You may not like it but then this begs the question of whether you are truly independent or not, because if you were truly independent you wouldn't root for one side over the other. With regards to all the accusations regarding hate, let me just say that those who stir up hate by accusing others of hate are at least as culpable as those who do the actual hating, which in my opinion is not as pronounced a problem as those who stir up the hate by accusing others of hate would like us to believe. The true hate mongers IMO are the ones who make a living off of getting their constituents *rights* which means taking something from everyone else to procure those *rights*. This is the common argument used by the Democratic party. If you were truly an independent thinker I'm sure you would see through this argument. And as the argument goes, anyone who doesn't agree with giving "us" these *rights* is a hate monger. If the other networks were truly fair and balanced, they too would regularly interview so called right wing radicals in addition to the left wing liberals they regularly have on. I think the free is market probably the most efficient at showing where public opinion on this matter lies, by looking at the ratings, and right now that network is Fox.
Actually it's all about money and markets. Once Rush made such a hit, every radio conglomerate groomed their own "stars" to fill the perceived "conservative void". Not for long though, because now there is a lack of Liberal voices. Here's an interesting note... "...right-wing hosts are fading. For example, Bill O'Reilly's radio failures in Limbaugh-dominated markets, documented recently by Matt Drudge, imply the obvious: Right-wing talk radio has reached market saturation and is no longer a growth industry. According to Geoff Metcalf on WorldNetDaily, the O'Reilly show is even paying stations â in one case over a quarter million dollars â to continue to carry the show." It's all about market saturation now. We'll see how it all works out over the next few years, but I guarantee you there will be the emergence of a few large syndicated liberal radio programs in the near future.
aroguetrader, Come on, you are big boy. You can fight your own battles. Don't post shit from liberal slanted organizations. Make an argument with your own thoughts. I know this will be hard for you, but try, maybe you can have your parents help you out. Please answer all the questions I asked you in my previous post. I know you won't be able to but I will give you some points if you at least try. I'm a nice guy.
I am not against the right wing point of view. What I am against is hate mongering. Can any of you people name a hate monger on any of the major news networks that you claim are liberal. Agnew originated this strategy back in the Nixon administration and then Regan started it up again when he ran for president. If the right wing had anything of substance to offer the average american they wouldn't have to resort to this kind of crap. I also don't like name calling and insults from people who have only those types of remarks to utilize for rebuttal. How pathetic can one get? regards
O'reilly is a good exmple of saturtation becuase he has the #1 show in his time slot on TV and most peopel know its going to be the same subject at night....but the bottom line is entertainment value...if its not entertaining nobody will listen..