The Tea Party Strikes Again.

[Pilgrim]

We have two separate threads going that have morphed into a similar topic. My argument isn't really about Fox News, it's about the hypocrisy on the left when choosing journalism awards. I have given you an example like the Cronkite award given overwhelmingly to people on the left . I also gave you an example of how a news anchor showed his blatant bias regarding global warming.but still rakes in the journalism awards. The reason why is because there is a double standard. A conservative network journalist hasn't won any. You mean they never have exhibited a journalistic piece worthy of an award for 18 years? Seriously, it's comical if you believe that. Whatever you feel about Fox News and their credibility, it's incredulous to think they haven't produced AN AWARD WINNING PIECE.

When you start to look at some of the individuals that host shows on Fox News you'll find they've won numerous awards for excellence in journalism - Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and Lou Dobbs are the first that come to mind and I'm sure there are others. However, the awards that matter are given by the viewers which translate into ratings and the rates advertisers will pay. Let's not forget - this is a business, and in this industry the yardstick is ratings. All the other cable news organizations are playing for 2d place.

 

[Big Al]

When you start to look at some of the individuals that host shows on Fox News you'll find they've won numerous awards for excellence in journalism - Brit Hume, Chris Wallace and Lou Dobbs are the first that come to mind and I'm sure there are others. However, the awards that matter are given by the viewers which translate into ratings and the rates advertisers will pay. Let's not forget - this is a business, and in this industry the yardstick is ratings. All the other cable news organizations are playing for 2d place.

I believe that Fox News appears more conservative is because the others are so radically liberal. It is probably not their fault they spent large amounts of cash to go to schoolms who brainwashed them with liberal doctrine. It is just plain stupid. I also think John Roberts is centerline left but a great reporter who would have replaced Dan Rather but CBS went touchy feely with Katie Couric. I totally agree that the bottom line is money!

Sent from my SCH-i705 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Pilgrim]

I think what Barkley means is "Liberals rule. [Conservatives Drool.]

That's exactly the attitude of most liberals - that they should rule the unwashed masses because of their self-attributed moral and intellectual superiority, while they regard and label conservatives as backward rednecks out of touch with modernity. There's no better example of this philosophy than the current POTUS who regards himself as a ruler, not accountable to Congress or the constraints of our laws or constitution; we see how well that's working out.

I'll admit, however, that after reading the stunning statement "consumers naturally gravitate to the best product", [so, that means Subway really makes the best sandwiches, and McDonald's the best burger?!] it feels like my brainpan sprung a leak. Or this is the Twilight Zone....

Shame on me for poor wording. I should have said "gravitate to the best product for them". No sense in trying to explain basic marketing concepts, but it's obvious that both companies are quite successful and wouldn't have survived without providing a good product at a fair price to their customers while remaining profitable. That's the real world, and maybe it can be "stunning" to liberals who don't understand that it doesn't work the way their socialist doctrine says it should.

 

[muttly]

I think what Barkley means is "Liberals rule. [Conservatives Drool.]
I'll admit, however, that after reading the stunning statement "consumers naturally gravitate to the best product", [so, that means Subway really makes the best sandwiches, and McDonald's the best burger?!] it feels like my brainpan sprung a leak. Or this is the Twilight Zone....

More like liberals rule in giving out silly and fraudulent awards to Mother Jones, and their minions drool and go gaga over it.

 

[RLENT]

It wasn't the TEA Party ... it was ol' Cooter and the Dem's:

Cantor's Pollster Blames Democratic Meddling For Loss

LOL ...

 

[cheri1122]

That's exactly the attitude of most liberals - that they should rule the unwashed masses because of their self-attributed moral and intellectual superiority, while they regard and label conservatives as backward rednecks out of touch with modernity. There's no better example of this philosophy than the current POTUS who regards himself as a ruler, not accountable to Congress or the constraints of our laws or constitution; we see how well that's working out.

Shame on me for poor wording. I should have said "gravitate to the best product for them". No sense in trying to explain basic marketing concepts, but it's obvious that both companies are quite successful and wouldn't have survived without providing a good product at a fair price to their customers while remaining profitable. That's the real world, and maybe it can be "stunning" to liberals who don't understand that it doesn't work the way their socialist doctrine says it should.

Reading that last sentence, I'm wondering who exactly is guilty of "self attributed moral and intellectual superiority"?
I understand marketing concepts, and I also understand that being ubiquitous has little to do with quality. Further, I know that people will often knowingly choose an inferior product, for convenience and/or necessity [read: lack of funds, not knowledge]. Fast food is the perfect example of that: it didn't gain market share by offering the "best product", but by offering the easiest and cheapest.

PS You need to learn the difference between liberal and socialist, because confusing/conflating the two doesn't say much for your knowledge base.

 

[cheri1122]

However, the awards that matter are given by the viewers which translate into ratings and the rates advertisers will pay.

Because money is the most important factor, eh?

Let's not forget - this is a business, and in this industry the yardstick is ratings. All the other cable news organizations are playing for 2d place.

Let's not forget: the business is news, and if the truth is sacrificed for ratings, the business is dishonest. Maybe that doesn't bother you too much, [profit!!!], but most people prefer the truth. I hope they do, though sometimes, I wonder.

 

[cheri1122]

More like liberals rule in giving out silly and fraudulent awards to Mother Jones, and their minions drool and go gaga over it.

Correct me if I misinterpreted, but I believe you just called Turtle a liar, lol.

 

[muttly]

Correct me if I misinterpreted, but I believe you just called Turtle a liar, lol.

You misinterpreted.

 

[WanderngFool]

Does Fox have an Emmy awards? I think the guy in the morning is incredible. The morning blonde is excellent too. They both deserve Emmys just for 'the look' they give while heaping scorn on liberals. It's a strange mixture of loathing and hurt feelings. Their eyes even well up a little.

 

[LDB]

Maybe all the news networks just need an award winning journalist like Dan Rather to coach them on accuracy, honesty and integrity.

 

[Pilgrim]

Reading that last sentence, I'm wondering who exactly is guilty of "self attributed moral and intellectual superiority"?

Probably the one who said "liberals rule and conservatives drool".

I understand marketing concepts, and I also understand that being ubiquitous has little to do with quality. Further, I know that people will often knowingly choose an inferior product, for convenience and/or necessity [read: lack of funds, not knowledge]. Fast food is the perfect example of that: it didn't gain market share by offering the "best product", but by offering the easiest and cheapest.

That statement would get an "F" in Marketing 101. Just having a location on every street corner or interstate exit will not result in success (profitability) considering the amount of competition in the fast food business. Assuming competent financial management, there has to be an acceptable level of quality in product and/or service that's commensurate with the price. The competitors with the best product for the money win the business.

PS You need to learn the difference between liberal and socialist, because confusing/conflating the two doesn't say much for your knowledge base.

Now there's a typical arrogant, condescending statement one would expect a liberal would make to a drooling conservative; and as usual, it's wrong.

Modern liberalism asserts that aside from ensuring economic and political security, it is also the government’s job to interfere with people’s day-to-day affairs in order to maintain social security. Modern liberalism, in effect, can be compared to socialism, because both of them assert that the government can effectively uplift its citizens not only by seizing control of the economy or private institutions, but also by keeping a close watch on citizens to ensure that none of them become subversive. Many modern-day politicians have been supporting modern liberalism because they believe that the government can solve all problems once it is granted total power.

Difference Between Socialism and Liberalism | Difference Between | Socialism vs Liberalism

 

[Pilgrim]

Let's not forget: the business is news, and if the truth is sacrificed for ratings, the business is dishonest. Maybe that doesn't bother you too much, [profit!!!], but most people prefer the truth. I hope they do, though sometimes, I wonder.

Is there anything - besides the opinions of some in this thread - that proves the truth is being sacrificed by Fox News to any greater degree than that of the other News Networks - cable and mainstream? This subject has been digested pretty thoroughly in several older threads, and so far nothing has been brought forth to support that assertion.

 

[Turtle]

Is there anything - besides the opinions of some in this thread - that proves the truth is being sacrificed by Fox News to any greater degree than that of the other News Networks - cable and mainstream?

Yes. Fox News was invented specifically to provide a tabloid journalism partisan take on the news, not just in contrast to other News Networks, but to all of Mainstream Media in general. Rupert Murdoch knows that people can go anywhere for their news, but the more sensational it is and the more is plays to primitive emotion, the more money it will make. When your primary goal is a partisan take on the news, objectivity and the truth become a distant second. The Fox News budget is highly slanted in favor of shiny, pretty things, like production, graphics, sets and on-air talent, rather than on news bureaus and news gathering.

Fox News doesn't necessarily lie when it comes to facts (it's the exception to the rule), but their stories are agenda driven rather than fact driven, which means they will cherry pick the facts that fit the agenda and then dismiss the rest. And Fox News doesn't even try to deny it. The four main guiding principles at Fox News Channel and Fox Media Operations are ideology (meaning conservative); unified positions on matters of public policy (ensure that all outlets push the same agenda); global editorial meetings (to ensure the same stories are told globally); and opposition to a perceived liberal bias in other public media.

CNN and other mainstream public media certainly has a bias, but for the most part, except the ones on the extreme who also are there specifically to provide a partisan take on the news, they are fact-driven and let the facts guide the story. These media outlets clearly don't always succeed at objectivity, but at least the make the effort.

 

[muttly]

Fox News was invented because the other News Networks were not fair and balanced.

 

[muttly]

Probably the one who said "liberals rule and conservatives drool".

That statement would get an "F" in Marketing 101. Just having a location on every street corner or interstate exit will not result in success (profitability) considering the amount of competition in the fast food business. Assuming competent financial management, there has to be an acceptable level of quality in product and/or service that's commensurate with the price. The competitors with the best product for the money win the business.

Now there's a typical arrogant, condescending statement one would expect a liberal would make to a drooling conservative; and as usual, it's wrong.

I've said this before: Liberalism is the new Socialism.

 

[muttly]

Yes. Fox News was invented specifically to provide a tabloid journalism partisan take on the news, not just in contrast to other News Networks, but to all of Mainstream Media in general. Rupert Murdoch knows that people can go anywhere for their news, but the more sensational it is and the more is plays to primitive emotion, the more money it will make. When your primary goal is a partisan take on the news, objectivity and the truth become a distant second. The Fox News budget is highly slanted in favor of shiny, pretty things, like production, graphics, sets and on-air talent, rather than on news bureaus and news gathering.

Fox News doesn't necessarily lie when it comes to facts (it's the exception to the rule), but their stories are agenda driven rather than fact driven, which means they will cherry pick the facts that fit the agenda and then dismiss the rest. And Fox News doesn't even try to deny it. The four main guiding principles at Fox News Channel and Fox Media Operations are ideology (meaning conservative); unified positions on matters of public policy (ensure that all outlets push the same agenda); global editorial meetings (to ensure the same stories are told globally); and opposition to a perceived liberal bias in other public media.

CNN and other mainstream public media certainly has a bias, but for the most part, except the ones on the extreme who also are there specifically to provide a partisan take on the news, they are fact-driven and let the facts guide the story. These media outlets clearly don't always succeed at objectivity, but at least the make the effort.

What 'outlets' are you referring to?Just curious .

 

[Jamin_Joe]

I find it commical how some think Fox News, Limbaugh, etc run things.

The fact is that our government on all levels are misinformed that we have the right and duty to expect that our leaders abide by the constitution and use common scense with dealing with issuses. Both Republican and Democrat leaders have done a poor job governing overall. Passing blame just doesnt cut the mustard and people like Harry Reid show just how out there some of our elect are. Harry acts like he has the beginnings of Alhimers, of course that id just my opinion and we all know the old saying. Opinions are like a%=holes, everyones got one and most are full of it.

 

[Turtle]

I've said this before: Liberalism is the new Socialism.

That's the conservative narrative. "If it ain't conservative, it's socialism," because you're either with us and believe like us, and are therefore conservative, or you are against us and therefore are liberal. While there are certainly a lot of things that liberals want to do that are similar or coincide with socialism, liberalism isn't socialism at all.

You should probably bone up on the definition of of the word, and get a better background of what it means in modern America.

Obama, on the other hand, goes beyond Liberalism in his thinking and is closer to Socialism than Liberalism.

What 'outlets' are you referring to?Just curious .

"CNN and other mainstream public media certainly has a bias, but for the most part, except the ones on the extreme who also are there specifically to provide a partisan take on the news, they are fact-driven and let the facts guide the story. These media outlets clearly don't always succeed at objectivity, but at least they make the effort."

Fox News was invented because the other News Networks were not fair and balanced.

Not according to the guy who invented it.

 

[Turtle]

Now there's a typical arrogant, condescending statement one would expect a liberal would make to a drooling conservative; and as usual, it's wrong.

Modern liberalism asserts that aside from ensuring economic and political security, it is also the government’s job to interfere with people’s day-to-day affairs in order to maintain social security. Modern liberalism, in effect, can be compared to socialism, because both of them assert that the government can effectively uplift its citizens not only by seizing control of the economy or private institutions, but also by keeping a close watch on citizens to ensure that none of them become subversive. Many modern-day politicians have been supporting modern liberalism because they believe that the government can solve all problems once it is granted total power.

Difference Between Socialism and Liberalism | Difference Between | Socialism vs Liberalism

Are you serious? You find an opinion that agrees with you and cite it as the definitive "correct" version of the differences? The above isn't a description of the differences, it's a political rant. Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are given a rating as to the quality of the factual analysis presented. Anything less than a 3 is considered to be sorely lacking in facts or heavily biased. This article garnered a whopping 1.65 rating. The comments below the article tell the tale. Certainly, no one will accuse you of being objective when it comes to your facts.