News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Is FOX News really that bad?

Started by Syt, October 30, 2009, 11:32:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User actions

Ed Anger

#30
October 30, 2009, 01:27:01 PM
Also, Fox usually has the best cop chase footage.

Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Razgovory

#31
October 30, 2009, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 01:24:33 PM
Also It's still below Colbert.  Fox News in general is at the bottom.

Yeah, right beside local news.

O'Reilly is right there at the top in a statistical tie with Colbert.



Yeah, that's pretty fucking impressive.  One show got on the network got a little under a fake newscast.  Impressive.  Fox news in general.  Pretty crappy.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

The Larch

#32
October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 30, 2009, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2009, 01:14:08 PM
Also, Beck, Olbermann and Dobbs watchers deserve two punches in the nuts.
Agree on Beck... that guy is simply annoying as fuck, not to mention rude and a total blowhard.  Princesca seems to love him though :ph34r:

I felt like punching him just by seeing his face on the cover of his last book in the libraries while over there, so I guess he projects a certain "jerk" aura.  :P

BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.

Admiral Yi

#33
October 30, 2009, 01:34:37 PM
Beeb, Raz is right.  The O'Reilly audience is a subset of the Fox audience which is better informed than the general Fox audience.

The part where Raz goes amiss is in assuming causation.

DGuller

#34
October 30, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Now that I see those numbers for the first time, as an applied statistician I realize how bunk they are when it comes to supporting the argument that Daily Show is most informative.  The implication of this survey is that some programs are more informative than others, and so the viewers of more informative programs are more informed. 

However, to me, the difference seems to me is in the audiences.  The audiences of the opinion shows are more interested in politics, and for pretty much all opinion shows they are more informed.  For the general news shows, the interest is lower, and so are the knowledge scores.  That's the only conclusion that can be taken from this.  Using this as a proof that Daily Show is more informative than Fox News is stretching it big time.

alfred russel

#35
October 30, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM

BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.

Did they report on stupid stuff he said while he was at CNN?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

DGuller

#36
October 30, 2009, 01:38:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM

BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.

Did they report on stupid stuff he said while he was at CNN?
If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Razgovory

#37
October 30, 2009, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Now that I see those numbers for the first time, as an applied statistician I realize how bunk they are when it comes to supporting the argument that Daily Show is most informative.  The implication of this survey is that some programs are more informative than others, and so the viewers of more informative programs are more informed. 

However, to me, the difference seems to me is in the audiences.  The audiences of the opinion shows are more interested in politics, and for pretty much all opinion shows they are more informed.  For the general news shows, the interest is lower, and so are the knowledge scores.  That's the only conclusion that can be taken from this.  Using this as a proof that Daily Show is more informative than Fox News is stretching it big time.

Well you are the stat guy.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Queequeg

#38
October 30, 2009, 01:40:12 PM Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 01:42:47 PM by Queequeg
I agreed with  this , and I tend to think that Fallows post-Japanese Crash is a pretty smart, nice guy. 
Quote
I didn't see anything on Fox from mid-2006 through mid-2009; for better or worse, it's not carried in China. (The English TV news channels you can get there are BBC, CNN International, CNBC, sometimes Bloomberg.) I have seen it since coming back this summer. And in a way, I realize that I had been seeing it all along: except for more modern production values, it's the closest thing America offers to what it's like to be exposed to the Chinese government's 24/7 internal propaganda machine. When I saw the clip below from Media Matters, as highlighted by Andrew Sullivan, I thought: make it a little more boring, put it in Mandarin, and substitute "splittists" etc for the people Fox is talking about (maybe the Dalai Lama in place of Van Jones), and I could be right back in Beijing.



Are Maddow and Olbermann on MSNBC comparably relentless and "biased"? Of course they are. But no one pretends their shows are "real" news operations or are "fair and balanced." And certainly they have become what they are as a market and political response to Fox's success. Indeed, the general polarization and spectacle-mindedness of the news ecology in part is homage to what Fox has figured out as a business and political model. Any fair person also has to acknowledge the better production values Fox brought to TV news over the past decade: it's lively, it's fast, it's interesting, the women on screen (to a shocking degree, if you've been away) set a new standard in physical looks, the whole thing gets your attention.

But a crucial part of this clip, and of the White House complaint, is that it's not just the out-and-out commentators on Fox -- the Hannities and O'Reillies who begat Maddow and Olbermann -- who supply a one-note politicized world view. It's the texture of the overall operation. I can think of honorable exceptions among correspondents and anchors, like Major Garrett (whom I do know) and Shepherd Smith (whom I don't). But this clip suggests the seamlessness of the Fox News outlook, which has impressed me on watching it. Again something it shares with China Central TV.

Main point: I disagree with my journalistic colleagues who are huffy because the Obama White House is treating Fox differently from the way it is treating other news organizations. Fox is different. As a practical matter, saying so could backfire on the White House. But as a matter of observing and stating reality, they're right.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

The Larch

#40
October 30, 2009, 02:14:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM

BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.

Did they report on stupid stuff he said while he was at CNN?

They only really started paying attention to him in the last few months, basically after he called Obama racist. I doubt that he scored in anyone's radar over here before that.

Lettow77

#41
October 30, 2009, 02:18:03 PM
 It is 'that' bad.

The notion that people who watch the daily show are better, however, is of course nonsense. The salt of the earth trumps the psuedointelligentsia every time.
It can't be helped...We'll have to use 'that'

citizen k

#42
October 30, 2009, 02:18:11 PM
CNN seems to be the only cable news network today that strives to be fair and balanced. And they're paying for it with their ratings.
MSNBC has become the mirror image of Fox. Fox has Hannity, O'Reilley and Beck. MSNBC has Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz. They're all preaching to their respective choirs.

Eddie Teach

#43
October 30, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
I wish I got MSNBC on basic cable. I want to see the lefty versions of Beck & Hannity. :(
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

citizen k

#44
October 30, 2009, 02:32:31 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
I wish I got MSNBC on basic cable. I want to see the lefty versions of Beck & Hannity. :(

Olbermann is a dork, Maddow is a Kike dike and Schultz is an angry, progressive white man.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User actions