OCinBuffalo Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Well let's see now. First we had everybody but Fox News refusing to vet Obama. Then, we had Obama be Obama. Now, how is it a shock to anyone that all the people who refused to do their jobs and have been cheerleading for Obama for years.... ...are now less trusted than Fox? This is simple cause and effect. Obama's certain failure was bound to create splash damage to those around him, and who has been closer to him than the networks and MSNBC? They are merely reaping what they sowed. You back a loser, you lose. The question that remains: are they going to learn from their mistakes, or, are they going to keep driving their own numbers down, and drive even more people to Fox? This is an easy one: They are going to do their job with Hillary, or they aren't. They will either regain their cred or they won't. And, if they don't at least make it look good? I think it hurts Hillary(or, please, Warren) rather than helping her.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Nice to see your personal vendetta against Bill O'Reilly is still going strong! The topic is Fox News most trusted network So no. No vendetta. I find Bill entertaining - as a comedian. His no spin zone is akin to Bill Mahr and his closing statements I am sorry if calling out a hypocrite is not to your liking. FWIW .... as to vendetta's look in the mirror. most of the PPP is vendetta based. queue the trashing Their lunch time show is news. Admittedly, they only cover trench collapses, car chases, and missing white women (the "Fox News Trifecta"). But that is news. At my old job, the whole company used to stop work at noon, eat lunch while watching Fox News, and wait for the Trifecta. "We've got the missing white woman and the trench collapse...come on, car chase!" It was very entertaining. oops thanks for the reminder Tom. I had forgotten that, FOX News would be on at my old job as well in one corner of the cafeteria. Well let's see now. First we had everybody but Fox News refusing to vet Obama. This is simple cause and effect. Obama's certain failure was bound to create splash damage to those around him ......... ? And the party that wanted Obama to fail and voted no on pretty much everything and filibustered more times than I care to recall ... had nothing to do with it I suppose. Both parties are f'd up and are self serving. The day people learn that and vote for the independent is the day the outliers might actually learn something. Edited March 31, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
TPS Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 It's too bad they didn't have a category for education level in that poll, that would've been interesting...
birdog1960 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) more proof, as if any further is needed, that there are many stupid americans. It's too bad they didn't have a category for education level in that poll, that would've been interesting... it's as i suspect you would predict (scroll down a bit on the link): http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/. economist readers-64% college grads. fox news- 24%. npr - 54% Edited March 31, 2015 by birdog1960
Magox Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 It's too bad they didn't have a category for education level in that poll, that would've been interesting... Not sure, but there is this: Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. And there is this as well: On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.” The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party. “Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.
birdog1960 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Not sure, but there is this: And there is this as well: when you don't like the answer, change the question. the pew research poll answers the actual question posed and a lot more. check out the data on political knowledge and news audience.
Magox Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 when you don't like the answer, change the question. the pew research poll answers the actual question posed and a lot more. check out the data on political knowledge and news audience. I did, so i guess you didn't like the findings. Too bad, it is what it is.
birdog1960 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I did, so i guess you didn't like the findings. Too bad, it is what it is. then you know that the same source you quoted (but in a study asking very different questions) shows poorer political knowledge scores, less educational attainment and less household income among those watching fox news shows that those watching/listening/reading what are generally considered liberal sources.
Magox Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) then you know that the same source you quoted (but in a study asking very different questions) shows poorer political knowledge scores, less educational attainment and less household income among those watching fox news shows that those watching/listening/reading what are generally considered liberal sources. Read up “As the presidential campaign enters its final three months, most voters say they already know what they need to know to form a clear impression of the candidates.” When it comes to party affiliation, however, it appears that one side maintains a clear advantage in terms of knowing what it needs to know in order to cast an informed vote. It's clear. Edited March 31, 2015 by Magox
birdog1960 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Read up It's clear. clear as mud. further obfuscation. i know plenty of smart republicans and plenty of dumb dens. so what? the thread is about fox news. and the demographics of the viewers are not too positively distinguished. something else to be gleaned from the data in the link i provided: it's tougher to make it with shows aimed at the highly educated demographic. that's cuz there are less people in that group. only 29% of americans have completed college. is it any wonder that dumbed down fox does so well in simple ratings numbers and npr has a much smaller audience overall? Edited March 31, 2015 by birdog1960
Magox Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 clear as mud. further obfuscation. i know plenty of smart republicans and plenty of dumb dens. so what? the thread is about fox news. and the demographics of the viewers are not too positively distinguished. In other words you don't want to accept the findings. Got it!
birdog1960 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 In other words you don't want to accept the findings. Got it! sure i accept them. they are not relevant to the topic. but you already know this…kind of a cheap "trick".
Magox Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 sure i accept them. they are not relevant to the topic. but you already know this…kind of a cheap "trick". Cheap trick? Hardly
TPS Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 more proof, as if any further is needed, that there are many stupid americans. it's as i suspect you would predict (scroll down a bit on the link): http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/. economist readers-64% college grads. fox news- 24%. npr - 54% At least Fox beat day time talk shows!
GG Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 At least Fox beat day time talk shows! I think this board is proof enough that getting a college degree(s) does not necessarily produce higher intelligence.
TPS Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 clear as mud. further obfuscation. i know plenty of smart republicans and plenty of dumb dens. so what? the thread is about fox news. and the demographics of the viewers are not too positively distinguished. something else to be gleaned from the data in the link i provided: it's tougher to make it with shows aimed at the highly educated demographic. that's cuz there are less people in that group. only 29% of americans have completed college. is it any wonder that dumbed down fox does so well in simple ratings numbers and npr has a much smaller audience overall? Thanks, I was going to post something along these lines. I think more educated people on both sides rely on alternative sources of new rather than Fox or CNN. I'd be surprised if some of our libertarian friends here think Fox is trustworthy....maybe more trustworthy than CNN, but that's not saying much...
TPS Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I think this board is proof enough that getting a college degree(s) does not necessarily produce higher intelligence. For the most part, I think this board is representative of what I said in my previous post. Do you watch Fox? I'd be shocked if you said you did. I bet most of the posters here do something similar to what I do: I don't watch any major news show; I get the FT, and my wife gets The New Yorker. Most of my "regular news" comes from various web sites and RSS feeds.
GG Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 For the most part, I think this board is representative of what I said in my previous post. Do you watch Fox? I'd be shocked if you said you did. I bet most of the posters here do something similar to what I do: I don't watch any major news show; I get the FT, and my wife gets The New Yorker. Most of my "regular news" comes from various web sites and RSS feeds. Don't watch network or cable news (outside CNBC & Fox Business). Still rely on "print" news desks for most news.
birdog1960 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 i listen to npr on my commute both ways. almost always "all things considered". if there's a particularly interesting piece, I read the transcript online and search for further info. turns out quite often, npr is the only major service doing a story that day on a particular subject so it's sometimes hard to get another reference point. i look at drudge for headlines but will almost always find a different link to the story especially if he's linked to breitbart or some other ridiculous source. fairly often watch pbs news especially when there's a supreme court ruling coming down. imo they have the most knowledgable and accessible legal analyst of all the networks. occasionally watch bbc world news. if i'm bored, i'll watch or listen to the talking heads debate. by far my favorite in this genre are shields and brooks.
Magox Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 First thing I do in the morning around 5 am is see what WAPO and Politico are serving up. Watch Morning Joe at 6 am, very influential show that often sets the agenda for the day. Great interviews and guests, love the round table sort of discussions. Throughout the day I check into Politico, Real Clear Politics, The Hill, WSJ and browse to see if anything interesting is on Drudge. 6 pm I like to check out Bret Baer's show, specially for the round table. Bar none, the best round table in any of the news networks or anywhere, mainly because of Krauthammer. There isn't a political analyst that can match his mind. I'll sometimes catch Megyn Kelly's show, chick is as quick as a whip. Weekends I like to check out the Sunday Talk shows if I'm not doing stuff with the family.
Recommended Posts