Fox News - The only news network we can trust?
For reasons listed in the question (below), is Fox News the only media outlet we can now trust?
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27875661/Why-does-the-media-cover-for-Obama.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/27875661/Why-does-the-media-cover-for-Obama.html
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>You're citing your own question as reference?
Links in my question.
>>Here's a refresher:
Again with citing "news" from the Comedy Channel? Couldn't get any good economic news from AMC or the Discovery Channel?
Links in my question.
>>Here's a refresher:
Again with citing "news" from the Comedy Channel? Couldn't get any good economic news from AMC or the Discovery Channel?
>>Couldn't get any good economic news from AMC or the Discovery Channel?
They don't have news shows. Comedy Central does.
If you could stomach the fact that this is from Comedy Central and actually watch it...is Jon Stewart wrong in anything he says in that clip?
They don't have news shows. Comedy Central does.
If you could stomach the fact that this is from Comedy Central and actually watch it...is Jon Stewart wrong in anything he says in that clip?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>If you could stomach the fact that this is from Comedy Central and actually watch it...is Jon Stewart wrong in anything he says in that clip?
Listen, he's funny and isn't a crazy lib like you find on MSNBC. But you can't possibly take him serious.
This is what's wrong with the youth vote. They're relying on the comedy channel ALONE to get news.
Listen, he's funny and isn't a crazy lib like you find on MSNBC. But you can't possibly take him serious.
This is what's wrong with the youth vote. They're relying on the comedy channel ALONE to get news.
This is what's wrong with the youth vote. They're relying on the comedy channel ALONE to get news.
Wrong (again), but even so - someone who only gets their news from the comedy channel would still be more informed than someone who only gets their news from Fox!
>> But you can't possibly take him serious.
What did he say that is wrong though.
What did he say that is wrong though.
ASKER
>> how angry he is inside that a so called "News" channel would so blatantly try to attack one candidate and protect the other,
See the links in the previous question I posted.
Where's is the anger to that?
See the links in the previous question I posted.
Where's is the anger to that?
Again, What did he say that is wrong though.
Don't have time to read them - can you paraphrase? Do you not like NBC/MSNBC?
Or is it more of Fox whining about how the other stations don't parrot their talking points?
Or is it more of Fox whining about how the other stations don't parrot their talking points?
ASKER
>>Don't have time to read them - can you paraphrase?
Media ignores negatives on Obama but underscores with authority any perceived Romney negative.
Media ignores negatives on Obama but underscores with authority any perceived Romney negative.
That's not true, unless you compare it to Fox aka Romney campaign headquarters.
>>Media ignores negatives on Obama but underscores with authority any perceived Romney negative.
I agree that happens, but as long as the negatives they underscore are true, then that is fine. FoxNews underscores enough of Obama negatives to be a counterweight to that...except that they do more than underscore them, they make some up and twist words and falsify facts. That is the downfall. If they would just underscore them, but be truthful they would have a greater impact.
In their ambition to make democrats look as bad as possible they tarnished their reputation and are not taken as serious anymore.
Also there are plenty of negatives for Obama all over the Internet, where younger people get their news anyway.
I agree that happens, but as long as the negatives they underscore are true, then that is fine. FoxNews underscores enough of Obama negatives to be a counterweight to that...except that they do more than underscore them, they make some up and twist words and falsify facts. That is the downfall. If they would just underscore them, but be truthful they would have a greater impact.
In their ambition to make democrats look as bad as possible they tarnished their reputation and are not taken as serious anymore.
Also there are plenty of negatives for Obama all over the Internet, where younger people get their news anyway.
ASKER
>>In their ambition to make democrats look as bad as possible
Democrats do that on their own. That IS the reason the media won't report it.
>>Also there are plenty of negatives for Obama all over the Internet,
That's great. But media should be honest.
>>That's not true,
Anthony says you're wrong.
>>where younger people get their news anyway.
Young vote is swinging towards Romney because younger voters want a job.
Democrats do that on their own. That IS the reason the media won't report it.
>>Also there are plenty of negatives for Obama all over the Internet,
That's great. But media should be honest.
>>That's not true,
Anthony says you're wrong.
>>where younger people get their news anyway.
Young vote is swinging towards Romney because younger voters want a job.
>>That's great. But media should be honest.
When it stops becoming a profit business maybe that will happen, ,but not likely.
>>Young vote is swinging towards Romney because younger voters want a job.
I'm sure you have links to back that up, but again, not likely.
When it stops becoming a profit business maybe that will happen, ,but not likely.
>>Young vote is swinging towards Romney because younger voters want a job.
I'm sure you have links to back that up, but again, not likely.
We know you don't like at least half of America. How do you break it down? By state? By region? By individual? Or do you just depend on Fox to tell you who to hate?
ASKER
>>I'm sure you have links to back that up, but again, not likely.
A Romney first: over 40% of youth vote back him
>>When it stops becoming a profit business maybe that will happen, ,but not likely.
Fox News is the most watched news network.
>>By individual?
By individual. Tired of deadbeats, leeches, the lazy, etc... You know, typical Democrats.
A Romney first: over 40% of youth vote back him
>>When it stops becoming a profit business maybe that will happen, ,but not likely.
Fox News is the most watched news network.
>>By individual?
By individual. Tired of deadbeats, leeches, the lazy, etc... You know, typical Democrats.
"A Romney first...."
Was that your trusted Rasmussen? Or some other poll that just says what you want to hear?
"Fox News is the most watched news network."
Most watched CABLE news network. And ratings != truth or validity.
"By individual. Tired of deadbeats, leeches, the lazy, etc... You know, typical Democrats. "
So none of the analysis of Romney's 47% comment meant anything to you? Oh that's right, you're "fact averse".
Was that your trusted Rasmussen? Or some other poll that just says what you want to hear?
"Fox News is the most watched news network."
Most watched CABLE news network. And ratings != truth or validity.
"By individual. Tired of deadbeats, leeches, the lazy, etc... You know, typical Democrats. "
So none of the analysis of Romney's 47% comment meant anything to you? Oh that's right, you're "fact averse".
>>A Romney first: over 40% of youth vote back him
WooHoo That puts him in second place with the Youth vote on this super accurate huge poll that probably asked a couple of hundred youths. Oh yea, second place still loses.
>>Fox News is the most watched news network.
Right, and they make a lot of money slinging their mud. Just like CNN and MSNBC and ABC, etc. They have an audience to keep and know who their target demographic is so they keep feeding that to keep their advertisers.
WooHoo That puts him in second place with the Youth vote on this super accurate huge poll that probably asked a couple of hundred youths. Oh yea, second place still loses.
>>Fox News is the most watched news network.
Right, and they make a lot of money slinging their mud. Just like CNN and MSNBC and ABC, etc. They have an audience to keep and know who their target demographic is so they keep feeding that to keep their advertisers.
Just like CNN and MSNBC and ABC
Except they aren't like those other stations at all. Some of the others have opinion shows, but those opinions don't permeate their news shows. None of those stations manufacture news, or read the Republican party's daily talking points as their own reporting, or blatantly pump stories with dubious sources, or spend months promoting a hoax and when it is shown to be a hoax not do a retraction.
If this were sports, Fox would be a cheerleader not an analyst.
>>If this were sports, Fox would be a cheerleader not an analyst.
I agree.
However the others generally are analysts that live in the city of the home team though and that shows through in their points once in a while.
Nothing to the extent of what FoxNews does though.
I agree.
However the others generally are analysts that live in the city of the home team though and that shows through in their points once in a while.
Nothing to the extent of what FoxNews does though.
ASKER
>>If this were sports, Fox would be a cheerleader not an analyst.
You guys are going after Fox News' opinion programs. From 9 am (eastern) to 5 pm, they're news. At 5 pm, opinion starts.
Still amazed - I outline numerous instances of bias in the NEWS (not opinion) and you guys still focus on Fox.
For opinion, yes, they lean right. But not for their news content.
You guys are going after Fox News' opinion programs. From 9 am (eastern) to 5 pm, they're news. At 5 pm, opinion starts.
Still amazed - I outline numerous instances of bias in the NEWS (not opinion) and you guys still focus on Fox.
For opinion, yes, they lean right. But not for their news content.
>>For opinion, yes, they lean right. But not for their news content.
The complaint is that the news content also leans right. We know the argument that they make which is that it is only the opinion shows, but the record shows otherwise.
The complaint is that the news content also leans right. We know the argument that they make which is that it is only the opinion shows, but the record shows otherwise.
So Megyn Kelly is "fair and balanced" and not a rabid right wing supporter? Bill Hemmer? John Scott? Martha Macullum?
And no, we're not going after their opinion programs, it's their NEWS programs that do this; The opinion shows talk about something, and then the newscasters continue with "Some people are saying..." and make the same attacks. Who are "some people?" the OPINION hosts and guests.
Everyday, you can see the talking points - every news host parrots them every hour on the hour for an hour. The opinion people then go to further depths.
If you can't admin Fox "News'" bias, how can you hope to honestly and reasonably debate anything?
And no, we're not going after their opinion programs, it's their NEWS programs that do this; The opinion shows talk about something, and then the newscasters continue with "Some people are saying..." and make the same attacks. Who are "some people?" the OPINION hosts and guests.
Everyday, you can see the talking points - every news host parrots them every hour on the hour for an hour. The opinion people then go to further depths.
If you can't admin Fox "News'" bias, how can you hope to honestly and reasonably debate anything?
ASKER
>>So Megyn Kelly is "fair and balanced"
She's hot. Does it matter?
What you consider bias, everyone else considers as follow up questions. You know, pressing people when they give shitty answers.
Example: See how the Obama administration lied about what happened in Libya. They told lie after lie. Once finally caught, they admitted it was a terrorist attack.
She's hot. Does it matter?
What you consider bias, everyone else considers as follow up questions. You know, pressing people when they give shitty answers.
Example: See how the Obama administration lied about what happened in Libya. They told lie after lie. Once finally caught, they admitted it was a terrorist attack.
>> See how the Obama administration lied about what happened in Libya.
The initial info was that it was sparked for the video. When they got other info that was reliable they said it was terrorism. That's not lying. That's being wrong.
If Romney loses in November I wont come back here and say "You lied Eric. You said he would win!"
>>She's hot. Does it matter?
You go to a news channel for hot women? There are better places for that. That's worse than going to a Comedy Channel for news.
The initial info was that it was sparked for the video. When they got other info that was reliable they said it was terrorism. That's not lying. That's being wrong.
If Romney loses in November I wont come back here and say "You lied Eric. You said he would win!"
>>She's hot. Does it matter?
You go to a news channel for hot women? There are better places for that. That's worse than going to a Comedy Channel for news.
ASKER
>>When they got other info that was reliable they said it was terrorism. That's not lying. That's being wrong.
Negus plz. Even after the evidence was out, they still kept up the lies. I guess they were just hoping the dishonest media would report it - might have been worth rolling the dice.
They have the intelligence reports. The rest of us don't. No one in their right mind (maybe this is the key) thought this was a protest.
>>You go to a news channel for hot women?
Does it hurt?
Negus plz. Even after the evidence was out, they still kept up the lies. I guess they were just hoping the dishonest media would report it - might have been worth rolling the dice.
They have the intelligence reports. The rest of us don't. No one in their right mind (maybe this is the key) thought this was a protest.
>>You go to a news channel for hot women?
Does it hurt?
What you consider bias, everyone else considers as follow up questions. You know, pressing people when they give shitty answers.
LOL - look at the softballs they give conservatives; they feed them their lines. That's not pressing people.
Then they go an twist the words of Democrats and build up a false narrative around them.
Obama: You didn't build that (talking about the USA infrastructure and society)
Fox News: "Obama said if you have a small business, you didn't build that!"
RNC: You didn't build that = rallying cry.
It's not even close Eric, why do you insist on pretending?
LOL - things got a bit slow, so I went to check out the links that have you so upset. The first one, "NBC punts on redistribution video but hammers 47% video".
This is the molehill that became Bullshit Mountain.
First of all the 47% video - this is Romney on the campaign trail saying what you've intoned many times, that half the country is deadbeat leeches living off the "producers" and as such will vote for Obama. Never mind the fact that this premise has been widely debunked by an array of pundits, analysts and journalists. Next, Fox starts spinning it as the truth, and even a plus for Romney and what he should campaign on.
No, that wasn't enough spin, so Fox digs up an old video of Obama from the late nineties, and it basically says what he's been saying all along and what he's still saying; that gov't has a role to help better society, but it needs to be efficient. This was solely meant as a counterattack to the 47% video, and to help give Romney some covering fire. In typical Fox fashion of course, it was misleading. They play clips where Obama says the magic word "redistribution" ( which Fox built up into a rallying cry in the '08 elections ) and not much else. When (if) you hear the whole context, it doesn't sound nearly as nefarious.
So, your questioning if we can trust any news source besides Fox, and the evidence you site is typical whining about how the other networks don't promote the controversy that Fox has manufactured? Really?
This is the molehill that became Bullshit Mountain.
First of all the 47% video - this is Romney on the campaign trail saying what you've intoned many times, that half the country is deadbeat leeches living off the "producers" and as such will vote for Obama. Never mind the fact that this premise has been widely debunked by an array of pundits, analysts and journalists. Next, Fox starts spinning it as the truth, and even a plus for Romney and what he should campaign on.
No, that wasn't enough spin, so Fox digs up an old video of Obama from the late nineties, and it basically says what he's been saying all along and what he's still saying; that gov't has a role to help better society, but it needs to be efficient. This was solely meant as a counterattack to the 47% video, and to help give Romney some covering fire. In typical Fox fashion of course, it was misleading. They play clips where Obama says the magic word "redistribution" ( which Fox built up into a rallying cry in the '08 elections ) and not much else. When (if) you hear the whole context, it doesn't sound nearly as nefarious.
So, your questioning if we can trust any news source besides Fox, and the evidence you site is typical whining about how the other networks don't promote the controversy that Fox has manufactured? Really?
ASKER
Right over your head, Beetos.
The point is the media POUNDS Republicans and conservatives but ignores negative stories on Obama.
If the media reported on Obama the way it reported on Bush, Obama's approval rating would be in the single digits.
The point is the media POUNDS Republicans and conservatives but ignores negative stories on Obama.
If the media reported on Obama the way it reported on Bush, Obama's approval rating would be in the single digits.
>>If the media reported on Obama the way it reported on Bush, Obama's approval rating would be in the single digits.
No he wouldn't. A lot of what he does people like. While conservatives want a small government and winner-take-all attitude for the country, many people do not, ,so while there could be more negatives reported about Obama, a lot fo what would be horrible to you is just fine to a lot of people.
Before you go on the tirade about his church and crap in his past, people have moved on from that. You should to.
No he wouldn't. A lot of what he does people like. While conservatives want a small government and winner-take-all attitude for the country, many people do not, ,so while there could be more negatives reported about Obama, a lot fo what would be horrible to you is just fine to a lot of people.
Before you go on the tirade about his church and crap in his past, people have moved on from that. You should to.
ASKER
>>Before you go on the tirade about his church and crap in his past, people have moved on from that. You should to.
His presidency has been a disaster. The average voter watching the Today Show isn't going to have a clue.
>>No he wouldn't.
That's your opinion. I've already documented how the main media outlets selectively show things on each candidate. They hide Obama's negatives and magnify Romney's.
His presidency has been a disaster. The average voter watching the Today Show isn't going to have a clue.
>>No he wouldn't.
That's your opinion. I've already documented how the main media outlets selectively show things on each candidate. They hide Obama's negatives and magnify Romney's.
>>His presidency has been a disaster. The average voter watching the Today Show isn't going to have a clue.
And there is your problem. The average voter will change the channel if the Today show started reporting like this. The Today show has a biz to run and needs viewers so they aren't going to blow off the average viewer of their show and instead are going to show more cute kittens and talk about Kardashians and all that crap that the average viewer actually cares about.
>>That's your opinion. I've already documented how the main media outlets selectively show things on each candidate. They hide Obama's negatives and magnify Romney's.
I already agreed with you on this. I just said that what is horrible to you and conservatives is not so horrible to the average person, so it will not be as negative for him as you think.
And there is your problem. The average voter will change the channel if the Today show started reporting like this. The Today show has a biz to run and needs viewers so they aren't going to blow off the average viewer of their show and instead are going to show more cute kittens and talk about Kardashians and all that crap that the average viewer actually cares about.
>>That's your opinion. I've already documented how the main media outlets selectively show things on each candidate. They hide Obama's negatives and magnify Romney's.
I already agreed with you on this. I just said that what is horrible to you and conservatives is not so horrible to the average person, so it will not be as negative for him as you think.
Right over your head, Beetos.
The point is the media POUNDS Republicans and conservatives but ignores negative stories on Obama.
If the media reported on Obama the way it reported on Bush, Obama's approval rating would be in the single digits
Over my head? It was your source! You're completely ignoring that Fox is doing exactly what you decry because they do it to Democrats.
Meanwhile, the rest of the media isn't as bad as you think. Bush was screwing things up royally, and the news reported that. You might not want to believe it, but look at the state of the union when he turned the reigns over to Obama.
Romney's been the one screwing things up for himself since the primary.
>>Romney's been the one screwing things up for himself since the primary.
No matter how big a gun some has, they can't hurt you if you don't give them the bullets.
Romney has given the media lots of bullets for their gun lately. You gotta admit that.
No matter how big a gun some has, they can't hurt you if you don't give them the bullets.
Romney has given the media lots of bullets for their gun lately. You gotta admit that.
ASKER
>>You're completely ignoring that Fox is doing exactly what you decry because they do it to Democrats.
The reason Fox is successful is precisely because people are tired of one side of the story. They want to hear both. Even on the opinion shows, they typically have a liberal and a conservative debating.
The rest of the network news, along with the major national shows, equate to yellow journalism.
>>Romney has given the media lots of bullets for their gun lately.
Yeah, all the talk of putting people back to work and countering Obama's lies on Libya.
The reason Fox is successful is precisely because people are tired of one side of the story. They want to hear both. Even on the opinion shows, they typically have a liberal and a conservative debating.
The rest of the network news, along with the major national shows, equate to yellow journalism.
>>Romney has given the media lots of bullets for their gun lately.
Yeah, all the talk of putting people back to work and countering Obama's lies on Libya.
>>Yeah, all the talk of putting people back to work and countering Obama's lies on Libya.
Exactly! With no details or a plan of how he plans to do it. It is just hot air and what people want to hear in his base.
I thought you would appreciate this quote:
Exactly! With no details or a plan of how he plans to do it. It is just hot air and what people want to hear in his base.
I thought you would appreciate this quote:
"Why won't Barack Obama release his elementary school report cards? We need to know if he played well with others. Did he bring gum to class? And if so, did he bring enough for everyone? I certainly hope not, cause that would be socialism." -- Stephen Colbert http://on.cc.com/keMHiM
ASKER
>>Exactly! With no details or a plan of how he plans to do it. It is just hot air and what people want to hear in his base.
He's been quite specific on certain items - taxes, obamacare, regulations.
But we've seen things go from bad to worse under Obama, so doing the exact opposite will probably have the opposite results.
>>I thought you would appreciate this quote:
Actually funny.
He's been quite specific on certain items - taxes, obamacare, regulations.
But we've seen things go from bad to worse under Obama, so doing the exact opposite will probably have the opposite results.
>>I thought you would appreciate this quote:
Actually funny.
>>He's been quite specific on certain items - taxes, obamacare, regulations.
Well please enlighten me where this is. This has been my biggest issue with Romney is he is holding back the details on all of his plans until after he is elected. His website just has the usual fluff.
Which loopholes will he close?
What is his replacement plan for when he repeals ObamaCare?
Which regulations is he planning to lift?
Here's another chance to talk positive about Romney for President instead of just Obama bashing. Positive about what he will do as President instead of what he did for the Olympics or Bain or his church.
Well please enlighten me where this is. This has been my biggest issue with Romney is he is holding back the details on all of his plans until after he is elected. His website just has the usual fluff.
Which loopholes will he close?
What is his replacement plan for when he repeals ObamaCare?
Which regulations is he planning to lift?
Here's another chance to talk positive about Romney for President instead of just Obama bashing. Positive about what he will do as President instead of what he did for the Olympics or Bain or his church.
ASKER
>>Well please enlighten me where this is.
See 60 minutes interview, speeches.
>>Which loopholes will he close?
You are right on this aspect. Does need to be specific.
>>What is his replacement plan for when he repeals ObamaCare?
Repeal first would be a big step. But he's mention numerous times - same points of free market approach.
>>Which regulations is he planning to lift?
EPA, drilling, Obamacare, Dodd/Frank
(Obama's regulations cost businesses $46 billion a year)
>>Here's another chance to talk positive about Romney for President instead of just Obama bashing.
Thing is, repealing what Obama is doing in itself would turn things around. In fact, an obama loss would cure the uncertainty businesses are facing now and result in more hiring.
See 60 minutes interview, speeches.
>>Which loopholes will he close?
You are right on this aspect. Does need to be specific.
>>What is his replacement plan for when he repeals ObamaCare?
Repeal first would be a big step. But he's mention numerous times - same points of free market approach.
>>Which regulations is he planning to lift?
EPA, drilling, Obamacare, Dodd/Frank
(Obama's regulations cost businesses $46 billion a year)
>>Here's another chance to talk positive about Romney for President instead of just Obama bashing.
Thing is, repealing what Obama is doing in itself would turn things around. In fact, an obama loss would cure the uncertainty businesses are facing now and result in more hiring.
The reason Fox is successful is precisely because people are tired of one side of the story. They want to hear both. Even on the opinion shows, they typically have a liberal and a conservative debating.
The rest of the network news, along with the major national shows, equate to yellow journalism.
Eric, you're so off base with this it's almost frightening. If anyone practices yellow journalism, it's certainly Fox with their constant manufactured crisis and nontroveries.
The fact that you can't see that Fox is the worst of the worst of your accusations shows that you'll never reach a rational viewpoint on this issue.
Good luck to you, and your fantasy of businesses will always do the right thing.
>>See 60 minutes interview, speeches.
There were no details in the 60 minutes interviews. It was just more fluff from both Romney and Obama.
>>Repeal first would be a big step. But he's mention numerous times - same points of free market approach.
No he hasn't. That's another fluffy thing his base wants to hear. Free market healthcare. But on Meet the Press he said covering for pre-existing conditions was a good idea. then his campaign had to come out and say he 'meant' within a free market because his base got upset. Then he goes and says in 60 minutes that you 'just call an ambulance' and go to the emergency room. Well that means we pay for someone else's medical care if they don't have insurance. That's socialistic! Any clue what the actual plan is because I sure can't figure it out from anything he says.
>>EPA, drilling, Obamacare, Dodd/Frank
Lets see. The entire EPA is going away? Most people, even conservatives, agree the EPA is needed as the air and water is cleaner now than it used to be years ago so it works. It is too stifling now and needs trimming back though. No idea what Romney plans to trim though because he won't say it.
Drilling? All drilling? So drilling in Yellowstone National Park then would be fine? Drilling next to a reservoir with hydraulic fracking chemicals is all OK too? Next to a skyscraper if that is where the shale is regardless of whether it will weaken the foundation? Or will there be 'some' regulations we will keep? No idea because no details...again.
ObamaCare we covered up above there already.
Dodd/Frank I am honestly not knowledgeable about enough to discuss so cannot address that one.
There were no details in the 60 minutes interviews. It was just more fluff from both Romney and Obama.
>>Repeal first would be a big step. But he's mention numerous times - same points of free market approach.
No he hasn't. That's another fluffy thing his base wants to hear. Free market healthcare. But on Meet the Press he said covering for pre-existing conditions was a good idea. then his campaign had to come out and say he 'meant' within a free market because his base got upset. Then he goes and says in 60 minutes that you 'just call an ambulance' and go to the emergency room. Well that means we pay for someone else's medical care if they don't have insurance. That's socialistic! Any clue what the actual plan is because I sure can't figure it out from anything he says.
>>EPA, drilling, Obamacare, Dodd/Frank
Lets see. The entire EPA is going away? Most people, even conservatives, agree the EPA is needed as the air and water is cleaner now than it used to be years ago so it works. It is too stifling now and needs trimming back though. No idea what Romney plans to trim though because he won't say it.
Drilling? All drilling? So drilling in Yellowstone National Park then would be fine? Drilling next to a reservoir with hydraulic fracking chemicals is all OK too? Next to a skyscraper if that is where the shale is regardless of whether it will weaken the foundation? Or will there be 'some' regulations we will keep? No idea because no details...again.
ObamaCare we covered up above there already.
Dodd/Frank I am honestly not knowledgeable about enough to discuss so cannot address that one.
The reason Fox is successful is precisely because people are tired of one side of the story. They want to hear both. Even on the opinion shows, they typically have a liberal and a conservative debating.
The Five has a liberal - that makes it 4 to 1.
Hannity the odds are usually 3 to 1.
The "News" casters sometimes have a voice from both sides, but the newscaster is always on the side of the conservative so even they come in at 2 to 1.
Neither fair nor balanced.
CNN also has voices from both sides on their news shows, but they are better moderated by the newscaster. This is much more fair and balanced, so how do you feel about CNN? Are they the news network we can trust?
Have you forgotten the epic takedown of Fox "News" last week? The Chaos on Bullshit Mountain?
Here's a refresher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4BfW2836Y