Funny how the liberals seem to be the experts on the alleged bias at Fox News, yet they never watch it. Of course, there have been studies--Pew Research, USC, and UCLA studies--that show that of all the networks, cable and broadcast, Fox News was the most balanced in the 2008 election. But don't bother bringing that up to a lib. They're so invested in their alternate reality that they could never bring themselves to admit that they've been wrong. Here's a great insight into the liberal mindset (this particular one refers to the end of the old Soviet Union, but it's just as applicable to our own leftists and their chosen faith):
Vital resistance and resentment are the two main responses to the events of 1989. Vital resistance: the mind realizes its mistake – it admits, for example, that nationalization of the means of production does not produce a happy society, but rather laziness and constant shortages; it refuses, however, to let go of the idea because of its passionate attachment to it. Existence – adventures, friendships, successes – is nourished and permeated by this belief to such an extent that the belief becomes an identity; the individual cannot renounce it without committing a kind of symbolic suicide. No one can admit… that his existence reflects the echo of a failure.--Chantal Delsol, "Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century"--hat tip to Ward Dorrity
PUBLIC OPINION > Big News Is Bad News
SodaHead News
2012/06/28 16:00:00
CNN reported a massive drop in viewership this year, losing more than a third of its total audience. Fox News, on the other hand, is floating along nicely, only dropping about 1%. But we wanted to know how viewership looked at the ground level. What percentage of the public watches major news networks? We asked the public to find out.
As ratings predicted, Fox News came out on top. However, even more respondents shunned the entire batch. That's evidence of two things. First, the so-called "major" news networks are hardly satisfactory outlets for news. They might have the most viewers, but as with the music charts, a high rating doesn't mean high quality. Second, it suggests most people are getting their news from alternative sources, because it's unlikely all these people are just ignoring world events completely. They're just sick of the major outlets. One commenter put it best: "If I want to hear nothing but lies, I'll talk to my ex wife."
Conservatives Back Fox
Naturally, all of these stations deny these claims of bias. Whether or not that's true is really a matter of opinion, but what is clear is that their viewers do lean. 77% of conservatives voted Fox, compared to 0% of liberals and progressives; 31% of liberals watch CNN or MSNBC, compared to 2% of conservatives. The vast majority of moderates (72%) avoid the major news channels all together.
The Internet Age
The reason "none of the above" was such a popular choice was clear in the age breakdown: People under 35 don't watch the news. Below that age, the difference in support between major networks was negligible. About two-thirds of them refused to pick one. And we think the reason for this is pretty obvious, too. Do they really expect us to wait 'til 11 when we could just check our personalized feed?
Alternative Sources
Simply saying that "the Internet" is an alternative source of news isn't specific enough. We wanted to see what other people were watching specifically. A quick glance through the comments revealed: YouTube, The Onion, Al Jazeera, C-SPAN, local news, college radio, The Weather Channel, and there were even a few hits for The History Channel.
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll on major news networks. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
JWnTX 2012/06/28 16:42:07
Case in point: FOX News.
Just because they have more viewers, doesn't mean the quality of their network is better.
It's not.
In fact, I'd just say they have more "sheep" following them than any other news organization.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2416...
I watch Fox News, and I can answer the questions that the Obsessive Whiners Syndrome people couldn't answer in several surveys conducted at their rallies. They were out there protesting, and most didn't even know WHY they were even there, let alone the political implications. These are Liberal, Progressive, and Democratic supporters who have no idea as to why they are protesting when asked? Two of them even said, "Because that guy over there is paying me to be here." I wouldn't bet on it, but then I wouldn't doubt that they all watch CNN (Crappy News Network). And I wouldn't be thoughtless enough to crap or pee on someone else's property, in public, on the sidewalk, or anywhere other than a restroom or porta-potty in the area.
I feel that I am fairly well informed by FOX, and I don't see the 'spin' on their reports that I see on the other channels. Actually, they are blatant with the 'spin' on CNN, MSNBC, and the like. They edit the video reports to come out the way they want them to be, in...
I watch Fox News, and I can answer the questions that the Obsessive Whiners Syndrome people couldn't answer in several surveys conducted at their rallies. They were out there protesting, and most didn't even know WHY they were even there, let alone the political implications. These are Liberal, Progressive, and Democratic supporters who have no idea as to why they are protesting when asked? Two of them even said, "Because that guy over there is paying me to be here." I wouldn't bet on it, but then I wouldn't doubt that they all watch CNN (Crappy News Network). And I wouldn't be thoughtless enough to crap or pee on someone else's property, in public, on the sidewalk, or anywhere other than a restroom or porta-potty in the area.
I feel that I am fairly well informed by FOX, and I don't see the 'spin' on their reports that I see on the other channels. Actually, they are blatant with the 'spin' on CNN, MSNBC, and the like. They edit the video reports to come out the way they want them to be, instead of playing the entire segment through, as is. I also like to see Whine Williams, Alan Crumbs, and Bob Bicker getting a lesson on nearly everything they claim to be 'fact'.
And beside that, some people that I have talked with have said that they don't care to watch ANY news networks since, "They all lie, and I don't really care to know their bull." Or they say, "I really don't care what is going on anywhere in the world, unless it affects me directly." The problem is, 90% of what is reported on the news on a daily basis, DOES affect the general masses in one way or another. And if you don't know about it in advance, it's much harder to deal with it when it smacks you upside the head all at once.
Vital resistance and resentment are the two main responses to the events of 1989. Vital resistance: the mind realizes its mistake – it admits, for example, that nationalization of the means of production does not produce a happy society, but rather laziness and constant shortages; it refuses, however, to let go of the idea because of its passionate attachment to it. Existence – adventures, friendships, successes – is nourished and permeated by this belief to such an extent that the belief becomes an identity; the individual cannot renounce it without committing a kind of symbolic suicide. No one can admit… that his existence reflects the echo of a failure.--Chantal Delsol, "Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century"--hat tip to Ward Dorrity
I personally don't care, but it sure means a lot to Bawney.
The answer is obviously "no", but I'm curious as to why you are so impassioned in your response without having any real information?
Capitalism is not free under monopolistic policies. Intellectual property rights trump the physical property rights that capitalism is based on. Competition is nothing but a carefully choreographed dramatization. Nobody can employ themselves because we are legally prohibited from engaging in any activity that could make us financially independent from government.
The job markets remain saturated, wages remain low, and politicians do nothing but talk about creating more jobs. They never talk about repealing monopolistic policies, i.e. abolishing the patent system, to create more opportunities for individuals to employ themselves.
The only way government can stimulate job growth in the private sector is to extend special benefits and privileges to corporate monopolies. Which corporate monopolies? The ones they are invested in, of course. They want us working for them and they want our corporate employers to make sure we're paying our income taxes.