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
Conservatives don't think things "thru", they believe in the bible, that zygotes are babies, that obama is an illegal alien and that fox news is truthful.
Prove that Obama is an illegal.
Fox has the dumbest viewers, look it up.
You just proved my point BTW.
Conservative
http://www.theblaze.com/stori...
Alex Jones Believes Bilderberg Attendees Ship in Gold-Covered Roasted Babies to Eat
Last month, police in Thailand arrested a British citizen after six roasted fetal corpses were found in his luggage. The bodies were believed to be between two and seven months old, according to the Guardian. Some were plated in gold leaf, apparently for use in black magic rituals.
Outside the annual Bilderberg meeting in Virginia on Thursday, Alex Jones of Infowars accused attendees of possessing the same thing — to eat.
Video posted online captured Jones shouting into a bullhorn outside the meeting place, claiming Bilderberg members “ship in roasted babies wrapped in gold foil for them to eat” — and making it clear he wasn’t kidding.
“Every week they catch them shipping little babies wrapped in gold foil for these guys to eat. They admit that’s where it goes to, I’m not making this up,” Jones said.
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world...
http://www.bangkoknews.net/st...
A few years ago they called Jones crazy for believing the Bilderberg meetings existed at all (said he was having a psycotic break and imagining the whole thing) . Now they talk about the meetings like it's no big deal.
First the truth is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it's accepted as self-evident.
Alex Jones Believes Bilderberg Attendees Ship in Gold-Covered Roasted Babies to Eat
That aside, I have heard countless bits of good information on infowars, often well ahead of the msm. Jones called the economic collapse LONG before any other news source. I mean like a year or more before. And nobody else is talking about the currency crisis coming at the end of the year.
Here's a little tidbit from today's show. A moderately vetted source from inside the London olympics security staff was interviewed who claimed that security people for the london games are being instructed that there will be a big 'paradigm changing' incident at the 2012 games, and that they will be helping to evacuate London. Jones asked if this was just one of the eventualities they were preparing for, because they prepare for all sorts of scenarios. The source said no, there was more than one trainer there and it was said with a sense of certainty that indicated foreknowledge.
So. How reliable is he? He predicted 911, on air, in July of 01.
Eat Dung and Bark at the moon mother fornicator
http://mediamatters.org/blog/...
The link he provided, if you'd like to check it out, is summed up by the line: "Beck has a long history of making failed, outrageous, and baseless predictions", the only reference to 911 is to it's anniversary. The video shows Glen Beck CLAIMING to have predicted 911, but I don't think that's proof, I mean, he just discredited Beck, now he wants me to trust the guy? Anyway....
If you want to listen to the infowars broadcast, just download iTunes for free (if you don't already have it), go to the radio section, choose 'news/talk' and the show is about 7th or 8th from the top. It's totally free. Be informed.