PDA

View Full Version : FOX ROX again.



LWW
05-01-2008, 05:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox News finished April as the seventh most highly rated cable network in prime time. CNN finished at #21 and MSNBC finished 29th.

In Total Day, FNC came in at #9, well ahead of CNN (25th) and MSNBC (30th).

Fox News had nine of the top ten highest rated programs for the month of April, with The O'Reilly Factor capturing the top spot again. CNN's highest rated show was Larry King Live (7th), while MSNBC's was Countdown with Keith Olbermann (19th).</div></div>

CNN, the 2nd highest ranked cable news network was beaten out in the rankings by the following cable networks for the month of April, 2008:

- The Comedy Channel.
- HGTV.
- TV Land.
- MTV.
- The Food Channel.
OH MY! CHEESEWHIZ IS WRONG ... AGAIN! (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/Cable%20Time%20Period%20Rank%20-April%20'08%20(LiveSD).pdf)

LWW

hondo
05-01-2008, 06:16 AM
I thought Fox News and The Comedy Channel were the same
the same thing??????
They're two separate networks?

eb_in_nc
05-01-2008, 07:27 AM
Fox News beats Corrupt News Network, somehow this does not come as a revelation.

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 07:33 AM
I thought Hillary got a very fair treatment by Oreilly last night and did quite well to go on a network that actually asked her pertinent questions. I give her points for doing this. She may swing many middle of the road voters in doing this.

The left is assailing her and Obama for going on Fox. The blogs are disgraceful.

cheesemouse
05-01-2008, 08:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Hillary got a very fair treatment by Oreilly last night and did quite well to go on a network that actually asked her pertinent questions. I give her points for doing this. She may swing many middle of the road voters in doing this.

The left is assailing her and Obama for going on Fox. The blogs are disgraceful. </div></div>

Can you imagine the begging that the producers of Fox News and the Oreilly people had to do to get a significant Democrat to appear? There has been a subtle boycott by the left of Fox News because of the obvious bias. This is not good for Fox in an election year for it trends them in the direction of hysterically preaching to their choir which is a road to nowhere in the rating race. Fox News had high ratings but are trending down down down and the owners, being businessman at their core had to kiss some serious a$$ to get H Clinton to appear. Why do you think Oreilly reverted back to his roots, back 30 years when he was actually a real journalist?

Bottom line is Fox needs the rating boost and Clinton needs the votes. She and her people took total control of Fox News and the Oreilly show. It was a thing of beauty. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
05-01-2008, 08:28 AM
This must be because all those lefties want to know what the righties are up to. They don't watch their own programming (cnn) because who on earth wants to listen to doom and gloom all the time. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
05-01-2008, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you imagine the begging that the producers of Fox News and the Oreilly people had to do to get a significant Democrat to appear? </div></div> Now that is a funny statement. This thread is clearly stating Fox is king of the hill and you actually think they are begging for significant democrats. I am still laughing. Fox is doing just fine without the significant democrats just take a look at the polls.

eg8r

LWW
05-01-2008, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Fox News and The Comedy Channel were the same
the same thing??????
They're two separate networks? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I 've decided not to respond anymore to LWW &
Bamadog. You're on my list now too, Punter. Happy?</div></div>

LWW

LWW
05-01-2008, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox News beats Corrupt News Network, somehow this does not come as a revelation. </div></div>
It isn't ... unless you are FDS sufferer as many are here.

LWW

LWW
05-01-2008, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you imagine the begging that the producers of Fox News and the Oreilly people had to do to get a significant Democrat to appear? </div></div> Now that is a funny statement. This thread is clearly stating Fox is king of the hill and you actually think they are begging for significant democrats. I am still laughing. Fox is doing just fine without the significant democrats just take a look at the polls.

eg8r </div></div>
This was all brought upon cheesewhiz because he foolishly went on AZB proclaiming Fox was getting thumped because he read it on the DailyKOS.

Now here he changes his tune entirely hoping none of his pals will realize what a loser he is in the arena od ideas.

He prefers the lie.

They told the lie he preferred.

The rest is history.

LWW

cheesemouse
05-01-2008, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you imagine the begging that the producers of Fox News and the Oreilly people had to do to get a significant Democrat to appear? </div></div> Now that is a funny statement. This thread is clearly stating Fox is king of the hill and you actually think they are begging for significant democrats. I am still laughing. Fox is doing just fine without the significant democrats just take a look at the polls.

eg8r </div></div>
This was all brought upon cheesewhiz because he foolishly went on AZB proclaiming Fox was getting thumped because he read it on the DailyKOS.

Now here he changes his tune entirely hoping none of his pals will realize what a loser he is in the arena od ideas.

He prefers the lie.

They told the lie he preferred.

The rest is history.

LWW </div></div>I'm just reading the tea leaves boys. I know you don't like what the future holds. You and Ed both are about to become just one more on the list of the endangered. You can both hold your nose and pull the lever for McBush, or you can stay home with your principles, or in LWW's case write his own name in...LOL The gig is up boys. I will extend my offer to Ed and include both forums to LWW. You got game?.....Ed maynot understand but so what else is new?.....:)

PS The cheese is just playing the game:)

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Hillary got a very fair treatment by Oreilly last night and did quite well to go on a network that actually asked her pertinent questions. I give her points for doing this. She may swing many middle of the road voters in doing this.

The left is assailing her and Obama for going on Fox. The blogs are disgraceful. </div></div>

Can you imagine the begging that the producers of Fox News and the Oreilly people had to do to get a significant Democrat to appear? There has been a subtle boycott by the left of Fox News because of the obvious bias. This is not good for Fox in an election year for it trends them in the direction of hysterically preaching to their choir which is a road to nowhere in the rating race. Fox News had high ratings but are trending down down down and the owners, being businessman at their core had to kiss some serious a$$ to get H Clinton to appear. Why do you think Oreilly reverted back to his roots, back 30 years when he was actually a real journalist?

Bottom line is Fox needs the rating boost and Clinton needs the votes. She and her people took total control of Fox News and the Oreilly show. It was a thing of beauty. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>


I must question where you have been? Fox ratings are through the roof in comparison to all other outlets. It is the Democrats who are needing and asking to appear. Do you really think they would go into a real news situation if they had a choice. That being said, she did a commendable job. This was the biggest slap in the face of the left media in recent memory. You will see more of this as the left continues to descend in ratings and appeal. Have you seen the ugly stuff on Huffington and Moveon?

Please check your ratings before slamming Fox. If you think O'reiaaly is not fair, you have not been watching Obermyer and company much or have fallen into their influence. There are commentators I think are not fair at Fox and I don't watch them but overall, they represent a much more balanced view of all Amewricans and ratings do show that. When was the last time Fox appealed for public finds to stay on the air?

eg8r
05-01-2008, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can both hold your nose and pull the lever for McBush</div></div>The thread is about Fox not Bush. We can see gayle's influence on your ability to throw up a strawman.

eg8r

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 09:30 AM
I can't believe that you think O'Reilly is fair and unbiased.
The subliminal messages that are broadcast there with the news, on Fox...must be having the desired effect..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

cheesemouse
05-01-2008, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can both hold your nose and pull the lever for McBush</div></div>The thread is about Fox not Bush. We can see gayle's influence on your ability to throw up a strawman.

eg8r </div></div>Now Ed don't be silly. When has any thread stayed on subject for any length of time? You can post all the old numbers and rating you want, Fox is trending down down down. It is written in the leaves......remember four or five years ago when I bet you we would be paying 5 dollars a gallon for gas before Bush was done? Pretty good huh?

PS the cheese sees the future and likes it...:)

LWW
05-01-2008, 09:41 AM
Day before yesterday is old numbers ... compared to your story which was based on ... ummm ... well ... errr ... nothing.

LWW

eb_in_nc
05-01-2008, 09:42 AM
One would speculate cheesemouse that increases in the cost of gas are directly related to democratic legislation which prevents us from drilling for oil in OUR OWN COUNTRY!

It's easy to be a prognosticator of gas prices when it's clear that our dependency on foreign oil (due to our own legislation on limiting what we can do in our own country)was the primary culprit.

You got some cheese in your eyes on this one.

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't believe that you think O'Reilly is fair and unbiased.
The subliminal messages that are broadcast there with the news, on Fox...must be having the desired effect..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

I think no human is unbiased but that Bill O'Reilly has a very fair view of the world in comparison to most other pundits. Does he lean right? A little but he does not talk over guests and listens to answers unlike most on the left and right.

Now, just maybe, I agree with his position on most things. I do think he is one of the few commentators that is respectful of guests. Does he request answers? Yes!

Now, who could possibly define Bill Moyers as a journalist anymore? Of course, if you are an advocate of those he interviews, you might think so. I, for instance, think Rush Limbaugh is a self promoter who will not listen to opposition. I may agree with some of his body politic, but adhore his methods.

I beleive a fair minder person can listen to O'Reilly and appreciate his ability to cut through BS yet provide a forum to those who have opposing views. I have seen him, unlike most of the right and any on the left actually concede points and chage his mind during interviews. That is a fair man, in my twisted opinion.

His interview actuall changed my view of Hillary Clinton to a big degree. Seh showed courage and gave good answers and was not offended nor baseful when he made counterarguments. He/she allowed no precondicitons for the interview but both were respectful and had an adult convestation. I think she changed a lot of minds in a very large audience she would not reach nor have credibility with otherwise. She shanged my opinion of who is the best, among the Democrats for the job and has even raised the bar for McCain in some sense. Now, where esse in the media would that be possible. O'reilly has treated her much fairer than many in the left media and you know that is true.

A real person capable of being my preseidnet would not dodge O'Reilly, she di not, She stepped up and gained a lot of respect even though we all know it was a calculated move. Of course, we should give her credit when she wins without trying to take the easy way out. I think Bill respects her but did not need her to stay the most powerful voice from the middle. Of course, you and I often respectfully disagree but I, like you, tell it like I see it. I don't think Obama could do as well with him and maybe not even McCain. You knowMcCain has not gone to O'reailly because he knows it's not an easy interview for him.

sack316
05-01-2008, 10:13 AM
eb, are you crazy? Don't you know we need the barren Alaskan lands for... something I'm sure. And if we pull the protection from some of these national park areas where on earth will we dream of going on that vacation to that we can't afford to get to?

Now please excuse me but I've gotta run to the store. I'm hungry, and have some burgers in my freezer, but rather than empty my freezer and possibly mess it up I find it more effective to go to the store on the other side of town to buy more from someone else.

Sack

eb_in_nc
05-01-2008, 10:27 AM
No I'm not crazy Sack, just trying to be pragmatic. You ever hear the saying don't throw the baby out with the bath water?

Pretty soon you won't be able to buy toilet paper because someday legislation will prevent all trees from being forested.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not so eager to deplete our natural resources or destroy our environment. But who will you blame later when the cost of things we become dependent on go through the roof, and we have no opportunity to do anything about it because we have legislated ourselves into the proverbial corner?

I hope you took your bike to the store.

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 10:28 AM
Not being a fan of Bill....I don't watch his show anymore. I may be wrong, but my memory is that he did cut people off when their facts disagreed with his?
You are conceding then...that Hillary got balls? If O'Really had tried anything, underhanded.... she'd have chewed him up and spit him out...figuratively speaking, of course.
I don't have a favorite candidate...but think the country needs a change in direction. I also don't believe that the next President can undo the damage that GWB has done....and will get much undeserved blame in trying...in short...it'll be a one term admin.

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not being a fan of Bill....I don't watch his show anymore. I may be wrong, but my memory is that he did cut people off when their facts disagreed with his? <span style="color: #FF9900">I believe he only cuts them off when they will not directly answer a question. </span>
You are conceding then...that Hillary got balls? If O'Really had tried anything, underhanded.... she'd have chewed him up and spit him out...figuratively speaking, of course. <span style="color: #FF6600">I condede she has a big set. I do think Bill was respectful, not ebcause of how mean she is but because he wanted a good interview and some answers. </span>
I don't have a favorite candidate...but think the country needs a change in direction. I also don't believe that the next President can undo the damage that GWB has done....and will get much undeserved blame in trying...in short...it'll be a one term admin. </div></div> <span style="color: #FF6600"> I just have a little problem with everyone preparing to apologise for failing before they even begin the job. It can be done, a good man/woman will make it all better, no excuses of blaming the last guy. I t will be easy to go in do nothing for 4 years then say, "Bush just made it too bad to recover."

A person with balls will make the changes they need, especially with a love fest in the House and Senate. No excuses....</span>

eb_in_nc
05-01-2008, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=wolfdancer]A person with balls will make the changes they need, especially with a love fest in the House and Senate. No excuses....[/color] </div></div>

So, where does Hillary stand on this requirement?

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=wolfdancer]A person with balls will make the changes they need, especially with a love fest in the House and Senate. No excuses....[/color] </div></div>

So, where does Hillary stand on this requirement? </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">A already admitted she has the biggest pair around. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif If she wins, with the Senate and House set up for her with all friendly faces, she should be able to run the table on legislation. </span>

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 03:36 PM
I just think that the countries economic woes can not be resolved in four years....and with the increasing loss of jobs....fundings will have to be cut, and monies raised somehow...probably in either income taxes, or "hidden" taxes.

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 07:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just think that the countries economic woes can not be resolved in four years....and with the increasing loss of jobs....fundings will have to be cut, and monies raised somehow...probably in either income taxes, or "hidden" taxes.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> You could be right but the U.S. economy can be a powerful engine when it is growing. Of course, with new spending on universal health care, welfare and, yes, even the nasty old war, much of that growth can be stiffled as well.

Let's face it. We all know the POTUS has much less to do with the economy than we like to pretend during elections. I am not saying we don't hang them with it but the economy is cyclical in nature and it just hits good or bad near election times. A left pundit will say Clinton caused the cyber boom and resultant stock heaven but even they know it was other facotrs just as most good economies during the Republican administrations were more world economy than trickle down, bubble up or any other catch phrase.

Good, fair help for those who are in true need is a good thing. I don't think andy of us, no matter how cold hearted, beleive in not helping those people. The problem is in what defines needy and greedy and everything in between. The largess of the 1960's and 70's was not a positive thing for many who received it. It made a whole generation ultra-dependent on that spigot and many still have no reason to make real personal advancement in life.

Everything is so devalued when "free". Kids in other parts of the world pay to get a minimal education while students here waste, by devaluation, the very tool they have to escape their own poverty.

All of this is, of course, not just liberal values but it sure does not help when even good men try to speak out to help and are attacked as racists (Bill Cosby).

What I hear is that everything liberal and democratic is good and all that is conservative is bad. I could buy it all and be much happier I guess, at least more popular with the pollsters.

Now that, I guess would be true actual democracy. Of course, they could then vote me and GWB off the island. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif <span style="color: #FF0000"> </span> </span>

LWW
05-02-2008, 01:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis of liberal bloggers ... Democrats are turning to the ratings leader among cable news channels in a clear rebuff to the liberal activists known as the Netroots ... more Democrats watch Fox than watch CNN or MSNBC, the channel’s cable news competitors ... “This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of delegitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place,” Sargent wrote. </div></div>
More evidence that the far left cowers in fear of truth, and that they are fascists vehemently opposed to party line thinking.

OH MY! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10032.html)

LWW