Fox News’ Promotion Of Tea Parties Shatters Their Credibility

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"Fox Are the Hippies, CNN is The Man...What Does That Make MSNBC?"

The Daily Show summed up the Tax Day Tea Parties last night with an eight-minute segment on the protests — and the coverage. Jon Stewart brought up FBN's Cody Willard "dropping the f-bomb on Obama" and why "everything is now reversed" with Fox News.

"So Fox is now the voice of the people's revolution. They're the hippie station, they're NPR, they're Democracy Now," said Stewart.

He also had some thoughts on CNN's Susan Roesgen ("Daddy, why is the lady yelling at you?"):

(video)

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/funny/...snbc_114328.asp

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ratings:

FOX RATINGS SURGE ON PROTEST COVERAGE

8-11 PM ET

FOXNEWS 3,390,000

MSNBC 1,210,000

CNN 1,070,000

CNN HEADLINE 909,000

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000

FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000

FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000

FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000

FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000

FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000

COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000

MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000

COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000

CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000

CNN KING 1,292,000

MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000

CNN COOPER 1,021,000

Money talks! B.S. walks!

Then by that logic, Obama's popularity isn't due to people acting like sheep after all? Interesting double standard.

Sheep are sheep. I have a lot of old stuff that still works fine, and I don't go chasing the latest trend. But, advertisers like sheep, because they buy what everyone else is buying, and that is the bottom line, ain't it? Market share sets the rate advertisers pay for airtime, and right now, FOX is making what the other networks make combined.

I'm confused by your 'money talks, BS walks.' I took that to mean that you believe Fox News ratings reflects their quality of programming, no?

You don't play poker, do you? ...for money?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its all prepackaged garbage and you watch it buying into that - or you don't (buy into it, that is). You can still watch it without buying their premise.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Popularity and quality have never been mutually exclusive...in all cases. Otherwise, when you want to take your wife out for some really good food, just drive up to McDonald's Drive Thru where billions have been served.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Popularity and quality have never been mutually exclusive...in all cases. Otherwise, when you want to take your wife out for some really good food, just drive up to McDonald's Drive Thru where billions have been served.

That's a fact, Bat. Of course, when you are trying to get drunk, quantity is quality!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

But Private Pike, don't you know that McDonald's serves the best tasting food?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Popularity and quality have never been mutually exclusive...in all cases. Otherwise, when you want to take your wife out for some really good food, just drive up to McDonald's Drive Thru where billions have been served.

That's a fact, Bat. Of course, when you are trying to get drunk, quantity is quality!

That's only because people lower their standards ;P

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

But Private Pike, don't you know that McDonald's serves the best tasting food?

Well they say they do, so I guess it must be true.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Popularity and quality have never been mutually exclusive...in all cases. Otherwise, when you want to take your wife out for some really good food, just drive up to McDonald's Drive Thru where billions have been served.

That's a fact, Bat. Of course, when you are trying to get drunk, quantity is quality!

Riiight...getting back to my point ...if Obama's enormous popularity is because people are merely sheep, then Fox News' ratings are because people who view it are sheep. Same principle, right?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

Of course, you have to factor in popular appeal, otherwise you risk being labelled as "elite", or "snobbish", which the unwashed masses equate to being really boring.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

Of course, you have to factor in popular appeal, otherwise you risk being labelled as "elite", or "snobbish", which the unwashed masses equate to being really boring.

But Obama was labeled an elitist and he was tremendously popular?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

Of course, you have to factor in popular appeal, otherwise you risk being labelled as "elite", or "snobbish", which the unwashed masses equate to being really boring.

That's true, but individuals can only do that by lowering their standards to pander to people who didn't set them very high to begin with.

The Da Vinci Code was one of the fastest selling books of all time. I could write several pages on why it isn't a good book - factually, dramatically and literally.

The whole elitism charge IMO is pretty disingenuous, given that it is applied almost exclusively to liberal academics - and amounts to a general fear/suspicion of education. Which is weird when you think about it.

[MariaBonita 11]

Fox News’ Promotion Of Tea Parties Shatters Their Credibility

Fox News had credibility to lose?

I didn't think they had any credibility left to lose.

FOX is nothing but a three-ring circus.

Edited April 17, 2009 by MariaBonita

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Audience figures don't speak to the quality or comprehensiveness of the material, just as ticket sales aren't necesarily an indication of a "good" film.

"Good" or "Bad" are subjective terms. Depends on who is making the evaluation. Box office numbers translate to success or failure, in real world, business terms.

Of course they are subjective - it couldn't be anything else.

Its rather easy to argue that what is popular must be good.

Determinations of "quality" have nothing to do with money.

Of course, you have to factor in popular appeal, otherwise you risk being labelled as "elite", or "snobbish", which the unwashed masses equate to being really boring.

But Obama was labeled an elitist and he was tremendously popular?

It's the fickle finger of fate! Think in terms of the typical voter: Who would you choose? A new, vibrant, well spoken individual, or a stumbling old man? How would you explain Bush/Gore, or Bush/Kerry? Sometimes people don't understand the elites.