jord
Member
+2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Not really, I thought you were meant to be intelligent. Aren't you better than throwing a few crappy digs at us just because we see your news for what it is.

Bias, and just really, really awful...
Not at all. I hate to break it to you but your shit detector is nothing special. Keep belittling us if it makes you happy though.
Doesn't make me happy at all.If you're gonna defend your news sources and not admit that yes, they are pretty shitty. Then people are going to (what's the word? Offend?) your sources. Such is a debate...

And yes mindlessly trying to attack other countries news sources counts as defending your own.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6905|132 and Bush

jord wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Not really, I thought you were meant to be intelligent. Aren't you better than throwing a few crappy digs at us just because we see your news for what it is.

Bias, and just really, really awful...
Not at all. I hate to break it to you but your shit detector is nothing special. Keep belittling us if it makes you happy though.
Doesn't make me happy at all.If you're gonna defend your news sources and not admit that yes, they are pretty shitty. Then people are going to (what's the word? Offend?) your sources. Such is a debate...

And yes mindlessly trying to attack other countries news sources counts as defending your own.
Have I once attempted to defend our news? The closest I have came is saying that CNN is more mainstream. That was relatively speaking. I actually praised the BBC in this thread.. the egg thing was a joke. Did you actually think I was throwing eggs at my television? ..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6936|949

I don't watch Fox or CNN or MSNBS (or any network 'news') for the same reason- they suck and it's "news" (term used very loosely) with heavy editorial added.  You don't HAVE to watch streaming "news" on TV.  There are other sources aplenty.  A cornucopia of unfiltered news exists for people who are interested.

Or you could watch FOX and/or MSNBS and complain, whatever suits your fancy.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-12-03 12:13:38)

jord
Member
+2,382|6982|The North, beyond the wall.

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Not at all. I hate to break it to you but your shit detector is nothing special. Keep belittling us if it makes you happy though.
Doesn't make me happy at all.If you're gonna defend your news sources and not admit that yes, they are pretty shitty. Then people are going to (what's the word? Offend?) your sources. Such is a debate...

And yes mindlessly trying to attack other countries news sources counts as defending your own.
Have I once attempted to defend our news? The closest I have came is saying that CNN is more mainstream. That was relatively speaking. I actually praised the BBC in this thread.. the egg thing was a joke. Did you actually think I was throwing eggs at my television? ..lol
Well you are well off enough to do that

Plus come on, your tone wasn't exactly one of joking...
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6905|132 and Bush

jord wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

jord wrote:

Doesn't make me happy at all.If you're gonna defend your news sources and not admit that yes, they are pretty shitty. Then people are going to (what's the word? Offend?) your sources. Such is a debate...

And yes mindlessly trying to attack other countries news sources counts as defending your own.
Have I once attempted to defend our news? The closest I have came is saying that CNN is more mainstream. That was relatively speaking. I actually praised the BBC in this thread.. the egg thing was a joke. Did you actually think I was throwing eggs at my television? ..lol
Well you are well off enough to do that

Plus come on, your tone wasn't exactly one of joking...
I'd be well of to get my news from a variety of sources. I figured the absurdity of my statement would have given away my tone. I also stated earlier that I liked the BBC. Forum tone is sometimes difficult to interpret.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7066

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

numbers...lol.  dont be such an asshole about it.  you are talking about viewers.  i am talking about representatives of both sides.  get that thru your skull ffs.
I'm talking about viewers yeah. What the fuck else is relevant when talking about ratings? lol. Sorry to scare you with numbers and the fact that ratings are numerical.
but i am not talking about ratings or viewers.  i could care less people are forced to watch cnn in airports and hotels.  my point was BALANCE.  in that guests and people on discussion panels have a good balance of every side.  and fox does that.  now, if you want to talk about ratings, then i guess we are not talking about the same thing.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7020

CameronPoe wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

It's kind of sad that CNN is the closest thing the American public has to a central news source (when it comes to the big 3).
CNN? lol... they all have their slant... Fox news has the highest ratings overall...
which network is the fairest... that's all a matter of perspective...
Fox has the highest because there are many liberal channels but only one douchebag channel. Also, people like me like to tune in from time to time to check out what the douchebags are spouting off at.
why is it the douchebag channel...liberal stations have plenty of douchebags to go around also... olbertard and rachel mandow etc
and why does one channel do better than the others combined... because they offer the most diverse programs...
I'm talking straight news  on the cable news channels... not the opinion shows on each of them...
Love is the answer
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6936|949

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

why is it the douchebag channel...liberal stations have plenty of douchebags to go around also... olbertard and rachel mandow etc
and why does one channel do better than the others combined... because they offer the most diverse programs...
I'm talking straight news  on the cable news channels... not the opinion shows on each of them...
People consider it the douchebag channel because of the frivolous nature of many programs, self-aggrandizing nature of the network ("we report, you decide"), and the general inflammatory attitude of many of the hosts on the show.

They don't have diverse programming - they have one show that supposedly represents the left vs. right debate, but at best you could call that far right and right-of-center viewpoints argued on that show.  They have Bill O'Rielly, who yes does have evil liberals on his show - but not so they can speak; so Bill can cut them off and yell at them whenever he gets a chance.  That isn't diverse, or even original - Wally George made a 40 year career out of it.

The reason the channel does well is because it implements a highly sucessful formula that is basically the same as Rush (which is obvious when you look at viewership records that indicate that almost as many if not more people that disagree with the show watch and/or listen to Rush and Faux).  People that disagree with the shows pay attention so that they can scream at the TV and tell their friends and internet forums how ridiculous the viewpoints are.

PS - no "straight news" program on TV has diverse programming - at the core is mainstream media/corporate media controlled viewpoints.  The channels do not operate solely to inform the public about the goings on around the world; they operate to earn a profit.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-12-03 16:02:54)

Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7020

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

why is it the douchebag channel...liberal stations have plenty of douchebags to go around also... olbertard and rachel mandow etc
and why does one channel do better than the others combined... because they offer the most diverse programs...
I'm talking straight news  on the cable news channels... not the opinion shows on each of them...
People consider it the douchebag channel because of the frivolous nature of many programs, self-aggrandizing nature of the network ("we report, you decide"), and the general inflammatory attitude of many of the hosts on the show.

They don't have diverse programming - they have one show that supposedly represents the left vs. right debate, but at best you could call that far right and right-of-center viewpoints argued on that show.  They have Bill O'Rielly, who yes does have evil liberals on his show - but not so they can speak; so Bill can cut them off and yell at them whenever he gets a chance.  That isn't diverse, or even original - Wally George made a 40 year career out of it.

The reason the channel does well is because it implements a highly sucessful formula that is basically the same as Rush (which is obvious when you look at viewership records that indicate that almost as many if not more people that disagree with the show watch and/or listen to Rush and Faux).  People that disagree with the shows pay attention so that they can scream at the TV and tell their friends and internet forums how ridiculous the viewpoints are.

PS - no "straight news" program on TV has diverse programming - at the core is mainstream media/corporate media controlled viewpoints.  The channels do not operate solely to inform the public about the goings on around the world; they operate to earn a profit.
So Chris Matthews saying that he is going to do whatever he can to help Obama is good journalism... seems like the "people" are split on which channel is more douchebag...lol...

  I am glad to finally know why everyone watches Fox and Rush Limbaugh... because they wan't to disagree and yell at their tv and radio....    brilliant... lol
Love is the answer
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6936|949

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

So Chris Matthews saying that he is going to do whatever he can to help Obama is good journalism... seems like the "people" are split on which channel is more douchebag...lol...

  I am glad to finally know why everyone watches Fox and Rush Limbaugh... because they wan't to disagree and yell at their tv and radio....    brilliant... lol
I never said anything about Chris Matthews, so I don't know why you would bring him up.  I simply said that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly (and Fox News as a network) are successful because they use an abrasive approach to "journalism" that keeps listeners tuned to them - regardless if they agree with him or not.  Maybe when I am home from work I will search for the demographics that show that a good chunk of the viewers/listeners for the above-mentioned programs do not agree.  I didn't say all, I said around 50% do not agree.  It may be more or less, but it is a sizeable chunk.

I am not praising MSNBS or Faux (as you would know if you read my previous posts in this topic).  I am showing why one is more successful than the other.  I am pointing out that they are abrasive and sometimes controversial, which in media is a surefire way to gain ratings, positive or otherwise.  It's not that hard of a concept to understand.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6905|132 and Bush

Abrasive is entertaining. Olberfuhrer would agree.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6936|949

Kmarion wrote:

Abrasive is entertaining. Olberfuhrer would agree.
He should have stuck with sportscasting.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7066

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Abrasive is entertaining. Olberfuhrer would agree.
He should have stuck with sportscasting.
he wasnt that good doing that tbh.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7076|PNW

TheAussieReaper wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Because all the other news agencies are so much more objective when it comes to political alignment.
wat. Not really. CNN is pretty veiled but still left leaning bias.
/sarcasm
topthrill05
Member
+125|6882|Rochester NY USA
I happen to like CNN. I do see the bias you see in it as well, but really don't consider them to be shitty.

On the other hand I stopped watching MSNBC because of how Fox like they were becoming.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,984|6936|949

usmarine wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Abrasive is entertaining. Olberfuhrer would agree.
He should have stuck with sportscasting.
he wasnt that good doing that tbh.
Better than he is as a TV journo.  Don't get me wrong, he's no Kenny Mayne or Dan Patrick, but he was capable of the job.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard