NationStates Jolt Archive

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration,
overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers
during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of
those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers
throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over
2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over
2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total
coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)

OMG, NEW CONSPIRACY!

Bush is using psychic brainwaves to avert attention from the masses to his own propagandic media!



Or that Fox is actually fair and balanced.....


nahhh....

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration,
overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers
during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of
those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers
throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over
2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over
2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total
coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)


Hey, if you're going to watch an overblown event, it's best to get the full overblown commentary, for maximum entertainment value.

Maybe this says something about the class of people who would want to watch that.

*gasp*

That wouldn't be because Fox's audience is mostly devotees of Bush, would it? :eek:

Well, Fox will analyze the inaguaration carefully, while MSNBC and CNN will spend the whole time lambasting Bush.

Hey, if you're going to watch an overblown event, it's best to get the full overblown commentary, for maximum entertainment value.

What ... EVER! :rolleyes:

Maybe this says something about the class of people who would want to watch that.

And maybe THAT says something about your elitism? :D

*gasp*

That wouldn't be because Fox's audience is mostly devotees of Bush, would it? :eek:
No, actually their audience is evenly split. Many surveys have proven that.

*gasp*

That wouldn't be because Fox's audience is mostly devotees of Bush, would it? :eek:

Yes! They're multiplying! Mwahahahahaha! :D

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration,
overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers
during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of
those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers
throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over
2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over
2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total
coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)
Maybe people are tired of getting their news with an overt america-hating tinge.

And maybe THAT says something about your elitism? :D
Elitism? I think not. I was merely making the same point that Kanabia did. I just have a way with words.

Maybe this says something about the class of people who would want to watch that.
I care to watch the induction of our president weather I agree with him and his pollicies or not Ive watched every one sence I have been old enough to understand what it was

Well, Fox will analyze the inaguaration carefully, while MSNBC and CNN will spend the whole time lambasting Bush.
I don't know about analyze carefully, but at least they won't have that excrable character Donna Brazile up there, and they'll at least try to be balanced. After years of indoctrination with CNN though, the chattering class will call that "right -wing propaganda." Give me a break. Personally, I watched it on C-SPAN, but that says something about me.

No, actually their audience is evenly split. Many surveys have proven that.

That's because the average in America is right-wing so it seems to be thouroughly biased to me I guess.

I care to watch the induction of our president weather I agree with him and his pollicies or not Ive watched every one sence I have been old enough to understand what it was
You're an individual. We can't gather any reasonable statistics by studying your behavior alone.

That's because the average in America is right-wing so it seems to be thouroughly biased to me I guess.
This is good. If only it were true.

This is good. If only it were true.

It is true. Your left is our center.

Out of all the western countries, we're probably the closest to you politically, but even so...

You're an individual. We can't gather any reasonable statistics by studying your behavior alone.
But your “statistical inference” that a certain type of people would only watch that event … you did not put a qualifier in there saying “some” of the people that would watch that event. As such you inferred any that would watch the event are “saying” something about their class. I am a watcher of the event so you inferred something about MY class to which I responded to.

It is true. Your left is our center.

Out of all the western countries, we're probably the closest to you politically, but even so...Perhaps. I guess I don't know enough about Australian politcs to say. I know we are further right than most of Europe, but I think that is a good thing too. And also I know that your Prime Minister is Labour, right? Isn't that a bit leftist? And he still is on board with President Bush on the whole Iraq situation. Plus your treatment of refugees would make many in Arizona proud.

I give you this: Fox News is entertaining. It may be the farthest thing on network television from nonbiased reporting, but It's about as fun as watching NFL on ESPN, and that attracts a lot of people.

Who said anything about news? These days success hinges on entertainment.

BOOYEAH!

What ... EVER! :rolleyes:

My ideal governmental inauguration:

"My fellow countrymen,

thank you for electing me.

I promise not to screw up.

Goodnight!"

I don't watch TV. I especially don't watch Bush on TV.

I'm an elitist and proud of it!

My ideal governmental inauguration:

"My fellow countrymen,

thank you for electing me.

I promise not to screw up.

Goodnight!"
Bush did something like that

"America will not impose it's system of government upon other nations..."

Jon Stewart: "....anymore..."

I give you this: Fox News is entertaining. It may be the farthest thing on network television from nonbiased reporting, but It's about as fun as watching NFL on ESPN, and that attracts a lot of people.

Who said anything about news? These days success hinges on entertainment.

BOOYEAH!
Maybe if you made the font bigger or more annoying your will strengthen your argument (note I am NOT saying anything about foxes leaning I am just pointing out the annoying font to add emphasis)

Oh by the way who are you giving “this?

It may be the farthest thing on network television from nonbiased reportingYou must have felt this wouldn't be accepted if you didn't scream it out. I have news for you--that didn't work either. It is impossible to report without bias, but Fox does try. The fact that they don't toe the party line of CBS in forging documents in an attempt to influence elections, and that they aren't the sneering elitist liberals you see on CNN sets them up for attack from people like you who judge before you listen, and think that diversity of ideas is only a good thing if they are liberal ideas.

The only coverage of the inauguration I watched was the Daily Show's.

I can still safely say that I have not watched one single Bush speech, State of the Union, listened to one single radio broadcast, or read one single transcript since the day he came on television and said he'd decided to ban funding for stem-cell research based on speaking to religious leaders.

The man isn't worthy to lick my toilet much less be my President.

Perhaps. I guess I don't know enough about Australian politcs to say. I know we are further right than most of Europe, but I think that is a good thing too. And also I know that your Prime Minister is Labour, right? Isn't that a bit leftist?

No, he's Liberal. Liberal in the classic sense, as in right-wing. We have had left-wing prime ministers (Whitlam was the most prominent, but he was removed from office by the Governor General) in the past but the nation as a whole leans more to the right. We have religious-right fundies too. Even our Labour party is dominated by the centre-right now. (Nationalisation of industry has also been ruled unconstitutional for some reason, so we're stuck really)

Though I still believe the US as a whole is more right-wing than we are.

And he still is on board with President Bush on the whole Iraq situation.

Yes.

Plus your treatment of refugees would make many in Arizona proud.

And any self-respecting person sick.

But your “statistical inference” that a certain type of people would only watch that event … you did not put a qualifier in there saying “some” of the people that would watch that event. As such you inferred any that would watch the event are “saying” something about their class. I am a watcher of the event so you inferred something about MY class to which I responded to.
I also didn't put a qualifier in there that said "only" or "every". You read that in yourself.

I didn't even say something about the class of people watching the event. I suggested that the statistic did. However, if I did say something about that class of people, then it would be that a majority of them are Republicans.

Please don't stretch my words. I very rarely intend to say more than I mention explicitly.

The only coverage of the inauguration I watched was the Daily Show's.

I can still safely say that I have not watched one single Bush speech, State of the Union, listened to one single radio broadcast, or read one single transcript since the day he came on television and said he'd decided to ban funding for stem-cell research based on speaking to religious leaders.

The man isn't worthy to lick my toilet much less be my President.
So you choose ignorance because of personal dislike. Always the way of enlightenment I also find it better to be un informed then to be made upset over a differing point of view.
[sarcasm]

No, he's Liberal. Liberal in the classic sense, as in right-wing. We have had left-wing prime ministers (Whitlam was the most prominent, but he was removed from office by the Governor General) in the past but the nation as a whole leans more to the right. We have religious-right fundies too. Even our Labour party is dominated by the centre-right now. (Nationalisation of industry has also been ruled unconstitutional for some reason, so we're stuck really)
Thanks for that. I really wasn't aware of much Australian politics, now I am a bit more so.
And any self-respecting person sick.I agree. Though I am not from Arizona, and I haven't followed the debate in your country that closely, there may be mitigating circumstances I am unaware of.

Thanks for that. I really wasn't aware of much Australian politics, now I am a bit more so.

You're welcome :)


I agree. Though I am not from Arizona, and I haven't followed the debate in your country that closely, there may be mitigating circumstances I am unaware of.

Ah, well the whole thing has pretty much bipartisan support. It's mainly (though not completely of course) the youth that disagree with the situation and we have no power.

I also didn't put a qualifier in there that said "only" or "every". You read that in yourself.

I didn't even say something about the class of people watching the event. I suggested that the statistic did. However, if I did say something about that class of people, then it would be that a majority of them are Republicans.

Please don't stretch my words. I very rarely intend to say more than I mention explicitly.
Hence my using “inferred” rather then said … maybe I should have chose implied

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration,
overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers
during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of
those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers
throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over
2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over
2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total
coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)

Why would I care which corporate media giant gains or loses audience share? It is a fool who gets his news from television.

... I am a watcher of the event so you inferred something about MY class to which I responded to.
Your Class?
The class that tunes to FOX?,
the Class that voted for the Chimp?

In average they are less educated, lower IQs.
God Bless them, I pity them.

So you choose ignorance because of personal dislike. Always the way of enlightenment I also find it better to be un informed then to be made upset over a differing point of view.
[sarcasm]

Shrug ... I get all the information I need out of newspapers and whatnot. I don't need to watch the man ... enough people do that for me. I have other things to worry about.

Why would I care which corporate media giant gains or losses audience share? It is a fool who gets his news from television.
If you are exempting C-SPAN, you are a rare voice of reason in this stew of ill-conceived ideas.

Your Class?
The class that tunes to FOX?,
the Class that voted for the Chimp?

In average they are less educated, lower IQs.
God Bless them, I pity them.
Nope not a regular watcher of fox and no did not vote for him but the original statement was ambiguous to weather he/she was talking about the event or the channel … chose to argue as if the comment was focused on the event

Unless it was meant otherwise … if so speak up.

As such responding to the implication that because I was keeping myself informed on current events that I was somehow “belonging” to a certain class of people.

And if I watched the event on fox what would it matter (personally I never trust just one news site) but if I just watched it for the raw footage rather then the commentary really would that change anything much?

The only coverage of the inauguration I watched was the Daily Show's.

I can still safely say that I have not watched one single Bush speech, State of the Union, listened to one single radio broadcast, or read one single transcript since the day he came on television and said he'd decided to ban funding for stem-cell research based on speaking to religious leaders.

The man isn't worthy to lick my toilet much less be my President.

That's rich. You make a judgement about somebody by watching a program that actually calls itself the fake news. You must be such a great dumbass to be around.

Your Class?
The class that tunes to FOX?,
the Class that voted for the Chimp?

In average they are less educated, lower IQs.
God Bless them, I pity them.
Somebody sounds rather bitter. There's a little more reason behind our success as a nation than Freedom Fries, you know. It's called intelligence which most of us have plenty of. If you can't deal with that tidbit then I suggest you cry until you feel better.

First and foremost, FOX News' audience is NOT split evenly, regardless of what the polls claim. Second, why would Bush supporters watch the inaugural proceedings on a channel where he's most likely to be criticized. The biggest problem is that Bush's supporters are so blinded by him that they can't even admit that he's screwed up multiple times since taking office. Notice that even when he FINALLY called off the hunt for the WMDs, that it barely raised a fuss.

Compare that to Clinton, where even Democrats were chastizing him for the Lewinsky matter. Plus, when you have the religious right organizing and trying to take over the government (which is the ultimate goal of those fundamentalist eggheads) by contributing massive sums of money, you have a serious problem on your hands.

The Bush II administration is probably the most corrupt in history, and the sad part is that people won't realize just how corrupt until well after the fact. Enron, Halliburton, MCI Worldcom, the list goes on and on......

OMG, NEW CONSPIRACY!

Bush is using psychic brainwaves to avert attention from the masses to his own propagandic media!



Or that Fox is actually fair and balanced.....


nahhh....Dear right-winged asshat:


Fox News = conservative

CNN = liberal

Turn on your brain, and do the math.

Thanks for that. I really wasn't aware of much Australian politics, now I am a bit more so.
I agree. Though I am not from Arizona, and I haven't followed the debate in your country that closely, there may be mitigating circumstances I am unaware of.

No mitigating circumstances I'm afraid. It just seems that most people think it's fine to lock them up, including the children, for what can be years by the time their applications are processed.

Shrug ... I get all the information I need out of newspapers and whatnot. I don't need to watch the man ... enough people do that for me. I have other things to worry about.
My problem is so very on covering a live event does the newspaper put an entire copy of the speech in there. So I am relying on a person to feed me a point of view. And written transcripts leave so much out as far as intonation and intent.

Dear right-winged asshat:


Fox News = conservative

CNN = liberal

Turn on your brain, and do the math.
And calling him/her an asshat is supposed to help him/her turn on his/her brain how?

Why would I care which corporate media giant gains or loses audience share? It is a fool who gets his news from television.

Thank you. I love you too! :fluffle:

First and foremost, FOX News' audience is NOT split evenly, regardless of what the polls claim.And your proof is....?
The Bush II administration is probably the most corrupt in history, and the sad part is that people won't realize just how corrupt until well after the fact. Enron, Halliburton, MCI Worldcom, the list goes on and on......This would also be hard to prove. You can actually make the argument that Clinton was more corrupt. He had a habit of pardoning family friends in return for silence about his own rather checkered past. And he sold burial plots in Arlington cemetery. Pretty corrupt, even if it isn't on the scale you claim the Bushes are. I always thought the Whitewater issue was far more disqualifying than Lewinsky.

First and foremost, FOX News' audience is NOT split evenly, regardless of what the polls claim. Second, why would Bush supporters watch the inaugural proceedings on a channel where he's most likely to be criticized. The biggest problem is that Bush's supporters are so blinded by him that they can't even admit that he's screwed up multiple times since taking office. Notice that even when he FINALLY called off the hunt for the WMDs, that it barely raised a fuss.

The UN called it off you jackass. The whole time it was the UN searching for them and they called the shots as far as ending the search. Bush simply agreed that the UN didn't find them and that the intelligence may not have been as precise. Then again when somebody is screaming you have something super illegal in your country for way over a year, you're probably gonna try to bury the evidence in that time. Maybe it was moved into Syria or Jordan.

Compare that to Clinton, where even Democrats were chastizing him for the Lewinsky matter. Plus, when you have the religious right organizing and trying to take over the government (which is the ultimate goal of those fundamentalist eggheads) by contributing massive sums of money, you have a serious problem on your hands.
And plenty of Republicans want Bush to stop spending so much damn money on crap programs like Medicare and would like him to do things like secure our borders. The President has received plenty of criticism on these issues. And John Kerry raised way more big business money than George Bush did, who received his money straight from American families. EDIT: In fact, Roger Hitchcock, a well known Republican radio talkshow host who's deemed good enough to be the great Rush Limbaugh's replacement when Rush isn't on for his show, is hosting a massive "Hold their feet to the fire" event where he gathers other talkshow hosts and thousands of people into Washington DC to talk to every congressman and political figure to demand responses and answers to important things like immigration.

The Bush II administration is probably the most corrupt in history, and the sad part is that people won't realize just how corrupt until well after the fact. Enron, Halliburton, MCI Worldcom, the list goes on and on......
Cheney forfeited millions of dollars to divest himself of any interested in Haliburton. Enron's executives are being tried and sent to real prisons (not celebrity shit like the gangsta's on MTV get). Worldcom was also found out and their being charged with all sorts of things. Yes! How corrupt we are! Finding all these horrible scandals of corruption and actually moving to fix them! Oh wow! How awful! How fucking stupid are you?

Dear right-winged asshat:

Fox News = conservative

CNN = liberal

Turn on your brain, and do the math.

Hmm. I hardly think that's an appropriate response. You might want to lighten up a bit. Just a suggestion. :headbang:

And calling him/her an asshat is supposed to help him/her turn on his/her brain how?

Thank you. I've seen the word "asshat" thrown around so much lately, and you are the first person I have seen that has pointed out that it doesn't help get your point across.

Thank you. I've seen the word "asshat" thrown around so much lately, and you are the first person I have seen that has pointed out that it doesn't help get your point across.
Same reason last week on campus having a bible thrown at me did not change my point of view on religion (specially because I got hit cause I was walking with someone with ONLY a knee length skirt)

People being childish very rarely are taken seriously enough to share information in a meaningful way

There's a little more reason behind our success as a nation... It's called intelligence which most of us have plenty of. If you can't deal with that tidbit then I suggest you cry until you feel better.
what makes you say that you are more intelligent than others.

Thank you. I've seen the word "asshat" thrown around so much lately, and you are the first person I have seen that has pointed out that it doesn't help get your point across.

What is an arsehat exactly?

Now call me a cheese eating surrender monkey if you want, but I think fox is the funniest thing I've ever seen on TV, it makes me warm to Murdoch a little now I get a chuckle out of Bill O'Reilly via Sky TV.

Anyone seen Outfoxed? Thats got it summed up really, if you're in the UK you can rent it from blockbusters now, gives you a good insight into the biggest News channel in the US. Helps you see why many republicans and bushites don't know the facts behind most of the major issues and will automatically attack anyone whom the see as being "liberal" with such unrelenting ferocity.

Bush said in his speech, the USA had a mission from beyond the stars to spread freedom, now I don't think he means he's being controlled by aliens, they are far too busy probing red neck southern ranchers backsides, very probably they've been looking for Tony Blair.

Then again I suppose Fox is conservative.

That is if your meaning of conservative news is NOT broadcasting 24/7 the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, beheadings of civilians, the scandal at Abu Ghraib, how much French hate us, the stinginess of American government in the face of the tsunami disaster, spending an hour a day interviewing an author who wrote a book about how to assasinate the President and then interviewing the producer of a play based on that very book, interviewing other authors who hate Bush, and actively search for a dead Iraqi war criminal's funeral to broadcast rather than Bush's inauguration.

MSNBC and CNN both do it, which is probably why Fox pulls ahead in the ratings. You have the same Bush-hater audience divided between two different stations. Maybe if MSNBC and CNN merged into one super liberal news organization, it'd be divded rather equally between Fox and MSCNNNBC.

what makes you say that you are more intelligent than others.
Same for your argument that they are not as smart ... what makes you think you (or your side) is smarter
(and if you are going to make a statistical claim please provide the information rather then just a general claim)

CNN = liberal.
not in my book.

what makes you say that you are more intelligent than others.
Nice try but I never said that. You said Americans were stupid. I said our success as a nation was due to our intelligence and we have been doing very well for ourselves. I never said we were more intelligent, nor do I imply otherwise. You have religious fundamentalists in your country just like we have in our's. You have intellectuals and geniuses just like we have in our's.

not in my book.
Which of course is all the evidence we need … your book

(Though his claim has no more backing … by him anyways … then your negative claim … so maybe deserving)

Same for your argument that they are not as smart ... what makes you think you (or your side) is smarter

Personal xchange, At College, in daily life, (last but not least) at the Forums.

Personal xchange, At College, in daily life, (last but not least) at the Forums.

Using the same evidence from my person experiences, I declare you stupid as hell.

Personal xchange, At College, in daily life, (last but not least), in the Forums.
So not non bias … sometimes anecdotal evidence and also non random… hardly exclusive evidence

He she on the other side can come back with the exact same statement and have the exact same validity.

Using the same evidence from my person experiences, I declare you stupid as hell.you can always try :D

Using the same evidence from my person experiences, I declare you stupid as hell.
While essentially the same argument about his/her sources(except the personal conclusion which I do not necessarily agree with) no need to name call keep it civil

what makes you say that you are more intelligent than others.I don't think he said he was more intelligent, just plain intelligent. The question at hand was the existence of intelligence, something the more vitriolic liberals like to deny right-wing people have at all.

you can always try

And according to most Americans, I succeed.

While essentially the same argument about his/her sources(except the personal conclusion which I do not necessarily agree with) no need to name call keep it civil
And I suppose him/her generalizing all Americans as having lower IQs (which would mean me since I am an American), is civil.

So not non bias … sometimes anecdotal evidence and also non random… hardly exclusive evidence

He she on the other side can come back with the exact same statement and have the exact same validity.
of course. just a matter of convinsing yourself that im stupid.

Two right wingers double teaming someone.
Quick cut the liberals mic, cut the lights, cut to commercial.


Its all gone a bit Hannity and Combes....
God I love fox.

of course. just a matter of convinsing yourself that im stupid.
Or you that they are … does that make it true? Is a belief absolute truth? Or does it have to be based in reality for it to be true … (sorry not saying you are false rather the evidence presented is not exactly … complete or reliable … don’t get me wrong)

And I suppose him/her generalizing all Americans as having lower IQs (which would mean me since I am an American), is civil.There is my Exhibit A
You are not able to understand my post http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8019239&postcount=35

Maybe if you read it s-l-o-w-l-y

And according to most Americans, I succeed.


And I suppose him/her generalizing all Americans as having lower IQs (which would mean me since I am an American), is civil.
Its not right but nor is it name calling (though for some reason to believe it was classifying right wingers rather then Americans in general) maybe I misread somewhere.

A predominantly right wing channel has higher ratings during the inaguaration of a right wing president? Yep, that's certainly man bites dog.....

There is my Exhibit A
You are not able to understand my post http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8019239&postcount=35

Maybe if you read it s-l-o-w-l-y
Alright I was right it was a comment on republicans (though don’t have to be condescending not any better then his name calling)

I had classes to go to, I would ordinarily have watched the entire thing, in this case with an airsick bag and a bottle of rakija both in easy reach, but I would have watched.
If you are in college you can't just miss classes any time you want anymore.
Can anyone tell me the names of all religious figures who gave invocations?
Can anyone perhaps post a link to some reliable source for it, I've wanted to know that, I find it informative as to Presidential attitudes.

Ok the thread was hijacked (I helped in that, regretfully). The topic is:

Fox's ratings shot up a whopping 30% during the inauguration while CNN and MSNBC's ratings plummetted.

Now while the argument was made that all the republicans tuned into Fox for the inauguration, that only answers one part of the issue. Fox's ratings shot up. Now why would Republicans have been watching CNN and MSNBC and what would cause them to drop so much?

Personally, I believe Fox shot up because Republicans did tune into it. But the decline by CNN and MSNBC was probably due to the left-wingers being so disgusted that Bush's supporters defeated them again (with the popular vote no less), that they probably just swapped channels to watch shows like "Who's your daddy?" or "Fear Factor."

Or you that they are … does that make it true? Is a belief absolute truth? Or does it have to be based in reality for it to be true … (sorry not saying you are false rather the evidence presented is not exactly … complete or reliable … don’t get me wrong)
Look, i dont like to xplain obvius things, because its you... im going to try..

When you were at 4th Grade, not all the kids in your class had the same IQ, some of them were better at Math , others at Algebra, others at Calculus, etc.(BTW I was bad at english...still are)

same for the SAT.

having deep debates here for months, You get an idea of the Intelligence of differnt people.

Now, Kulkungrad can call me stupid all he wants, and I dont even feel I have to respond to that.

Alright I was right it was a comment on republicans (though don’t have to be condescending not any better then his name calling)
me bad.
I need to buy more "patience", always running short.

Look i dont like to xplain obvius things, because its you... im going to try..

When you were at 4th Grade, not all the kids in your class had the same IQ, some of them were better at Math grades, others at Algebra, others at Calculus, etc.

same for the SAT.

having deep debates here for months, You get an idea of the Intelligence of differnt people.

Now, Kulkungrad can call me stupid all he wants, and I dont even feel I have to respond to that.
I agree that there is a difference in intelligence but no one in this thread (or to any respectable source I have run across) has made a valid tie of intelligence (I say that rather then IQ because there are some know issues with that test and its accuracy … though haven’t seen a tie between IQ either) and voting record.
Therefore it is still a belief of yours which you are trying to pass as truth based on anecdotal evidence. You did not have to “explain “ the "obvious" things to me
Maybe you don’t understand my point of view

Let me break it down

Any proof of your claims besides the anecdotal? That’s what it boils down to

me bad.
I need to buy more "patience", always running short.
That’s ok as does mine … we are all humans (that is a safe assumption me thinks lol)

Same reason last week on campus having a bible thrown at me did not change my point of view on religion (specially because I got hit cause I was walking with someone with ONLY a knee length skirt)

People being childish very rarely are taken seriously enough to share information in a meaningful way
You've mentioned this in the past, but it didn't click for me that you're in Minnesota. Are you at the Twin Cities campus of the U? I think I remember that guy. He always used to draw a small crowd in the Northrop mall.

You've mentioned this in the past, but it didn't click for me that you're in Minnesota. Are you at the Twin Cities campus of the U? I think I remember that guy. He always used to draw a small crowd in the Northrop mall.
Nope going for networking at SCSU (alright place … good networking program and Computer Information Security also)
In atwood mall by the way :)

Nope going for networking at SCSU (alright place … good networking program and Computer Information Security also)
In atwood mall by the way :)
Well, he probably gets around. 8)

Well, he probably gets around. 8)
Probably ... such a crazy ... gets kicked off every year (they are fine untill he starts phisicaly assulting people ... then it becomes an issue)

You can not be a successful ideological national news outlet (TV, radio) that only espouses one side of the political spectrum--Air America Radio can't even pay the bills! People don't want that.

I think FOX gets a bad rap because they do indeed show both sides of the story. Take the abortion issue, the only time CNN shows a pro-life person is of they are some wacko who just blew up an abortion clinic. FOX on the other hand has rational discussions with women who have had abortions but regret the choice.

I don't know about the intelligence factor, but during election night coverage CNN ( I think I remember the source correctly) said that Kerry voters had a higher average level of education.

You can not be a successful ideological national news outlet (TV, radio) that only espouses one side of the political spectrum--Air America Radio can't even pay the bills! People don't want that.

I think FOX gets a bad rap because they do indeed show both sides of the story. Take the abortion issue, the only time CNN shows a pro-life person is of they are some wacko who just blew up an abortion clinic. FOX on the other hand has rational discussions with women who have had abortions but regret the choice.
I will say the same thing to you as I did the last time someone argued like this

You have any proof or just anecdotal evidence? If not then I also …
“ I heard from this guy once that fox is the most biased thing ever”
see I got proof too (again making the supposition that anecdotal evidence counts as such)

Nope going for networking at SCSU (alright place … good networking program and Computer Information Security also)
In atwood mall by the way :)


SCSU...i thought you guys are too busy pounding beers to worry about proselytizing, let alone go shopping at a mall, spending precious beer money!!

SCSU...i thought you guys are too busy pounding beers to worry about proselytizing, let alone go shopping at a mall, spending precious beer money!!
Psst “Atwood “mall”” is an open court … no vendors of any sort there, most campuses have them.

Since you don’t seem to know the complete meaning to the word mall I figure I will include it for you

mall1 P Pronunciation Key (môl, m l)
n.
1. A large, often enclosed shopping complex containing various stores, businesses, and restaurants usually accessible by common passageways.
2. A street lined with shops and closed to vehicles.
3. A shady public walk or promenade.

psst if you don’t see it, its number 3

I don't know about analyze carefully, but at least they won't have that excrable character Donna Brazile up there, and they'll at least try to be balanced. After years of indoctrination with CNN though, the chattering class will call that "right -wing propaganda." Give me a break. Personally, I watched it on C-SPAN, but that says something about me.

Ditto, I don't need commentary from any of the talking heads to understand what I'm hearing and seeing on TV. Although, I am partial to FOX and CNN to hear what the chatter is all about. O'Reilly/Hannity & Colmes vs Matthews/Crossfire is a good enough balance for me ;)

"More people get their fake news from Fox News Channel than any other network." RESPOND WITH- "Well you get your news from the Daily show and they SAY they're fake news."

"Fox News, always fairly unbalnced." RESPOND WITH- "Well you watch CNN, and they give blowjobs to Clinton all day long!"

"We distort, the Left Derides." RESPOND WITH- "No one can avoid bias, so let me be as biased as I want!"

"Fox News has more viewers, they have a greater market share than all the other Cable news outlets!" RESPOND WITH- "Yeah, more STUPID viewers."

"Fox News IS fair and balanced." RESPOND WITH- "No, they're not. They are the evil and malignant propaganda machine that Orwell warned us about!"

"Fox News is no worse than any other network." RESPOND WITH- "Shut up about CBS, ignore CNN's many faults, no one really cares about MSNBC, and I'm pretty sure that leaves...well, something out there that's better than Fox."

"Fox News...Fox News...Fox Newssssss....."

**yawns** I'm getting so sleepy...The constant repitition of these pro/anti-Fox threads is putting my mind at rest. One doesn't need to think, one doesn't need to reason. Just shout your peace and make fun of those who don't share your opinion.

It really is pointless people, this isn't debate. Its venting the spleen. If that's really what you want to do, please be courteous and post a warning on the thread title that you're just venting and we shouldn't bother coming in. These practically qualify as SPAM threads.

I will say the same thing to you as I did the last time someone argued like this

You have any proof or just anecdotal evidence? If not then I also …
“ I heard from this guy once that fox is the most biased thing ever”
see I got proof too (again making the supposition that anecdotal evidence counts as such)


Relax pal...by no means am I claiming a fact that you must be fair and balanced to succeed...however, it is well known that Air America is in trouble. It is only my opinion, that most people don't like ideological prisms on their news. The example I provided was a qualitative one, illustrating why I prefer to watch FOX when I decide to consume TV news. By no means was my analysis the end all, be all....just trying to openly and intelligently put in my 2 cents on this topic.

Relax pal...by no means am I claiming a fact that you must be fair and balanced to succeed...however, it is well known that Air America is in trouble. It is only my opinion, that most people don't like ideological prisms on their news. The example I provided was a qualitative one, illustrating why I prefer to watch FOX when I decide to consume TV news. By no means was my analysis the end all, be all....just trying to openly and intelligently put in my 2 cents on this topic.
I understand sorry just getting worked up (been arguing this same supporting claims point for a bit in the thread) did not mean to jump down your throat on it

I can understand why Fox's ratings are on the rise, they seem to bring excitement and entertainment into the world of "news" if you can call it that. Television is a tricky medium when it comes to accurate information. I wouldnt call it a reliable source by any means, no matter what network it is. The simple fact that networks are more concerned with ratings rather than providing unbiased news is quite telling.

Quite frankly, I try to find news in more academic sources. Plus I don't watch TV.

I subscibe to about twenty news and political magazines. Mostly liberal, some not. TV news sucks.

Your Class?
The class that tunes to FOX?,
the Class that voted for the Chimp?

In average they are less educated, lower IQs.
God Bless them, I pity them.

Nice, REAL nice

And your proof is....?
This would also be hard to prove. You can actually make the argument that Clinton was more corrupt. He had a habit of pardoning family friends in return for silence about his own rather checkered past. And he sold burial plots in Arlington cemetery. Pretty corrupt, even if it isn't on the scale you claim the Bushes are. I always thought the Whitewater issue was far more disqualifying than Lewinsky.

Not to mention campaign contributions from the Chinese.

*gasp*

That wouldn't be because Fox's audience is mostly devotees of Bush, would it? :eek:
:eek: You might be on to something...

And maybe THAT says something about your elitism? :D
Right, liberals are elitist. That is exactly why John Kerry prioritized the middle class over the rich.

That's because the average in America is right-wing so it seems to be thouroughly biased to me I guess.
I would disagree with you on that. 49% didn't vote for Bush!

Simple fact is that since 9/11 Fox has increased its audience significantly.

Due to the nature of Fox and its owner Rupert Murdoch it has managed to come from nowhere to secure its place in the US media.

During wartime the media organisation that it the most 'patriotic' will gain the most marketshare.

During wartime the media organisation that it the most 'patriotic' will gain the most marketshare.
And this is bad why? Isn't patriotism to be lauded? Think Ernie Pyle during WWII, journalists can be competent, effective, and still patriotic.

CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001
Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration,
overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers
during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of
those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demographic.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers
throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over
2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over
2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total
coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)

namely because fox isnt news and is all partisan talk shows, iwonder how many times they have offered limbaugh a contract. cnn needs to give ted rall and cynthia tucker a show and hell, call up john stewart while they are at it. they will pwn fox

Maybe this says something about the class of people who would want to watch that.
Oddly enough, this is correct. It's because normal people are slowly geting tired of being treated by sheep that can be trained to accept anything a news source says. As Dan Rather found out, that attitude is coming back to bite it's users in the ass.

And this is bad why? Isn't patriotism to be lauded? Think Ernie Pyle during WWII, journalists can be competent, effective, and still patriotic.

Hang on....where did I say it was bad? Seems you are jumping to conclusions based on nothing but your own ignorance.

Oddly enough, this is correct. It's because normal people are slowly geting tired of being treated by sheep that can be trained to accept anything a news source says. As Dan Rather found out, that attitude is coming back to bite it's users in the ass.
oh yes because no one blindly accepts what fox says because hannity or oreilly said it, who arnt even running news shows

it must be 10x more intelligent to believe the words of talk show host pundits than news anchormen

Right, liberals are elitist. That is exactly why John Kerry prioritized the middle class over the rich.No, he was trying to pit the lower middle class against the uppermiddle class and the working rich. None of his tax plans would have affected the money that the really rich types, i.e. his wife, have coming in.

No, he was trying to pit the lower middle class against the uppermiddle class and the working rich. None of his tax plans would have affected the money that the really rich types, i.e. his wife, have coming in.
which isnt hte only plan he had suggested. i have to agree, and anyone else with half a brain as well, with his plan on what to do with overzealous lawsuits

which isnt hte only plan he had suggested. i have to agree, and anyone else with half a brain as well, with his plan on what to do with overzealous lawsuits
It's very simple to stop the majority of those lawsuits. You institute a loser pays system. If the plaintiff loses the case they have to pay the lawyer fees for the defense. And vice versa. This would get rid of the vast majority of lawsuits.

not in my book.Well, that's because you still believe in old, outdated ideas like democracy, liberty, peace, and similar lunacy. Keep up with the times.

Thank you. I've seen the word "asshat" thrown around so much lately, and you are the first person I have seen that has pointed out that it doesn't help get your point across.The point was to insult him. I think that it was quite effective.

Wow.

You know, the term "owns" probably shouldn't be used when discussing corporations, where they actually can "own" one another.

Cause I saw the thread title and thought to myself, "Whal, there goes the neighborhood."

Right, liberals are elitist. That is exactly why John Kerry prioritized the middle class over the rich.
Pssst was talking about intellectual elitism

The point was to insult him. I think that it was quite effective.
Also effective in painting yourself with the same brush :rolleyes:

And this is bad why? Isn't patriotism to be lauded? The Nazies agree with you, and the Serbs, and the North Korean, and every Warmonger Chieftain...They Love Patriotism