Austrian Journalist: I don't want the Western world to be directed by a black man, blacks are not politically civilized

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's what makes it so damn entertaining!

Well this is true... But whoever came up with the idea that the news needed to be entertaining did a disservice to a lot of people. Mostly its just #######.

Incidentally its interesting to see some of the political stuff unfiltered - through C-Span for instance. And you actually realise why nothing happens in the current Congress. Filibuster after filibuster...

[Amby 490]

That's what makes it so damn entertaining!

Well this is true... But whoever came up with the idea that the news needed to be entertaining did a disservice to a lot of people. Mostly its just #######.

Incidentally its interesting to see some of the political stuff unfiltered - through C-Span for instance. And you actually realise why nothing happens in the current Congress. Filibuster after filibuster...

I only watch C-Span to practice my listening skills

Edited November 7, 2008 by Amby

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fox News is simply the most obvious (and oft-cited) example of a corporate media product.

Cited by whom? The older networks have more viewers than the cable news outlets. Here are some stats from the lastest tracking.

"According to U.S. Nielsen ratings, ABC led all U.S. election-night coverage with 13,133,000 viewers over a six-hour period, followed by CNN, which drew 12,304,000 viewers for its high-tech broadcast boasting magic walls and hologram field reports. NBC finished third overall with 12,018,000 viewers, while the cable channel Fox News earned 9,044,00 viewers.

Elsewhere around the dial, CBS's election coverage with Katie Couric finished noticeably low among mainstream U.S. networks with 7,829,000 viewers. Not far behind was MSNBC with 5,889,000 viewers and Fox Broadcast (the news division of the Fox Network) with 5,137,000 viewers."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/Entertainment

I wasn't talking about viewership statistics - simply that a lot of the conversations on here about the news media involve Fox News. The comment I replied to was about Fox News. That's all.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

This is good material to file away for the future when I have conversations with Europeans who will want to tell me about the backwards Americans

[alienlovechild 75]

I wasn't talking about viewership statistics - simply that a lot of the conversations on here about the news media involve Fox News. The comment I replied to was about Fox News. That's all.

I know that but I was trying to find a proxy number to make a point that Fox News isn't the only or biggest news network around. The only reason Fox is mentioned on here is to prove a media bias which strangely never affects the older and larger networks- for those with blinders on. I believe nonbiased reporting is largely impossible and looking for more sources is the best way to weigh what you see or hear.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I wasn't talking about viewership statistics - simply that a lot of the conversations on here about the news media involve Fox News. The comment I replied to was about Fox News. That's all.

I know that but I was trying to find a proxy number to make a point that Fox News isn't the only or biggest news network around. The only reason Fox is mentioned on here is to prove a media bias which strangely never affects the older and larger networks- for those with blinders on. I believe nonbiased reporting is largely impossible and looking for more sources is the best way to weigh what you see or hear.

Which is why some of us actually go to "phoren" sources (such as Hindustan Times, BBC, ...)--as these do oft seem to have less bias on US-specific issues.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wasn't talking about viewership statistics - simply that a lot of the conversations on here about the news media involve Fox News. The comment I replied to was about Fox News. That's all.

I know that but I was trying to find a proxy number to make a point that Fox News isn't the only or biggest news network around. The only reason Fox is mentioned on here is to prove a media bias which strangely never affects the older and larger networks- for those with blinders on. I believe nonbiased reporting is largely impossible and looking for more sources is the best way to weigh what you see or hear.

Most of the corporate networks follow the same basic model. Most of the same criticisms could be applied to all of them.

Fox is biased, certainly (as are the others) - I just don't care for the affected (and exaggerated) outrage that the anchors go in for. Or those silly "scare" stories they put into the news trailers about how "something in your oatmeal could kill you".

[Beautiful_years 0]

One word for him..... "Retarded"

[Saddle Bronc 124]

One word for him..... "Retarded"

the right word is "chopf##k"

[almaty 19]

you brother sriniv..are indeed right thinking type of guy

[Peikko 1,575]

I wasn't talking about viewership statistics - simply that a lot of the conversations on here about the news media involve Fox News. The comment I replied to was about Fox News. That's all.

I know that but I was trying to find a proxy number to make a point that Fox News isn't the only or biggest news network around. The only reason Fox is mentioned on here is to prove a media bias which strangely never affects the older and larger networks- for those with blinders on. I believe nonbiased reporting is largely impossible and looking for more sources is the best way to weigh what you see or hear.

Try getting your news from somewhere other than network tv. You just might find it interesting.