65 share
Key to reading the numbers: Fox and Friends at "203" had 2.03 million viewers while CNN's New Day hooked 1.14 million and Morning Joe came in with 990,000. What is surprising to me, is how good O'Reilly, Kelly and Hannity are doing, each with well over 3 million viewers, and Hannity beating out Kelly for the #2 spot on Fox Primetime. Two/three months ago, Hannity was running under 2 million . . . . . . and, Greta's numbers are on the rise. Also, Rachel Maddow caught 1.44 million viewers and finished second to the uneducated football player/political expert, Ed Schulz (I believe he was named after a horse - not sure as to which end of the horse, however) and was "destroyed" by the Kelly Files, on Fox. Maddox has a PhD. in Philosophy and talks like she majored in minors, as well. Schultz is a collegiate flunky (seriously) and Megyn Kelly holds a JD degree (law's "PhD") and was in private practice for 9 years. Maddow has been an academic her entire adult life and has no practical experience in domestic concerns.
On average, 3.4 million folks watch Fox Primetime, more than the other three networks combined.
Fox links Benghazi to missing Malaysia flight — and blames Obama for both.
ReplyDeleteThat's the level of intellect we're dealing with there.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/04/fox-friends-links-benghazi-missing-malaysia-flight-and-blames-obama-for-both/
Simply untrue. NO ONE at Fox blames Obama for the Malaysian flight loss. I watch Fox enough each day to know what they broadcast. Benghazi IS all about protecting Obama in 2012 and Hillary, if she runs in 2016. While Obama mentioned Benghazi as "an act of terror: one freaking time, he continued to blame the video dozens of time and we all know that story was false.
ReplyDeleteStevens worked directly for Hillary. So why was Susan Rice (an unknown at the time) sent out to do Hillary's job, and to lie about the video. Rice DID NOT call it an act of terror, but, understand, the Administration's use of the term, "an act of terror," on a single occasion, is not the same as admitting the attacks were caused by a terrorist organization.
While you decry conservative intelligence, you continue to misinform and misunderstand . . . . things the "unintelligent" do. Interesting.
Oh, BTW, FoxNews is the only cable news network that is "news," 24/7. Why is that? Because conservatives "want to know" and continue to be the best informed constituency in America. Your side of the aisle still believes Bush brought down the Towers, that Russia is our friend, that the Jews are the enemy of peace in the Middle East, and the communists should have been allowed to remain in Honduras. It is your side of the aisle that loves Castro and Chavez when that moron was alive; it is your side of the aisle that justifies its meddling in Libya based on humanitarian grounds, but refuses to do a damn thing about Syria and the 140,000 people killed there, by its president. At the time, no more than 300 Libyans had died at the hands of Gadaffi, so why no concern for Syria.
Intelligence? It is your president who does not know how to pronounce "corps," and thought that if we would just air up our tires and tune our engines, we could stop importing oil from the Middle East. THAT was your guy. How stupid was that???!!!
Sick, uniformed as expected.
ReplyDeleteA number of polls show that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.
http://www.examiner.com/article/study-finds-fox-news-viewers-more-misinformed-than-non-news-watchers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9288158/Fox-News-viewers-worst-informed-study-finds.html
That is another major lie. But since all you have is an ad hom approach to debate, what can I say. You have no reasoned answers, yet you are so much more educated than I. go figure.
ReplyDeleteConservatives better informed, politically, according to PEW: http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/
ReplyDeleteAnd better informed, in the realm of finance: Zogby as present in the WSJ : http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html
The Journal is a quasi conservative leaning publication; PEW is Left leaning.
Fox fails the test of journalistic integrity ... repeatedly breaking journalistic codes of ethics. "Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information." -- Society of Professional Journalists.
ReplyDeleteHere's how the Society of Professional Journalists describes the craft:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.
The organization's Code of Ethics declares "the Society's principles and standards of practice." In terms of a broad-based definition of what journalism ought to be, the Code of Ethics remains the industry standard. And as you'll see below, Fox News routinely, and blatantly, breaks the code to which ethical journalists are supposed to aspire. Fox News staffers (and not just the opinion show hosts) don't simply fail to live up to the industry's own ethical standards. They produce broadcasts that run directly counter to established values and rules. In other words, they obliterate the Code of Ethics on a regular basis, which to me signals that Fox News is not a legitimate source of journalism.
Below is a link to some cornerstones to journalism's Code of Ethics, followed by links to clear-cut examples of how Fox News tramples that code. That's why Fox News is illegitimate. Not news, never was, and no wonder why viewers are uninformed:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/10/27/30-reasons-why-fox-news-is-not-legit/156164
Laughing stock...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/06/jon-stewart-rips-gop-and-fox-where-was-your-outrage-and-sanctimony-over-iraq/
What is incredibly naive on your part, is your incestral use of an information source that aligns itself with the "ends justify the means" philosophy of Saul Alinsky. That philiosophy, in and of itself, not only allows for, but demands, that radical social reformers such as is represented in Media Matters and its big big money communist donors, lie, misrepresent, and, in general, abort the truth for the sake of "the greater good."
ReplyDeleteNOTHING said by advocates of Alinsky's rules, can be trusted or should be part of the political discussion for that reason.
So, you can quote Media Matters all you want, but it has no place in a discussion between honest men, because it is not about intellectual considerations, only about winning the political debate AT ALL COSTS. Media Matters, itself and as an example of its abject hypocrisy, insists on the goodness of the socialist inspired unions of today while rejecting, at the same moment in time, efforts to unionize its own "employees," or, as they are called in Russia, "workers."
Laughingly, you reference a “Code of Journalistic Ethics,” failing to understand there is no Code of Ethics in the life and philosophy of a radical after the order of Saul Alinsky. Why? Because the notion of "ethics in journalism" is diametrically opposes -- I say DIAMETRICALLY opposed - to ethical standards that insist on truth as its basis, not "outcomes as defined by the concept of 'the greater good.' "
Secondly, I am one who defends the Iraq War for the reasons available, in 2003. Without getting into anecdotal detail, suffice it to say, that the news of WMD's came from the Clinton Administration and his CIA. Bush simply believed that analysis. He had no reason not too, and, in light of the dust of the Twin Towers, he had ever reason to drive radical Islam off the face of the earth, whereever it called “home.” So he went into Afghanistan, immediately, and destroyed the al Quaeda/Taliban cabal in that country, When he changed focus, there were less than 80 terrorists in that country, most of them hiding underground, with bin Laden. . . . . . continued in next "comment."
continued . . . .
ReplyDeleteSaddam had decided to be the financier of Middle Eastern based terror, and was paying families of suicide bombers, $2,500 for the death of each dead combatant. He had tried to assassinate both H Bush and Bill Clinton, on separate occasions, and was fostering terror alliances with Iran, Yemen, North Africa, Syria, and Libya. Bush waited 14 months to attack Iraq, while congress was busy giving him permission to do so, and, at the end of that conflict, just five years later, some 4,000 Americans had died (the lowest casualty total in history) whiling killing 40,000 terrorists, invading the strongholds of the terror cabal, throughout the Middle East, and capturing the nuclear capability (WMD’s, dude) of Gaddaffi’s Libya. The WMDs in Iraq, for the most part, were moved into Syria or buried in the desserts of Iraq, during that 14 month period before the invasion. While you might want to argue this last point, here is what is not debatable: Clinton told Bush of the WMDs. So, too, did every major intelligence agency in the world, and, most importantly, so too did Saddam Hussein, himself.
In the 8 years under Bush, our homeland was safe, never a single attack. No American was killed or injured. Under Obama, 6 attacks have been reported (no doubt there are more) killing or injuring nearly 300 Americans. Obama has replaced the waterboarding of three stinking terrorists with a drone war that has killed less than 60 terrorists and more than 6,000 innocent women and children, while losing the Afghan war in the worst way. In fact, Obama no longer captures and interrogates the enemy. As a result, we know less about the actual comings and goings of the several terror organizations, than we did before the Twin Towers.
You are not an idealist, you are a subversive. Who would not allow me a rhetorical defense, if the tables were reversed.
Media Matters uses specific examples linked and is irrefutable. You can attack the messenger all you want but you can't change the reality.
ReplyDeleteFox News violates the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Examples given, case closed, GAME OVER. Fox is a joke, and everybody with a brain knows it.
Readers take NOTE:
ReplyDeleteSmithson is in major denial. Can you believe this statement
" In the 8 years under Bush, our homeland was safe, never a single attack. "
9/11/01
Tenet warned Bush 40 times. Yes, count them - 40 times bin Laden was mention in Presidential Daily Brief's from March 23-Sept 10, 01.
Just a few examples:
April 20, '01 briefing entitled: "Bin Ladin planning multiple operations."
May 16 - "Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using high explosives."
May 17 - "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."
June 22 - "intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a U.S.target."
A terrorist threat advisory distributed in late June indicated a high probability of near-term "spectacular" terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties. Other reports' titles warned,"Bin Ladin Attacks May be Imminent" and "Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats."
June 25 - Clarke warned Rice and Hadley that six separate intelligence reports showed al Qaeda personnel warning of a pending attack.
June 28 - Clarke wrote Rice that the pattern of al Qaeda activity indicating attack planning over the past six weeks "had reached a crescendo." "A series of new reports continue to convince me and analysts at State, CIA, DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], and NSA that a major terrorist attack or series of attacks is likely..."
July 5 - CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent. Ashcroft was told that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little additional warning could be expected.
July 23, the lead item for Counterterrorism Security Group discussion was the al Qaeda threat,and it included mention of suspected terrorist travel to the United States. Tenet told Bush that "the system was blinking red." By late July, Tenet said, it could not "get any worse."
The PDB Bush received a month before 9/11 was entitled "bin Laden determined to strike in US" mentioned specifically:
"a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks"
"Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft"
"patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
"Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef"
What did our commander in chief do after receiving these dire, specific and repeated warnings? He went on vacation - for a MONTH.
And Smithson says, "In the 8 years under Bush, our homeland was safe, never a single attack. "
Except the one that killed 3000 people.