• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fox v MSNBC -- preliminary

GreyICE said:
Really? Because those of us in reality-based society know that Fox is the top-rated news channel.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6517290.html

You're suffering from typical Fox watcher syndrome - misinformation (lies, if we wish to be blunt) designed to reinforce a false perception (in this case, the perception that Fox is hideously picked upon, instead of given the fair evaluation that its position deserves).
Click to expand...

Top rated CABLE news channel. If you do not know the difference then you are not going to be much value in this thread. The big three networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) still garner way more viewers of their news than FOX News does.

Did you even bother to read the second post (#2) in this thread where I said:

That is why it kills MSNBC and CNN collectively in the ratings.

If you looked before you leap, you might not keep falling on the stable floor.

"Fair evaluation?" Sure. By people who coincidentally share your political ideology. Or are you suggesting that you could possibly consider yourself fair, as we already know you are unbalanced.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
Top rated CABLE news channel. If you do not know the difference then you are not going to be much value in this thread. The big three networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) still garner way more viewers of their news than FOX News does.

Did you even bother to read the second post (#2) in this thread where I said:

That is why it kills MSNBC and CNN collectively in the ratings.

If you looked before you leap, you might not keep falling on the stable floor.

"Fair evaluation?" Sure. By people who coincidentally share your political ideology. Or are you suggesting that you could possibly consider yourself fair, as we already know you are unbalanced.
Click to expand...
Oops, that was a direct attack on a forum member. Do be careful with the entire forum rules line when you're trying to incite the rest of us.
 
GreyICE said:
Oops, that was a direct attack on a forum member. Do be careful with the entire forum rules line when you're trying to incite the rest of us.
Click to expand...

But other than that, you have nothing to say about your quirky habit of not reading the thread, even one with only a few posts, before posting desultory liberal dogma not valid or even related to the topic?
 
Cicero said:
Top rated CABLE news channel. If you do not know the difference then you are not going to be much value in this thread. The big three networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) still garner way more viewers of their news than FOX News does.

Did you even bother to read the second post (#2) in this thread where I said:

That is why it kills MSNBC and CNN collectively in the ratings.

If you looked before you leap, you might not keep falling on the stable floor.

"Fair evaluation?" Sure. By people who coincidentally share your political ideology. Or are you suggesting that you could possibly consider yourself fair, as we already know you are unbalanced.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to believe you, but I haven't seen a source.
 
Cicero said:
It is actually a thread about 24/7 cable news shows FOX News, not FOX channel, and MSNBC, not NBC.
Click to expand...

The figures are for FOX News. Forgive me for shortening FOX News to FOX.

Not all viewers of NBC are being counted, just viewers who get their news primarily from NBC. I don't see any reason to discount equating the effectiveness of NBC News and MSNBC. Certainly none have been provided.

Explain how such a small number of the viewing population required a study to determine whether their "misperceptions" if they actually exist, had any effect on the 2004 election?
Click to expand...

Off topic.

Surely the purpose of the study was to somehow explain how Bush 43 would be elected again in 04 because the measly 2 million FOX News watchers, according to this study, would automatically vote for him.
Click to expand...

You've presented nothing but your own bias as evidence of that. Stop calling me Shirley.

I offered a scientific study showing how viewers of Fox News clearly develop misperceptions based on the political bias of the network. Kerberos made an excellent suggest for a way to further examine the point, but has provided nothing in the way of supporting evidence but footstomping about common sense and liberals.

I am saying that one way to test the idea of more or less bias in the various news channels is to see if their viewers come away with actual knowledge of what is happening when the facts conflicts with that station's bias. So far, FOX News has failed this test abysmally. It remains to be seen if MSNBC, the subject of this thread, or PBS perform the same way with the perceived biases they have. If they do not, or if the measure of viewers with misperceptions of liberal-bias-contradicting facts is substantially better than that of FOX News, then I think we could claim with confidence that FOX News is far more biased than other channels (in a way that is not either internally "fair and balanced" or a way that "balances" the coverage of other networks, which is what they really mean).
 
SezMe said:
You're equating common sense with logic? Really? The two are not even closely related.
Click to expand...


Bingo! It's typically a logical fallacy to use "common sense" as justification -- argumentum ad populum. It's quite popular with people who have exhausted all other arguments. People have used "common sense" over the years to oppose things like women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.
 
joobz said:
You are equating common sense with "something I wish to be true."
Click to expand...
Nope, I have no particular wish to assert that FOX is less biased, or even no more biased than any other cable station

joobz said:
I think your point of conservative missconception vs. liberal missconception is a valid point. But you weaken by claiming assertion and insinuation is proof enough.
Click to expand...
I haven't insuniated anything at all, I explained why boloboffin facts didn't prove anything, at least nothing that was contested by anyine. Granted I didn't clearly spell out the logic of it but thatøs frankly because I expected people to be able to fill out that blanks. Do I really need to spell it out in formal logic?
 
SezMe said:
You're equating common sense with logic? Really? The two are not even closely related.
Click to expand...

I really don't have enough spare time to argue semantics on the internet. Do you have a point whihc doesn't relate to what you think a word technically means?
 
Cicero, your response...? (numbers added for easy reference)
varwoche said:
(1) We're in mutual agreement that Fox tilts right and MSNBC tilts left.

(2) You're not suggesting that ratings be used as a criterion though, are you?

(3) Any program that clearly leans one way or the other should publicly admit their leaning. Is that your proposal?

(4) An obvious stumbling block is that we need to define which programs clearly lean which way or the other. I'll look over the lineups and post my best guesses later on and you do the same.
Click to expand...
 
Cicero said:
But other than that, you have nothing to say about your quirky habit of not reading the thread, even one with only a few posts, before posting desultory liberal dogma not valid or even related to the topic?
Click to expand...
What, I mean beyond the obvious fact that you're lying?

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=2&media=7
In 2007, three trends stand out when it comes to the audience for cable news....

Fox News remained the audience leader but saw more monthly fluctuations, while MSNBC saw slow but steady growth. CNN, meanwhile, appears to have stopped its losses, while its sister channel, Headline News, saw notable growth.
Click to expand...

Yes, reality, and its well known liberal bias strike again :rolleyes:

Poor, noble Fox news, bravely toiling away as a small but vocal conservative voice among the media giants with 10 times its viewership, who horribly pick on the little conservative news station, such a heartwarming narrative... I mean lie.
 
Last edited:
Kerberos said:
I haven't insuniated anything at all, I explained why boloboffin facts didn't prove anything, at least nothing that was contested by anyine. Granted I didn't clearly spell out the logic of it but thatøs frankly because I expected people to be able to fill out that blanks. Do I really need to spell it out in formal logic?
Click to expand...
No the logic is clear and that is why I agree it is a valid criticism. However, it is still a criticism that requires validation. You insinuated that a liberal misconception would ahve the opposite trend. To claim your point is proven and obvious through "common sense" is entirely wrong.

In truth, it is an extremely interesting question, I wonder which misconceptions would be useful.
I'd start with "Bush started the war because of oil."
 
Cicero, in the other thread you were eager for me to kick off this thread. And so I did, and now you're not even engaging. I'm left with the impression that you're not so eager to put your claims into testable form.
 
joobz said:
No the logic is clear and that is why I agree it is a valid criticism. However, it is still a criticism that requires validation. You insinuated that a liberal misconception would ahve the opposite trend.
Click to expand...
I didn't insinuate that I flat out said so.

joobz said:
To claim your point is proven and obvious through "common sense" is entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
Technically nothing is ever proven, but I find it extremely unlikely that Fox or it's viewers would deny or try to shroud facts that were politically convenient to them.

joobz said:
In truth, it is an extremely interesting question, I wonder which misconceptions would be useful.
I'd start with "Bush started the war because of oil."
Click to expand...
Not a good one really because it's not provably false, since we can't read Bush's mind. Besides it's subject to significant interpretation as to what it means and for some interpretations would be entirelly plausible. A better one would be whether they knew that casualties have fallen since the surge.
 
varwoche said:
Cicero, in the other thread you were eager for me to kick off this thread. And so I did, and now you're not even engaging. I'm left with the impression that you're not so eager to put your claims into testable form.
Click to expand...

You know, I get the same response (no response) when I challenge those who think O'Reilly is not conservative. I don't know how many times I have challenged those who assert O'Reilly's non-conservative nature to go with me through transcripts to figure out which positions he takes on the issues on his shows. Alas, like Cicero here, they always seem to disappear when challenged.

Lurker
 
Kerberos said:
joobz said:
To claim your point is proven and obvious through "common sense" is entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
Technically nothing is ever proven,
Click to expand...
In the real world, things may never be proven, but they can be proven false. For example:
  • Common sense told us the world was flat.
  • Common sense told us the universe moves around the Earth.
  • Common sense told us that light, being a wave, must propagate through a substance.
  • Common sense told us that velocities are strictly additive.
All of these have been proven incorrect, despite reliance on common sense. Common sense is a poor substitute for taking the time to learn more about a topic.
 
Upchurch said:
In the real world, things may never be proven, but they can be proven false. For example:
  • Common sense told us the world was flat.
  • Common sense told us the universe moves around the Earth.
  • Common sense told us that light, being a wave, must propagate through a substance.
  • Common sense told us that velocities are strictly additive.
All of these have been proven incorrect, despite reliance on common sense. Common sense is a poor substitute for taking the time to learn more about a topic.
Click to expand...

If common sense were employed in your examples then

1) nobody would have thought the world was flat since anyone watching a ship with a mast go out to sea can see that the ship does not disappear from view at once, but that the top of the mast is the last thing receding from view.

2) religion demanded that the earth was the center of the universe.

3 & 4 are not even laymen subjects so where was the "common" in the "sense?'
 
Lurker said:
You know, I get the same response (no response) when I challenge those who think O'Reilly is not conservative. I don't know how many times I have challenged those who assert O'Reilly's non-conservative nature to go with me through transcripts to figure out which positions he takes on the issues on his shows. Alas, like Cicero here, they always seem to disappear when challenged.

Lurker
Click to expand...

Liberal views of O'eilly, for the umpteenth time:

1) believes wholeheartedly in global warming
2) despises the oil companies
3) loves Barbara Walters
4) RFK is his idol
5) pro gun control
6) is fine with 60% tax rate for rich
 
Hmm, nicely dodged the part about Fox having the highest viewership again Ciccy?

Damn that reality and its well-known liberal bias!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom