No, the Gallup/Knight study did NOT “put” Fox News as the most balanced. It merely said that Fox News was cited by more Americans as balanced…not surprising since it’s watched by more Americans, which says something about our ability to discern “balanced” news media.
I was greatly disappointed to find out that “Fox and Friends” wasn’t a fun kid’s show.
Why not watch something with ACTUAL balance? I suggest: Anything from any foreign country that is not an enemy of the USA. Any ally or any neutral-ish country will do.
Just to be clear, my previous post would apply equally to me if I were embarking on this. It occurred to me after the fact that it might come of as my assuming I’m better than others, but I’m not. I actually was just describing what I myself would do.
Oh, and I don’t doubt that the liberal may be sincere, but that doesn’t mean Fox isn’t using them for the purpose I described. There was one recent guy who admitted that he knew that they were doing something like this, but that he thought he could maybe persuade some business owners (and he said that most business owners watch Fox), and that was worth it. That is, until they wouldn’t call the child concentration camps wrong.
To be fair, this is also why I don’t tend to watch CNN or MSNBC. In CNN’s case its not because of a partisan bias; it’s because their news presentation is sensationalist, trivial and stupid, with lots of flashy ads jumpcutting enough to induce an epileptic fit. In MSNBC the information content was fine but the smug was overwhelming (admittedly I gave up on them in the Olbermann days).
I don’t trust any one source enough to get news exclusively from them. Even the BBC is tainted these days. Any story of interest I can’t crosscheck is suspect.
This. And I typically ask the MSNBC junkie, he who controls the remote, to switch over. Or I go into another room to check out Fox.
:smack: Yes, Chris Wallace. But I don’t need to watch it to know what the format is. I didn’t watch the Tour de France this year, but I know who won each of the various jerseys (yellow, green, polka dot, and white).
As repeatedly and openly stated by FoxNews themselves. It’s not something that requires extensive analysis to discover, you know.
Did you miss this statement that you quoted?
Yes, there is lots of editorial content on cable news channels. Again - not exactly a revelation.
The news this morning is that Michael Cohen is totally unreliable as a witness. The argument seems to be: because Giuliani and Lindsay Graham say so. To be fair, I did not quite catch the details and I am at least interested in other perspectives on the Mueller investigation.
I agree with the poster who said FOX seems to aimed at people with a low education level. It does seem like it depends which segment you tune into- some come across as fairly normal news headlines, but some of it is propaganda for people who never heard of the bare assetion fallacy. I appreciate it that the hot presenter this morning is at least sitting behind a desk. It was a good thing I had to turn it off and go to work the other day- the presenter’s skirt was so short, I was about to pop a boner! :eek:
At a hotel my wife and I used to stay in on occasion, the TV in the breakfast room in the morning was usually tuned to a local NBC affiliate, which was typical news: a little national news, a little local news, traffic, weather, some local human-interest stories…just the basics plus some pleasant stuff with your breakfast.
Every now and then, someone would switch the channel to Fox News. And (this was 2016) it would be nonstop Hillary Emails or Clinton Foundation or whatever the Hillary Is Eeevil story of the day was, with the clear goal in mind of making viewers pumped up to get their hands around Hillary’s neck and squeeze.
If I’d been the rude sort who was willing to ruin other people’s breakfasts, I’d have stood up next to the TV and refuted the Faux News talking head, point by point; it wasn’t that hard if you were well read on the subjects they were discussing. Instead, I went over to the front desk, pointed out that the TV was on Fox News, noted the difference between their approach and the local news, and requested that the TV stay on a local channel during breakfast.
Yes. I’m surprised how often Google News points to London news sites for the best information about events in America. And, I’m not sure about “enemies” — the best news sites are often Al-Jazeera, or even RT!
BTW, one needn’t turn on CNN to see liberals misconstrue economic figures to avoid giving credit to Trump — it’s quite commonplace right here on this message board! The truth is on our side; why the need to exaggerate or mislead? (I don’t mind misleading average voters—only exaggerations have a chance to get through to them—but let’s not lie among ourselves on this intelligent message board.)
(I realize this was just a parenthetical tangent, but what does “GDP is only a segment of the American economy” mean?)
GDP represents econimuc activity that occurs within US borders.
GNP represents total US economic activity worldwide.
Wiki blurb:
(I honestly thought there was a bigger difference between these figures before you asked…)
I got a good dose of Tucker Carlson tonight with his guest Lou Dobbs. First Tucker did a segment on Trump Derangement Syndrome. It was another one if those libruls are crazy bits. It was a lot of simple accusations, though I found the video of the guys smashing Trump’s star on the Walk of Fame to be at least good TV. Tucker’s got his dander up and there they are, “liberals” on film committing vandalism. And here’s another video at the same site, only now there are street brawls. You go, “liberals”! /sneer
Bit then it was, “Liberals support MS-13!” and I was back to admiring how shameless they are. It certainly is manipulative. And they really are good at it. They have a set of buzzwords they always return to, kind of like strange attractors in chaos theory. Liberals. Democrats. Socialism. Jobs. America. The arguments aren’t built on facts, but on playing people’s emotions by dinging these touchstones.
I think the audience must feel badly about something to consume this much neener-neener towards “liberals.” It is a drama they keep returning to. Dr. Drew might say this is indicative of re-living some trauma. I can only speculate what that might be…
I was at a bar last night and they had Fox News on one of the TVs. My friends and I sat there dumbfounded as we watched (with the sound off) “The Liberal Sherpa” with Tucker Carlson and talk about how “men who eat meat are more desireable” - along with several ridiculously thick cuts of steak which they literally waved around during most of the segment.
From where we were sitting it absolutely looked like a parody comedy sketch.
Did you see that bit?
I do not recommend watching Fox for any length of time. It’s similar to going to just one Jim Jones cult meeting or one Scientology meeting. They want you to sell your soul. Resist!
I can’t take it, I definitely lean conservative but Fox is just a bunch of bullshit.
I did. The discussion revolved around either a study or just consideration of the idea, I don’t recall which, that men who order big steaks in restaurants were more desirable in a primal way to women, even vegetarian women. The steak waving was to test the theory with different cuts, “Do I seem more masculine with this bone-in ribeye? No, how about with this huge NY strip?” They seemed to be trying to use the words “man”, “meat”, and “impressive” in the same sentence in as many combinations as possible. The Sherpa insisted at one point that a man could come across as just as masculine waving a carrot around in that manner as a NY strip.
To all you FOX critics out there, I did not really understand incels until I started this little experiment 
Personally I’d tend to assume women prefer men who don’t wave their food around at the table.
If you question what they say on FOX, you are doing it wrong.