Because we are sick of the loud mouthed anchors, blatant liberal slant, and hyperactive captions moving on the screen of the commerical networks.
Ditto here. My default news channel (living in Japan) is CNN-J (CNN International in Japan). If there is some programming I don’t like or there is a big news story, I’ll check out BBC World. When I am tired of CNN’s US-based programs, I check out Fox News or AP online to get another view of the same news stories.
Yes, reality does have a well known liberal bias.
Can I share my favorite Fox News story?
When I was in Baghdad in 2003, I was talking to an American army captain. He was complaining that the only international news he got on his sat. TV was the BBC. I said that I liked BBC, what was the problem.
Captain: “I’m tired of being told how badly it is going here, I want to be lied to. I want CNN”
Me: If you want to be lied to, then you want FOX News.
Captain: I’m not a fucking moron, I only want to be lied to a little bit.
Also, when Fox News was at the Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad, their floor reeked of weed.
It is puzzling that many people should want a news channel that doesn’t talk down to them and sneer at everything they believe in.
Go figure.
What News Channel does that? Fox News certainly talks down to me and sneers at everything I believe in, so you can’t mean that.
FOX News calls it FOX News with the capital letters and they’d probably be the most qualified to say how their station name should be spelled. Hell, it’s probably one of the only things they’re qualified to speak authoritatively and accurately on so let’s let them have this 
I can’t find any real good clips on YouTube that don’t have that weird “FOX ATTACK” shit plastered on them, but it does a good job demonstrating just how biased Fox is. You seemed to think they are less bias than other stations, and while I hate CNN and all 24 hour news machines that have turned into little more than candy dispensers, I have never, ever seen such blatant WTF unsubstantiated anti-news on CNN or MSNBC that are in that little Fox clip. And there are endless examples of Fox doing things like that, taking GOP talking points that are not grounded in reality, but presenting them in such a way that they seem to give credibility to the claim. Fox is way more biased than other MSM outlets, that’s all.
Why do people like Fox? My aunt told me on a recent visit from Texas that she personally is not ready for a “colored man” in the White House. A close friend of mine in high school went to Westpoint so as to “kill as many rag heads possible.” 30% of America still support Bush. Fox has an audience, it’s that simple.
Hardly puzzling; stupid, ignorant, self deluding people often get talked down to, and prefer to listen to someone who panders to them. That doesn’t make them any less stupid, ignorant and self deluding.
I watch Fox News because that’s what’s on the TVs in the Chow Hall. I dunno why whoever set them that way. Generally I’ll ignore it unless there’s no conversation going on at the table, and then it’s better than watching other people eating in the chow hall (I mean, have you SEEN the way Marines eat?! :D)
People who get their news largely or exclusively from FOX are measurably less well informed about the world than people who get their news from other sources.
Fox “News” is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He makes Dubya seem like a screaming liberal.
An article by Professor Roy Greenslade in Guardian Unlimited pointed out that in Murdoch’s media empire all 175 newspapers owned by him editorialized in favor of the Iraq war.
Gee, what a coincidence that so many editors would have the same exact opinion! What are the odds?! You don’t think the fact that Rupert is a right-wing despot has anything to do with it, do you?
I can only hope that his son, James - the heir apparent, who I met as a student of mine while at a school in Switzerland, will show his true colors (from back then) after dad kicks the bucket. James was a wild kid, but nothing like his father. Then again - maybe James really is buying into daddy’s philosophy…or at least the concept of giving certain people what they want to hear.
Well, might be as simple as he, being the owner, gets to choose who runs the papers he owns, and they hire people they like for various jobs (I mean, you’re not likely to hire a guy you just can’t stand when there is a presumably equally qualified guy who you get on with much better available, right?), and you basically end up with a sort of corporate culture more or less in line with what the owner likes.
And then again maybe he walks into the office one morning and then, over coffee, says “I don’t like what this guy says, go make him a deal he can’t refuse” or something, who knows, I was but a humble freelance writer when I was in the journalism biz.
Must have some relation to REALTOR™s!
The answer to this thread is simple: The reassure them that everything is fine, facts be damned.
-Joe
Well, they’re owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, named after William Fox, who presumably was not an acronym. They’re free to use their own self-promotional branding style, but it is not in any way, shape, or form authoritative for the rest of the English language. So no, I’m not going to let them have that one.
After reflecting upon this question a bit more, I thought of it in sort of a different light. Fox viewers watch it not because they consider it unbiased, but because it expressly provides the sort of bias they desire to consume. Their views are so corrupted by modern entertainment culture that they see news not as a way to inform and educate, but as a commodity that should suit their tastes as consumers. When they see people watching CNN or BBC, they don’t think “hey, a different side of the issue”, they think “you drink your Kool-Aid, I’ll drink mine, problem solved”. The consumer’s job is to consume the product they like best.
And I’m not saying that CNN doesn’t do a bit of Kool-Aid pushing from time to time, in fact it seems to be reacting poorly under market pressure from Fox. It’s just that Fox is the most blatant about pushing infotainment as a commodity because this is exactly what that target audience desires.
Interesting that the O’Reilly Factor and Rush Limbaugh audiences ranked as better informed than the average American. Guess we better start paying more attention to what ole Bill and Rush say…obviously they’re doing a great job of teaching people the truth!
[pause]
For those who are prone to being whooshed, what I actually meant to illustrate with my above comment is this point from the research…
I watch Fox news, and I’m pretty damned liberal.
I’m not a heavy news watcher, and I have seen Youtube clips of some fairly egregious Fox News slanted commentary and read Al Franken’s books enough to be suspicious of them, but I watch Fox News more than any other news channel.
I watch the news for about 5 minutes in the morning when I get to work. I go to the break room, watch the news while I toast a bagel, then go to my office. I don’t watch every day, but if there are no good conversation going on among my coworkers, I’ll turn on the TV and watch the least-bad news on one of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX (all three channels are next to each other). In my extremely unscientific experience, Fox News has, by far, had a higher “real news” content than the other two. It might even be higher than the other two combined.
My bar for real news is pretty low, but it involves something related to state, national, or international politics, economics, scientific studies, even entertainment news, if it’s not just endless repetition of the latest society column idiocy. Basically, something that could conceivably impact my life in some way.
Now, all three have their share of fluff, but CNN and MSNBC seem to feature it a lot more.
I can’t count how many times I’ve seen both MSNBC and CNN showing thrilling video, taken from a helicopter, of the outside of some building, with a few police cars around it, and endless inane discussion of what might be going on inside. And this isn’t, like, a bomb outside the capital building; it’s a fire in some random place 1200 miles away. Or some consumer product paranoia. Another thing that they increasingly like to do is play videos from their websites (like, they’ll show an actual screenshot of some staffer clicking around their website and playing the video. Sometimes it won’t even be screen capture; it’ll be a camera pointed at a computer screen. Really), or display emails they got in response to some inane query they posted on their website. They, of course, always show exactly two diametrically opposed opinions, with no explanation of which was more common. If I wanted to watch crappy videos and hear what idiots on the internet think, I’ll go to Youtube.
And I’ll flip to Fox and they’ll have an analysis of the latest White House press release, or of the quarterly earnings of IBM, or of the latest immigration plan. Now, it may be a slanted analysis, but at least it’s of something substantive. I really don’t want to like Fox News, but I have honestly found that it’s the least bad of those three. It’s not about bias, it’s about content. I don’t have to agree with their positions to be informed.
All I can say is that this is exactly the opposite of my (admittedly limited) experience.
Will that remain true under an Obama Administration?