ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Jupiter551]

 

[Just Me]

You're the one who accused me of getting my rebuttals from Limbaugh. So what's your point?

My point was that you contradict yourself on many occasions. You cant say you don't get your rebuttals from him while posting videos where he makes an appearance. You can't say you would not give that blowhard the time of day then point out I listen to him more than you. That implies you do listen to him. It might have been a bad turn of phrase for you but the words you post here are all I have to go on.

Unlike Fox news, I really try to be "fair and balanced". That is why I am open to differing opinions and news sources.

 

[Just Me]

"Enjoy your Miami, Los Angeles NBA finals David Stern, hope you're happy asshole." :lol:

 

[Bocefish]

You're the one who accused me of getting my rebuttals from Limbaugh. So what's your point?

My point was that you contradict yourself on many occasions. You cant say you don't get your rebuttals from him while posting videos where he makes an appearance. You can't say you would not give that blowhard the time of day then point out I listen to him more than you. That implies you do listen to him. It might have been a bad turn of phrase for you but the words you post here are all I have to go on.

Unlike Fox news, I really try to be "fair and balanced". That is why I am open to differing opinions and news sources.

Contradict myself where? Show me!

While posting videos where he makes an appearance? Oh nooooo, that must mean I lied and really listen to him. Gimme' a break! Videos can and often do include all sorts of sound bytes from several sources, if he happens to be in of them so fucking what. Keep grasping at straws, you might find one eventually.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Comparing hard news from around the world to fast food and teenage pop music is laughable, makes you look desperate or jealous. Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN's audience. Partisanship and Cable News Audiences http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1395/partis ... -audiences

WTF? All this shows is that more Republicans watch Fox than Democrats and that more Republicans watch Fox as their ONLY source of information than Democrats watch ANY channel exclusively.

Spin it anyway you want to. The fact remains Fox news has been rated #1 for a long time and 1/3 of Dems watch it.

Never denied the ratings...everyone in this thread but you realizes that that has nothing to do with journalistic quality of Fox. How is that spin? Fox is the ONLY so-called "news source" that has fought in the Supreme Court and won for the RIGHT to lie. So, yes, comparing Fox to a low quality fast food chain is right on the mark.

If popularity doesn't mean quality, than how do you measure quality? If you are looking for good quality cam show do you go to the last page of the MFC model list or the top?
The problem is most liberal seem have a hard time separating Fox news shows from their opinion shows. Only 1/3 of the schedule is news (which is better than MSNBC which only has 5 or 6 hours of news) but it is a far cry from CNN which has only a few hours of opinion shows, but plenty of biased anchors.

90% of the complaints I see liberal posting about Fox News are from the opinion shows, which is about as silly as me posting something from the Daily Show and saying Jon Stewart is being unfair and is distorting stuff. Fox opinion shows are just like the Daily Show, the focus is on entertaining viewers not on providing news.

I watch the PBS Newshour religiously every day, but I do find myself nodding off, pretty often. This is something that seldom happens when I am watching Fox.

 

[morment]

Newsflash... He's a talk show host. That's not a news show just in case you were uncertain, lol

How does that differ from the rest of the channel he's on?

 

[Bocefish]

Newsflash... He's a talk show host. That's not a news show just in case you were uncertain, lol

How does that differ from the rest of the channel he's on?

You might figure it out some day if you try really hard. :lol:

 

[Nordling]

Newsflash... He's a talk show host. That's not a news show just in case you were uncertain, lol

How does that differ from the rest of the channel he's on?

You might figure it out some day if you try really hard. :lol:

Except it was you who missed the not all that subtle sarcasm. :lol:

 

[morment]

You might figure it out some day if you try really hard. :lol:

My point was that the rest of Fox News, even the "news" programs on it, are a joke and might as well be talk shows if that's how they describe O'Reilly's show

 

[Bocefish]

You might figure it out some day if you try really hard. :lol:

My point was that the rest of Fox News, even the "news" programs on it, are a joke and might as well be talk shows if that's how they describe O'Reilly's show

I know what you meant... and figured one smart ass comment deserved another.

 

[Nordling]

Moving along...

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

You might figure it out some day if you try really hard. :lol:

My point was that the rest of Fox News, even the "news" programs on it, are a joke and might as well be talk shows if that's how they describe O'Reilly's show

How many of the Fox news shows have you watched? Can you even name any without google?

 

[morment]

How many of the Fox news shows have you watched? Can you even name any without google?

I don't watch Fox News.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

How many of the Fox news shows have you watched? Can you even name any without google?

I don't watch Fox News.

So how do you know they are a joke? I've at least watched once or twice all of the shows on MSNBC, and CNN, so when I give my opinion it is based on some experience. What the hell is your's based on?

 

[LadyLuna]

How many of the Fox news shows have you watched? Can you even name any without google?

I don't watch Fox News.

So how do you know they are a joke? I've at least watched once or twice all of the shows on MSNBC, and CNN, so when I give my opinion it is based on some experience. What the hell is your's based on?

Common knowledge.

If popularity doesn't mean quality, than how do you measure quality?

In clothes, I measure it by how long they last and how good they look.
In food, I measure it by how long I stay full, how well it suits my dietary needs, and how good it tastes.
In news, I measure it by how much fact and opinion are clearly separated, and how well they stick to the truth in their presentation of facts.
In books, I measure it by how well they follow basic grammar and spelling, how much the characters grow, and how realistic the events in the story are.
In music, I measure it by how well it suits my mood, or if it has a message, how well that message is stated.
In art, I measure it by how well any messages are presented, or if it's meant for enjoyment, how enjoyable it is to look at.

In clothes, people seem to prefer cheapness.
In food, people go for taste with little thought to the rest of it.
In news, people go for the sensationalism, not really bothering to see if it's fact or not.
In books, people go for entertainment value.
In music, well, this one's all over the place.
In art, people go for simplicity and beauty.

 

[morment]

So how do you know they are a joke? I've at least watched once or twice all of the shows on MSNBC, and CNN, so when I give my opinion it is based on some experience. What the hell is your's based on?

I've seen clips of shows and read articles linking to transcripts that highlight blatant misrepresentations of facts on their shows. I've seen at least half a dozen instances of them having a Republican member of Congress with a (D) next to their name when they're on their program for having done something stupid, there was a unemployment graph where 9% and 8.something% were on the same level, and that's just off the top of my head.

 

[morment]

I've also never heard a full episode of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, but I've heard enough to know that he's completely full of shit.

And I know he's off the air, but the fact that Fox had Glenn Beck as a host of anything on their station doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of their lineup.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

So how do you know they are a joke? I've at least watched once or twice all of the shows on MSNBC, and CNN, so when I give my opinion it is based on some experience. What the hell is your's based on?

I've seen clips of shows and read articles linking to transcripts that highlight blatant misrepresentations of facts on their shows. I've seen at least half a dozen instances of them having a Republican member of Congress with a (D) next to their name when they're on their program for having done something stupid, there was a unemployment graph where 9% and 8.something% were on the same level, and that's just off the top of my head.

:roll:
CLIPS seriously lol. So you are probably the type when when you seem movie trailers. You know for a fact that movie is great or it sucks. :roll: So for any of the clips did you ever go back and watch the entire show so that you get an idea of context? Have you ever heard of editing, or is that something that only the evil Republican are smart enough to figure out how to do. Plus you don't even know which Fox shows are real news and which are opinion.s

I despise Michael Moore with passion but I actually forced myself to watch all of his propaganda work, being marketed as movie before I went on the internet and called it propaganda. Sure I could have just read the reviews on World Net Daily, or Drudge, and regurgitated their talking points like a parrot and it took some effort to actually find Moore's movies. You can watch a Fox New show clicking on your remote.

I've got a suggestion for you watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, watch his interview and tell me why the hell they are a joke. But hey if you want to live your life in bubble surrounded by liberal echo chamber be my guest. But if this what you want to do they when you post something at least have to the decency to say "That Huffington Post, Moveon.org or whomever that Fox News is joke and I believe them."

 

[morment]

:roll:
CLIPS seriously lol. So you are probably the type when when you seem movie trailers. You know for a fact that movie is great or it sucks. :roll: So for any of the clips did you ever go back and watch the entire show so that you get an idea of context? Have you ever heard of editing, or is that something that only the evil Republican are smart enough to figure out how to do. Plus you don't even know which Fox shows are real news and which are opinion.s

I despise Michael Moore with passion but I actually forced myself to watch all of his propaganda work, being marketed as movie before I went on the internet and called it propaganda. Sure I could have just read the reviews on World Net Daily, or Drudge, and regurgitated their talking points like a parrot and it took some effort to actually find Moore's movies. You can watch a Fox New show clicking on your remote.

I've got a suggestion for you watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, watch his interview and tell me why the hell they are a joke. But hey if you want to live your life in bubble surrounded by liberal echo chamber be my guest. But if this what you want to do they when you post something at least have to the decency to say "That Huffington Post, Moveon.org or whomever that Fox News is joke and I believe them."

What context do you have that negates switching party affiliations of embarrassing Congressmen? I have heard of editing, I never called Republicans evil, so don't know why you'd go there. Which shows are the real news then?

 

[Nordling]

When someone presents themself as "well-rounded" by saying "I've watched every show at least once from both sides of the aisle" (paraphrase) and then asked this question seriously:

"If popularity doesn't mean quality, than how do you measure quality?"

Then I find it hard to continue a serious discussion with them. Quantity and quality are synonyms?

I have watched many shows on Fox News, not to get "both sides" so much as wondering what all the talk was about. The hosts, the guests, the snarky delivery of news...all tell me that this is not anywhere near serious journalism. And for such an outfit so obviously in the pocket of the GOP (heh...or vice versa) to call itself "Fair and Balanced" is beyond humor and irony.

As far as Chris Wallace goes, he's a shill. He does often sound a little "journalisty" lol But he's no Mike Wallace. Mainly, he's used as a moderate-right newsman to make Fox appear to be what it isn't. There's another guy on fox whose name escapes me at the moment that genuinely attacks right leaning issues honestly--on occasion.

BTW--CNN is often called "Fox Lite" because it seems to be attempting to emulate Fox at times...although their NEWS, at least tends to be decent examples of journalism.

 

[Jupiter551]

I always thought CNN was pretty unbiased actually but Boce quoted it as the one in opposition to fox news so maybe it's actually liberal. Personally I think CNN embraces a somewhat internationalist view of things, as opposed to (what I've seen of) Fox which examines everything from a US-centric view. Ideally, journalists should be imparting an account of facts that is as much divorced from a point of view as humanly possible. I think CNN does a better job of that myself, they also print a lot of news from other news services like Reuters and AAP, which also helps to diversify the sources and objectivity. I might point out I don't watch CNN, but I have read some of their articles.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

What context do you have that negates switching party affiliations of embarrassing Congressmen? I have heard of editing, I never called Republicans evil, so don't know why you'd go there. Which shows are the real news then?

Gee an accident, I've lost count how many times CNN has had a caption that Joe Blow is from such and organization and he is actually from a different organization. Party switches happen also on CNN. It is also the case a cable channel will make a mistake on the initial broadcast realize the mistake and correct in subsequent rebroadcast. So for instance unless you know the capture is from the last rebroadcast from the West Coast odds are pretty good for something as obvious as party mix up as has been fixed. I know in one case that Huff Post had link of stupid Fox mistake, while neglecting to mention that O'Reilly team issued a correction at the end of the show. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.

Pure news
America's newsroom (it is too early for me so I only watched a few times)
America Life
Happening Now

Mostly news with a small amount of commentary
Studio B with Shepard Smith
Special Report with Breit Barr
Fox Report with Shepard Smith

The previously mentioned Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace, the son of 60 Minute's Mike Wallace, and registered Democrat conducts tough interview of all his guest much like the late Tim Russert, or his dad. The rest of the show has the normal panel discussion,which has mostly conservatives on it.

 

[Nordling]

I always thought CNN was pretty unbiased actually but Boce quoted it as the one in opposition to fox news so maybe it's actually liberal. Personally I think CNN embraces a somewhat internationalist view of things, as opposed to (what I've seen of) Fox which examines everything from a US-centric view. Ideally, journalists should be imparting an account of facts that is as much divorced from a point of view as humanly possible. I think CNN does a better job of that myself, they also print a lot of news from other news services like Reuters and AAP, which also helps to diversify the sources and objectivity. I might point out I don't watch CNN, but I have read some of their articles.

Agree, although the contrast between Fox and CNN is so great that if CNN was called moderate, then Fox is direct from 1943 Berlin. Like I mentioned, CNN is fine as far as news, but their editorial programming tends to lean right. Kind of wish Ted Turner hadn't sold it. He's not my favorite person but at least he set CNN up to be a true news channel.

 

[Nordling]

BTW, don't get too excited that Chris Wallace is a registered Democrat...he explains:

On October 11, 2006, The Washington Post revealed that Wallace had been a registered Democrat for more than two decades. Wallace explained his party affiliation in terms of pragmatism, insisting that being a Democrat is the only feasible means of participating in the political process in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C. He maintained he had voted for candidates from both major parties in the past.[18] This same explanation was used by the late conservative commentator Robert D. Novak in explaining his registration as a Democrat while residing in the District of Columbia.

From Wikipedia.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

When someone presents themself as "well-rounded" by saying "I've watched every show at least once from both sides of the aisle" (paraphrase) and then asked this question seriously:

"If popularity doesn't mean quality, than how do you measure quality?"

Then I find it hard to continue a serious discussion with them. Quantity and quality are synonyms?

I have watched many shows on Fox News, not to get "both sides" so much as wondering what all the talk was about. The hosts, the guests, the snarky delivery of news...all tell me that this is not anywhere near serious journalism. And for such an outfit so obviously in the pocket of the GOP (heh...or vice versa) to call itself "Fair and Balanced" is beyond humor and irony.

As far as Chris Wallace goes, he's a shill. He does often sound a little "journalisty" lol But he's no Mike Wallace. Mainly, he's used as a moderate-right newsman to make Fox appear to be what it isn't. There's another guy on fox whose name escapes me at the moment that genuinely attacks right leaning issues honestly--on occasion.

BTW--CNN is often called "Fox Lite" because it seems to be attempting to emulate Fox at times...although their NEWS, at least tends to be decent examples of journalism.

I never said that quantity and quality are synonyms. I am pointing out the opposite is equally true, popularity does not mean a lack of quality. Pixar movies are very popular they are generally also high quality IMO and get critical acclaim with few exception. By and large girls with top Camscore deliver a better quality show,than girls with the lowest camscore. Now again there are many exceptions. But in general in society if the only thing you know about two products or services is that one is more popular than another say, in the absence of other information you'd be wise to assume that more popular one is better. For instance you are new to town and you see two Italian restaurant on block, one has few people waiting the other is almost deserted. You check the menu and the prices are the same. Which one do you go to?

Fox News is the most popular news networks, in large part because folks like O'Reilly, or Hannity are more popular than their counterparts on MSNBC or CNN. I believe their pure news shows are also higher rated. As far as quality goes I don't think they hold a candle to the PBS's Newshour. However, how do you go about judging the quality of say the Fox Report with Shepard Smith vs News Nation, or CNN Newsroom? As I said earlier I suspect much of the criticism is because people lump Fox opinion shows with their news shows. Which would be like a conservative saying that the Chris Matthew show is the same as Meet the Press cause the both air on MSNBC.

As far as the other guy I think you mean Shepard Smith but it is also possible it is Breit Barr. Mike may not be as tough as his legendary father, but name somebody else that conducts a tougher, more probing interview?

 

[LadyLuna]

Now again there are many exceptions. But in general in society if the only thing you know about two products or services is that one is more popular than another say, in the absence of other information you'd be wise to assume that more popular one is better. For instance you are new to town and you see two Italian restaurant on block, one has few people waiting the other is almost deserted. You check the menu and the prices are the same. Which one do you go to?

Step 1: find out why the people like the one over the other.
Step 2: if possible, try both. In the case of restaurants, I'm more likely to go the one where I won't have to wait as long for my meal, and if I like the food and think it's good, I'll keep going there.

When it comes to finding out information, I generally look for the lease popular source, because that's the one that's most likely to be selling the truth. Seriously, people don't want the truth, and they don't want to think. They want to be spoon-fed information, and they want scandal, and they want someone telling them nonsense that seems to make sense.

I don't agree with everything Democrats stand for. But unlike Republicans, Democrats demonstrated that they are willing to drop party lines and work as a team with the Republicans no matter who was in office. Republicans said that they would do their best to stall Obama at every turn once Obama won the election, and you know what? At that moment, they lost the chance of me ever voting for them again. Maybe 50 years down the line they will be worth voting for again, but I don't honestly think I'll be around in 50 years (this is just due to biological family medical history).

 

[Nordling]

Yeah, it was Shepherd Smith. Thanks.

My problem with your statement on popularity = quality is... it's backwards. Certainly many things that are high quality are also popular... But the quality is in no way a result of the popularity. In the case of Fox News, e.g., it's a case of HIGH QUALITY MARKETING, not high quality news.

 

[morment]

Gee an accident, I've lost count how many times CNN has had a caption that Joe Blow is from such and organization and he is actually from a different organization. Party switches happen also on CNN. It is also the case a cable channel will make a mistake on the initial broadcast realize the mistake and correct in subsequent rebroadcast. So for instance unless you know the capture is from the last rebroadcast from the West Coast odds are pretty good for something as obvious as party mix up as has been fixed. I know in one case that Huff Post had link of stupid Fox mistake, while neglecting to mention that O'Reilly team issued a correction at the end of the show. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence.

It's happened too often for me to discount it as incompetence, plus I've never heard of even a single case of an embarrassing Democrat being inadvertently labeled with an R, so it leaves me skeptical.

 

[Jupiter551]

But in general in society if the only thing you know about two products or services is that one is more popular than another say, in the absence of other information you'd be wise to assume that more popular one is better.

I suppose, but the point is there ISN'T an absence of other information and unless you're presented with an unrealistic choice, you'd be wise to judge things on their own merits rather than their appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Yeah, it was Shepherd Smith. Thanks.

My problem with your statement on popularity = quality is... it's backwards. Certainly many things that are high quality are also popular... But the quality is in no way a result of the popularity. In the case of Fox News, e.g., it's a case of HIGH QUALITY MARKETING, not high quality news.

I was a question, not a statement hence the question mark at the end. And not even a rhetorical question. Now I am not a fan of Fox News and I've said watch it less than PBS, probably a bit less than CNN, and more than MSNBC. I think the Fox news, not opinion, programs are much less biased than MSNBC, but slightly more biased than CNN.

I don't think the reason Fox is more popular than MSNBC or CNN has very little to do high quality marketing either. What the heck is Fox news marketing program anyhow? I think Fox puts out very watchable news program, and controversial opinion show that are more engaging than the other networks. There was book, it might have been the Fox Effect, that discussed all the smart things that Fox News does. For example compared the old fashion sets at MSNBC, Fox's have brighter colors and look more modern with a cleaner design. CNN set have go over board and with all crawlers, blinking lights, and weird iPad like effects, look like something of Mission Control, and I am a gadget guy. Same thing with graphics, CNN graphics are often convoluted and look like something I see on CNBC. Fox's graphics are simpler and easier to understand. Finally, lets talk about the on air talent. CNN has a few hotties, and Anderson Cooper, but plenty of not so special looking folks. MSNBC, has fat slovenly guys like Chris Matthews and Ed Shultz. In contrast, Fox has good looking guys like Shepard Smith, the masculine Bill O'Reilly and the Fox girls. Virtually every woman on Fox would do well as a MFC model. Fox glams the girls up puts them in sexy dress and make sure we can look at their legs. There are some real babes on the network, and they aren't dumb blondes, most of the Foxes on Fox have masters degrees,with quite a few PHd, Law degrees,and Md or two also.Gretchen Carlson for example is a former Miss America and is Stanford grad. In contrast, except for Oxford grad Rachel Maddow, plenty of the folks on MSNBC, went to a podunk school, and spent much of their career as a sportscaster.

Now you may say what the hell does hotness of the talent, and the look of the sets have to do with a quality of the news? Perhaps not much but from a style and presentation perspective Fox puts out a very high quality product which explains much of its popularity. It is really no different than the camgirl, who sits in her room with a crappy webcam, bad lighting, and texts her friends on her iPhone, she maybe gorgeous with a great personality, and super smart but nobody is going to watch her show if the presentation isn't any good. So how do you measure quality of a news network?