Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! The saddest part is that you probably believe this statement. Even Roger Ailes has admitted that Fox is nothing more than GOP TV. If "MOST" of the country actually believed that Fox was the most fair and balanced "NEWS" this would be the stupidest country on the planet. Fortunately, you are just making stuff up here even if you have convinced yourself that it is the truth. Now, return to earth before you run out of oxygen.....but come to think of it, you have probably been oxygen deprived for quite some time given some of the things you believe.
No, I did not make it up, but I did it off the top of my head. Funny, though. The polls say i was correct. http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/poll-fox-news-is-the-best-tv-news-network/ Merry Christmas to you!
I read your link and Fox does have slightly over one third (36%) of the cable news viewers. I know you've been told this countless times before because I have told you countless times and you just seem to move on without letting the reality of what you are saying sink in or the reality of what anyone else says for that matter. So I'll say it again AND I'll use a picture for you. Please note the percentage of cable news to the percentage of network news and realize what the 36% actually represents. You see those tiny light blue and yellow bars next to those enormous red/brown and olive green bars? Divide those up into thirds and that is Fox news' percentages compared to network news. Not so impressive now is it? View attachment 344 Far more people watch the three network evening newscasts than prime time cable news shows— roughly ten times more. But as cable news is always on, polls show more people say they “regularly” get news from cable. Source: Nielsen Media Research
The show always has people from both sides of the argument. Surely you are not disputing that fact? Remember, that Jim Lehrer does not do most of the show now, because of his heart attack. I like the way they provide us with both sides. It seems to me that even if a program gives both sides of the dispute someone here is not going to like the program, that is natural, but I still think it is the most objective news show on television.
How could I not have guessed someone would try to correct my point. I guess you just did not get the point. I was talking about the show being objective. I think showing both sides views on a subject is news. Editorials are, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is: An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers. A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network Hey, you are probably correct and the dictionary is wrong.
Let's see if I can clear this up. I'll use this photograph of Obama as an example: View attachment 345 Now, the "news" story would be "Obama Picks Nose". The event is described without any spin; it's presented just as it occurred. The Republican spin might say something like "Obama Searches For Brain". The Democrat spin might say something like "Obama Searches For The Truth". Any event can be spun like that and a commentator or pundit can put their own lean on things. Listen to both sides and make up your own mind. But, keep in mind that a lot of what you may hear has been spun by someone who has an agenda.
I have no idea why it is tied to editors, publishers, station, or network. Personally, I still consider it an editorial when one expresses his/her own opinion in print, radio, or television. But out side of that technicality, I agree. However, my point is still that we (the general populace) are getting mostly editorials and opinions and accepting that as news. In the mean time, we are missing most of the real news.
Sorry, but real news would not even bother with such a story. A major part of the "editorializing" occurs by covering stories that needn't be and/or not covering stories that should be.
You're absolutely right. That was just an example for illustrative purposes with, hopefully, a bit of humor injected.
I must disagree. I still think the biggest bias is selecting what they do or do not cover based on their preordained objective. Ayers and Wright quickly come to mind. I dare anyone to compare the coverage they received against the coverage the anonymous women feeling "uncomfortable" around Cain.
Put that way, I have renewed hope that there are not as many idiots out there as I previously believed.
Good luck convincing Mt. Obstinate that. He's famous for believing things like words are subject to interpretation & I ignore your reality and replace it with my own.
I don't think "why" is what you meant, "why" is factual truth. I think you meant to say "biased" newscasts are those that present beliefs or opinions that don't necessarily coincide with what the factual truths actually are.
