Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Fox Party?

by Willy / September 28, 2010 12:27 AM PDT

It looks at if the Fox news network is making its own party, abit GOP flavor. No thought, IMHO its a serious side-effect of them having working for the network yet prance around as if they were candidates already. Its just too favorable, regardless of network contract. I certainly brought this up in a earlier post, keeping Palin around when she left as governor. Still be in the public eye, yet away from engaged politics. They nursed her, no though about it. It was a savvy business move but for politics it reeks. You can see if wholesale hiring of future potential candidates becomes the norm, what then for the country. Its not as if other polilital people hadn't worked for networks, it seems at least they cut the cord to engage in politics and simply do what they're hired for. Not, a network platform to continue to vive for the public political atmosphere. Afterall, you;re suppose to report on the political news not become it. If not now, then surely this may become a future Supreme Court issue if it all gets out of hand. At least to exclude the exclusivity of network hired for, before being declared a candidate. -----Willy Happy

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Fox Party?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Fox Party?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
da link...
by Willy / September 28, 2010 12:34 AM PDT
In reply to: The Fox Party?
Collapse -
Ho Hum
by Mike_Hanks / September 28, 2010 8:42 AM PDT
In reply to: The Fox Party?
Collapse -
RE: Obama is going to help push Fox numbers even higher:
by JP Bill / September 28, 2010 10:14 AM PDT
In reply to: Ho Hum

Ho Hum

Collapse -
Higher ratings means more money.
by grimgraphix / September 28, 2010 10:38 AM PDT

More money means more million dollar donations to the GOP.

Poor old Dems can never do anything right.

Devil

Collapse -
no one here complains about MSM bashing
by grimgraphix / September 28, 2010 10:35 AM PDT
In reply to: Ho Hum

Just as no one here cries and moans about Obama bashing.

Why is that?

On the other hand... raise an issue about a supposed news outlet that has become a blatant player in the political world... and suddenly Fox is being poorly treated.

Wah, wah, wah. Cry us a river.

Collapse -
I noticed a difference...
by J. Vega / September 28, 2010 11:37 AM PDT

I noticed a difference in the MSM coverage, as many others have done. It seems to me that the MSM tends to not cover stories that might be unfavorable to the current administration until that avoidance becomes awkward.
If Fox covers that story, some people accuse them of being political for doing that, but the the same people don't seem to call the MSM's ignoring it to be political.
The ratings seem to show that when people are looking for news, they prefer seeing both news they like as well as news they don't like in one place.

Collapse -
the ratings are the ratings
by grimgraphix / September 28, 2010 12:08 PM PDT

It is interesting how much time you spent exploring poling methods on a recent thread... and yet now, say rating (eg poling) show they motivations of viewers.

However... what I said is still stands. Only Fox viewers cry "bashing" when their favorite network is constructively criticized. CNN viewers don't. Not even MSNBC viewers cry about criticism leveled at their favorite channel. Why is it that Fox viewers are so sensitive to any criticism? Why do they pout?

Fox can point the camera at others and the rabid voyer-ship eat it up (the ratings show that quite well)... but Fox can't stand the glare of the Klieg lights pointed at themselves. So much for balanced.

Collapse -
Polling methods..
by J. Vega / September 28, 2010 12:47 PM PDT

Polling methods for TV viewership can be done in many ways. For instance, the Nielsen ratings use daily diaries and boxes connected to TV sets.
A political poll like the one that was just discussed on the Forum caused me to wonder how that one was done. As you remember, I had trouble finding the details of how that poll was conducted.
Two completely different things being measured, but you seem to connect them by just the word poll.
I guess we are different, with that poll that was discussed, just one question in a 4-month old poll was enough for you, but I just got curious and wanted to see the whole of the data. It must be the "news junkie" in me, and I find that is a hard habit to break.
O.K., you don't like Fox. I do. I also look at a of of the MSM, and find a lot of things I don't like.
But heavens, now you seem to call Fox viewers voyeurs. Note: I think that was what you meant with "voyer-ship", Was I in error?

Collapse -
yeah... sorry about the typo.
by grimgraphix / September 28, 2010 1:25 PM PDT
In reply to: Polling methods..
"The ratings seem to show that when people are looking for news, they prefer seeing both news they like as well as news they don't like in one place."

TV ratings don't seem to show anything of the sort.

As for liking or disliking Fox? I don't invest that much feeling into my opinion of Fox. What I demand from a news channel is non partisanship... or at least as close to it as humanly possible. I am disconcerted every time I hear a news anchor tell me I should be outraged. CNN anchors do this, MSNBS anchors certainly are worse offenders, however Fox news anchors color their commentary so blatantly, that I quickly tire of trying to pick out the news from the opinion.

This is my criticism. Call it "bashing" if you want to tell other people how they should feel about it...
Collapse -
Don't you think that what appears to someone
by Steven Haninger / September 28, 2010 7:55 PM PDT

as blatant, subtle or just suspected is relative to and says something about their own sensitivities and predispositions? I certainly do. It seems that animals key on certain scents and and those scents vary from species to species. They run to some odors and away from others. It seems to me that humans do something similar with politics and other subjects about which opinions are formed. When we find and run with a herd, our membership begins to become obvious to those of other herds.

Collapse -
True... but one would hope we are above Herd Mentality
by grimgraphix / September 29, 2010 2:45 AM PDT

Right now, US politics is more defined by mindless, dogmatic rhetoric than at any other time in my life (keeping in mind that my political awareness starts in the late 1970's). Not only does the political machine depend on simplistic slogans that don't come close to addressing reality... but the cable news networks do the same.

Given the 24 hour news cycle... dedicated news channels could go far in explaining just what are the workings of any legislation. Instead of detailed analysis, Cabal News (pun intended) hires color commentators who will give vague predictions of doom and gloom. Instead of asking what a proposed law might actually do, these pundits talk about political influence. These channels are predictable and safe. If one is a radical liberal then go watch MSNBC. If one is a radical conservative then go watch Fox. 24 hours to give the news and both channels will give radically different opinions of the same news stories. Opinions Steven, not reporting but opinions and editorializing.

Herd mentality is a dangerous thing. It takes the place of individual thinking. Lots of folks let the herd think for them. Herd membership is obvious to other herds? It is only obvious to those who assume that one must belong to a herd.

Herd mentality delays or destroys the demand for accountability of herd leadership. Herd mentality equates asking questions with disloyalty. It equates constructive criticism with emotionally motivated "bashing".

Is suggesting someone suffers from a herd mentality an insult if that person believes their herd to be infallible? If it is an insult, then is it an insult to that person... or an insult to the herd?

Collapse -
Better watch what you say.....
by EdHannigan / September 28, 2010 11:38 AM PDT
In reply to: Ho Hum

Jonah, Kees and MarkFlax will be all over you if you breathe a word of criticism of the Chosen ONE. Very sensitive.

Collapse -
yet the very criticism you just made still stands.
by grimgraphix / September 28, 2010 12:10 PM PDT

Could it be... you are wrong?

Collapse -
Grim......please refrain
by jonah jones / September 28, 2010 12:26 PM PDT

from confusing the issue, some people can't handle the truth

,.

Collapse -
(NT) stop it man... why are you always bashing me ! ^_^
by grimgraphix / September 28, 2010 12:42 PM PDT
Collapse -
Yes...
by EdHannigan / September 28, 2010 10:22 PM PDT

but I have hopes that eventually you will be able to.

Meanwhile, Grim's charges remain bogus and silly:

no one here cries and moans about Obama bashing...

That is simply UNTRUE. You do. Kees does. MarkFlax even made a "rule" about it and accuses me of having an "agenda" if I state the simplest truth about the Prez. It's just ridiculous.

Collapse -
Simple truth, and constant complaint,
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / September 28, 2010 10:41 PM PDT
In reply to: Yes...

accusations, criticism, dissatisfaction, fault-finding, moaning, objection, and so on, are two different things.

Mark

Collapse -
Six different things are two different things?
by EdHannigan / September 28, 2010 10:46 PM PDT

That's funny.

You know what I mean. Grim's claim that no one here gripes about any Obama "bashing" is ludicrous in the extreme.

Collapse -
Come on Ed'
by JP Bill / September 28, 2010 10:54 PM PDT
1 thing and 5 examples of the 1other thing= 2

You know what I mean.

But you don't know what he means?
Collapse -
"bashing" is predominately a term used by conservatives
by grimgraphix / September 29, 2010 2:55 AM PDT

I can't think of anyone here who constantly uses the term "bashing" when countering people criticizing Obama.

On the other hand... I can almost guarantee that a predictable few will always address any criticism of Bush, Fox News, or the GOP in general with the hyperbolic accusation of "bashing".

Am I wrong?

Collapse -
Note as well...
by EdHannigan / September 28, 2010 11:11 PM PDT

One can find fault, accuse, be dissatisfied, etc, and it can still be TRUE.

As far as I know I have not posted any lies.

On the other hand you are very quick to give me and others who don't agree with you static, yet very lenient on certain members who pretty much get away with massive nonsense and malarkey.

Collapse -
nonsense and malarkey.
by JP Bill / September 28, 2010 11:22 PM PDT
In reply to: Note as well...

Six different things are two different things?

Collapse -
someone once compared SE
by jonah jones / September 29, 2010 2:34 AM PDT
In reply to: Note as well...

to a local bar, you walk in, order a drink and sit down,
strike up a conversation and hopefully enjoy it and come
back for more

unlike the bar, SE has no "separate tables" so if 1 or 2
customers constantly mitch and bone about Obama, Tea Party
global warming etc etc etc it tends to grate on ones ears

so, grasshopper, lies are not necessary


,.

Collapse -
But Master Jonah...
by J. Vega / September 29, 2010 2:51 AM PDT

But Master Jonah, this grasshopper has been to many bars, but if I had only gone into ones where I would never hear a conversation that I didn't like, I would have led a life without visits to bars.

Collapse -
(NT) ^_^
by grimgraphix / September 29, 2010 2:57 AM PDT
In reply to: But Master Jonah...
Collapse -
RE: if I had only gone into ones where I would never hear
by JP Bill / September 29, 2010 3:04 AM PDT
In reply to: But Master Jonah...

if I had only gone into ones where I would never hear a conversation that I didn't like I would have led a life without visits to bars.

and if I kept going into ones where I ONLY hear conversations that I DIDN'T like, and complained about the conversation...I would be?

Collapse -
(NT) a "basher" ?
by grimgraphix / September 29, 2010 3:06 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) praise the lord and pas the ammunition :)
by jonah jones / September 29, 2010 5:48 AM PDT
In reply to: But Master Jonah...

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!