Thread: FOX "news"

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

And I have posted up polls that dispute your data.

No you haven't. You can hardly spell and comprehend basic English let alone post up anything credible. You are a laughing stock on this forum.

What ever

Proof . . .

O Reilly has been so wounded by a widespread, concerted campaign to portray him as Brian Williams doppelganger and to get him kicked off the air that he is up 41 percent from the same month of May last year in the Age 25-54 demo.

The O Reilly Factor is yet again the #1 cable news program with its 2.4 million viewers. And its re-run just three hours later? Number nine overall.

Of the top 15 cable news programs, Fox News owns all but four of them: CNN Tonight (4), Anderson Cooper 360 3 (6), Erin Burnett Outfront (12), and the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (15) are the exceptions.


From the Right Wing News

We established many posts back that Murdoch's business model is to indignantly appeal to the most manipulable, resentful and poorly educated segment of the population, stoking up their fears about anyone who might sit outside their dull little world of church, shopping and recreational racism.

It's a news channel for redneck twats and jesus wheezers.

Why are you surprised there are so many of them, it's like 46% of the population and most of them don't believe in contraception, so they breed like Duggars.

For everyone else it's Comedy Gold Plus.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The O Reilly Factor is yet again the #1 cable news program

Wasn't it you who was arguing that O'Reilly was opinion and not news and that is why FOX is 'fair and balanced' when it comes to news reporting?

And yet here you are now crowing that he's #1 cable news program! If I didn't know better I'd think you were being a raging hypocrite and twisting the truth to gloat again....

Just pointing out that you liberal types don't have a clue.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Just pointing out that you liberal types don't have a clue.

People like you accuse me of being a 'liberal type' but I don't think the moniker really fits.

Liberals are supposed to be anti-gun and in favour of taking care of those less fortunate and the defenseless whereas I think that some people write such irredeemably stupid shit that they should perhaps be shot for being so retarded.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Just pointing out that you liberal types don't have a clue.

People like you accuse me of being a 'liberal type' but I don't think the moniker really fits.

Liberals are supposed to be anti-gun and in favour of taking care of those less fortunate and the defenseless whereas I think that some people write such irredeemably stupid shit that they should perhaps be shot for being so retarded.

Wow something offend you?

According to Nielsen TV data through mid-January, the average age of Fox News viewers is 68-years-old.

In Frank Rich's New York Magazine article, 'Stop Beating a Dead Fox' he calls Fox News a politically conservative 'retirement community' that's losing young viewers at a faster rate than it's competitors.

The average viewers at MSNBC and CNN are 60, and the average is 62-64 for the broadcast networks.

Not only are Fox News viewers old, they're almost all white. Rich points out that only 1.1 per cent of Fox News viewers are black. That's a far lower number than other news networks.
MSNCB has a 25 per cent black audience and CNN has 14 per cent black audience.

Rich quips that conservative candidate Mitt Romney got more black voters at 2 per cent than Fox did at 1.1 per cent.

Fox news has made some attempts at gaining younger viewers by hiring broadcasters such as the young, blonde, and blunt Megyn Kelley.

However, Kelley failed to lure young viewers. In fact, most News networks are grasping to gain an audience from the generation that no longer hails TV as their primary news source.

Most young people read the news on the web or on their smartphones as oppose to on television.

Megyn also did nothing to draw a black audience, especially after she caused a raucous around Christmas when she said that both Santa Claus and Jesus were 'just white' on television in response to a piece Aisha Harris wrote for Slate.com expressing her desire to give Santa Clause a racial makeover.

Basically, Rich thinks Fox News caters to geriatric conservative white people and tells them exactly what they want to hear--especially politically.

Rich explains that on Election day in 2012, election data (gathered by Fox News network favourite Scott Rassmusen proven to have GOP bias in 2010) was spiked in favour of Mitt Romney. Obama ended up winning the election.

Even Romney's senior advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, noted Fox's conservative favouritism.

'We’d much rather go on a Fox program where we know the question is going to come up and Mitt can give his answer and it’s not going to a frenzy of questioning,' he said.

Rich believes the age of Fox's conservative white viewers will continue to rise.

The average age of Fox News viewers is 68 and a majority of them are politically conservative and white | Daily Mail Online

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Just pointing out that you liberal types don't have a clue.

People like you accuse me of being a 'liberal type' but I don't think the moniker really fits.

Liberals are supposed to be anti-gun and in favour of taking care of those less fortunate and the defenseless whereas I think that some people write such irredeemably stupid shit that they should perhaps be shot for being so retarded.

Wow something offend you?

Your continuing stupidity would be my guess

Originally Posted by bsnub

According to Nielsen TV data through mid-January, the average age of Fox News viewers is 68-years-old.

That would explain its prominence among certain posters here

[QUOTE=RPETER65;3034895]

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

We established many posts back that Murdoch's business model is to indignantly appeal to the most manipulable, resentful and poorly educated segment of the population, stoking up their fears about anyone who might sit outside their dull little world of church, shopping and recreational racism.

It's a news channel for redneck twats and jesus wheezers.

Why are you surprised there are so many of them, it's like 46% of the population and most of them don't believe in contraception, so they breed like Duggars.

For everyone else it's Comedy Gold Plus.[/QUOTE


No you made a statement about Murdock's business plan you gave no proof.

Unless you can show me the proof you might want to back off your claim about contraception, I wouldn't want you to become equivalent to your so called lying conservatives. If you would care to do a little research you will see as of 2014 the average family size was2.54 , not exactly breeding like rabbits, but go ahead continue with your fantasies.

I would also like to point out the largest increase is 24 to 54 just to refute you and Snubbles claims only old geezers watch Fox News, you might be loosing your base eh.

You can wrap it anyway you like but no content no support.

Couldn't actually read that properly because you fucked up the formatting you coffin dodger.

Anyway, looks like Snubby smacked it out of the park.

Average age of 68!

The good thing is that all those riled up old gits will barely be able to get out of their recliners to go and vote, and when they get to the front door they'll have forgotten why they were going out.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Average age of 68!

. . . uncanny how that also equates to the average IQ

When confronted with facts the nitwit scattered.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The O Reilly Factor is yet again the #1 cable news program

Wasn't it you who was arguing that O'Reilly was opinion and not news and that is why FOX is 'fair and balanced' when it comes to news reporting?

And yet here you are now crowing that he's #1 cable news program! If I didn't know better I'd think you were being a raging hypocrite and twisting the truth to gloat again....

I believe most news outlets have opinion sections.

Wow something offend you?[/QUOTE]

Your continuing stupidity would be guess.

Possibly stupid, but not as stupid as this.

But you do support the right of a suburban Rambo wannabe to shoot that same child dead if they steal to feed themselves.

Is that about the size of it?

This week, when it was reported that 84-year-old Rupert Murdoch was naming his younger son, James Murdoch, CEO of 21st Century Fox, speculation began almost immediately about what the change in leadership would mean for Fox News — and especially for its chairman and CEO, Roger Ailes. The Murdoch children don’t much like Ailes, whose right-wing politics have at times offended their more liberal sensibilities. To give you a sense of the yawning gulf between them: James Murdoch’s wife, Kathryn, is an environmentalist who at one point worked for the Clinton Foundation. Ailes would likely say that the dislike is mutual: In 2011, when James was embroiled in News Corp.’s London phone-hacking scandal, Ailes told a friend, “He’s a fucking dope.”

Lucky for Ailes, Rupert isn’t really going anywhere. “This is a title change, it is not a role change for Rupert,” a person with knowledge of the decision told me. “Rupert will still run the place no matter what the structure,” said another. And indeed, Ailes himself told Variety that it was his understanding that he would continue to report to Rupert. But even if that were not the case, James couldn’t afford to alienate Ailes. He may care about climate change, but he also cares about the $1 billion Fox News nets annually (single-handedly accounting for nearly 20 percent of 21st Century Fox’s total profits last year).
Will James Murdoch Ever Control Roger Ailes? -- NYMag

Interesting times ahead, for Fox. It is certainly a good cash cow for them to be the right wing mouthpiece, although demographic trends are concerning. My guess is they'll become less loony, but still arch-Conservative. They can do without glenn beck (RIP), sean hannity, et al

Some Botox-filled hag called Judge something or other was on interviewing a policeman about the Dallas shootings.

Took about 10 seconds to turn it to how Obama isn't doing enough about ISIS!

(Who calls it ISIS any more?).

Not even an attempt at being a news network.

What a fucking joke.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The O Reilly Factor is yet again the #1 cable news program

Wasn't it you who was arguing that O'Reilly was opinion and not news and that is why FOX is 'fair and balanced' when it comes to news reporting?

And yet here you are now crowing that he's #1 cable news program! If I didn't know better I'd think you were being a raging hypocrite and twisting the truth to gloat again....

I believe most news outlets have opinion sections.

So it's not a "news" program as such, just a fucking great big infomercial for his books and tv shows, and the moronic stage gumph with that unfunny twat Dennis Miller.

Then you have Megyn "I've got a vibrator stuck up my arse and I hate niggers" Kelly, Greta the old hag whatsername, Hannity who never lets anyone with a contrary opinion get a word in edgeways, Fox and Friends First, Fox and Friends, Fox and more fucking friends.....

How do they actually fit any news in?

Oh, I forgot, they don't actually have any news.

The whole channel is a talking arsehole for the Koch Brothers and the Teabaggers.

But you're glued to it every day like a junkie! Got the 'ol Fox News Jones again, Mama!

The brits are good at this sort of stuff- what they should do is a monthly segment of 'the best of Fox news'. It would certainly help them reach a younger audience, even though comedy was not their expected genre.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The whole channel is a talking arsehole for the Koch Brothers and the Teabaggers.

But you're glued to it every day like a junkie! Got the 'ol Fox News Jones again, Mama!

Why wouldn't I be, it's pure comedy gold.

Plus I can then see how you silly old farts are so easily indoctrinated.

^^ John Stewart Stephen Colbert do a fine job of this already.

You might recall a spate of stories from about a month ago involving state legislatures pushing measures intended to make life even more difficult for low-income recipients of government aid. Republicans in states like Kansas, Missouri, Maine, and others pushed aggressive restrictions on the ability to receive and spend welfare dollars – drug-testing, banning the purchase of seafood, limiting cash withdrawals to $25 a day, and prohibiting the use of Electronic Benefit Transfer cards at movie theaters, tattoo parlors, strip clubs, and casinos. Taken together, these measures represent a sweeping campaign to use the power of the state to punish the poor simply for being poor.
Policies like these reflect the longstanding conservative assumption that government assistance for the needy ends up breeding dependence and complacency. People who would otherwise go out and support themselves by getting a job, the argument goes, instead kick back and live the easy life courtesy of the federal government, hanging out in strip clubs and casinos and ordering filet mignon. Thus, if you make the lives of welfare recipients sufficiently miserable or block their benefits altogether, then they’ll go find gainful employment and stop bilking the innocent, hardworking taxpayer. “The law is really about encouraging individuals to become employed,” one Kansas official said of the state’s welfare spending restrictions. “We believe that employment is the most effective path out of poverty.”

The caricature of the deadbeat welfare recipient is a powerful one on the right. Republican economic headman Paul Ryan once famously described the safety net as a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people into complacency and dependence.” A couple of years ago, Fox News put together a “special investigation” into SNAP benefits that focused on a lazy, benefit-abusing surfer as “the new face of food stamps.” That slipshod piece of journalism ended up playing a factor in efforts by congressional Republicans to cut funding for the program.
It’s a message that conservatives at all levels of government push aggressively when trying to make cuts to the safety net. But is it an accurate reflection of the typical recipient of government aid? According to new data from the Census Bureau: no.
As Politico’s Danny Vinik wrote this morning, a new Census report looked at which groups of people ended up on government assistance and for how long. It turns out that a good chunk of welfare recipients are people who work either full- or part-time jobs. As Vinik notes, the report “finds that an average of 6.7 percent of full-time workers were also collecting means-tested benefits in 2012, more than 7 million Americans. For part-time workers, the number was 17.6 percent.” Among full-time workers who’ve collected benefits, nearly a quarter (22.3 percent) collected them for “at least three years between 2009 and 2012.” So for a big portion of people on public assistance, the problem isn’t that they have no incentive to find work; they’re already working, but their jobs don’t pay enough to cover basic expenses.

Data like these undercut the conservative assumption that receipt of government aid represents a moral failing, and that “dependency” can be cured through aggressive stigmatization and/or punitive restrictions on how benefits can be spent. Scolding someone on public assistance to “get a job” when they’re already working full time doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. Restricting their benefits because you saw some dirtbag on Fox News order lobster with his EBT card makes even less sense – if the goal of these policies is to encourage people to find work, why punish the people who’ve already achieved that result?


Fox News? big welfare lie gets demolished: The shiftless moocher meme is one giant myth - Salon.com