(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Cable news channels need to go away.

Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

(12-17-2013 06:59 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:59 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:53 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Cable news channels need to go away.

You want more Reality TV?

I want real news, not 3 political commentary channels.

You want your liberal bias back.

You're a funny little man.

It's simple: All three cable news channels are guilty of manipulating well known perceptional biases.

It's uncomfortable to have your Linus blanket ripped away from your shivering body.

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Cable news channels need to go away.

Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Fairleigh Dickinson, otherwise known as Fairly Ridiculous when I was living there, is a liberal joke.

(12-17-2013 07:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Fairleigh Dickinson, otherwise known as Fairly Ridiculous when I was living there, is a liberal joke.

It's likely that similar studies would yield similar results regardless of the institution it came from.

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Cable news channels need to go away.

Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Can you point to where I possibly said anything like that? False premise.

If I must-

Quote:the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes

. The pertinent of the sentence.

Those active and involved will find their news from literally countless sources. Many here do, no doubt.

What portion of the populace do you think that would include? I'd bet around 10-15%. And no, I don't have a link or study to back that up, I said "I'd bet".

I don't watch any of it.

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Cable news channels need to go away.

Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Sorry, but I just laugh at people that get all up in arms over FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Etc. They are all pandering to the audience that watches them and they don't even do much "news" anyway. The majority of the time is spent on political talk shows.

I do have to question the study you linked however. It would be interesting to really dig into the methodology utilized. How can someone who watches a "news" channel be less informed than someone who doesn't watch anything.

(12-17-2013 07:33 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Sorry, but I just laugh at people that get all up in arms over FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Etc. They are all pandering to the audience that watches them and they don't even do much "news" anyway. The majority of the time is spent on political talk shows.

I do have to question the study you linked however. It would be interesting to really dig into the methodology utilized. How can someone who watches a "news" channel be less informed than someone who doesn't watch anything.

Extreme bias.

(12-17-2013 07:39 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:33 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Sorry, but I just laugh at people that get all up in arms over FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Etc. They are all pandering to the audience that watches them and they don't even do much "news" anyway. The majority of the time is spent on political talk shows.

I do have to question the study you linked however. It would be interesting to really dig into the methodology utilized. How can someone who watches a "news" channel be less informed than someone who doesn't watch anything.

Extreme bias.

Are the questions biased in the opposite direction?

(12-17-2013 07:17 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Fairleigh Dickinson, otherwise known as Fairly Ridiculous when I was living there, is a liberal joke.

It's likely that similar studies would yield similar results regardless of the institution it came from.

Likely is not proof of factuality. Fox sustains itself based on its popularity. NPR, not so much. And Fox does have Sunday morning political talk shows as well has having politicians appear on their weekly shows.

Juan Williams got fired by NPR because he wasn't enough of a liberal apologist (he said he'd be nervous on a plane with Muslims)

(12-17-2013 07:33 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:04 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:02 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 07:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yes, let's go back to being spoon fed the "news" to a large segment of the populace through 24 minutes from the likes of Cronkite, Jennings and Rather bias. Dumb down the people even further. No thanks.

Do you think that's the only other option? False dichotomy.

Do you have an alternative? A viable alternative?

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-wat...all-2012-5

Quote:Media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge while NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative sources of news, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University’s newest PublicMind survey.

Seriously though, it's not like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are the only places people can get news. They aren't even an effective place to get news. It's foolish to act like a viable alternative needs to be presented when many already exist.

Sorry, but I just laugh at people that get all up in arms over FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Etc. They are all pandering to the audience that watches them and they don't even do much "news" anyway. The majority of the time is spent on political talk shows.

I do have to question the study you linked however. It would be interesting to really dig into the methodology utilized. How can someone who watches a "news" channel be less informed than someone who doesn't watch anything.

I get what you're saying here, and for Prime time this is the case. However, when I periodically have the news on during the day Fox is pretty much straight (not addressing right or left here) news coverage from their morning show until around 7 or 8 when the personality driven shows take over. It's mainly white noise unless something piques my interest, like a good car chase or something...

(12-17-2013 06:55 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:53 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 06:50 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Cable news channels need to go away.

You want more Reality TV?

I want real news, not 3 political commentary channels.

CBS, NBC, and ABC are no different than CNN. They're all left of center.

I'm just thrilled Fox Business is getting basic cable pickup as the alternative and even replacement to CNBC.

Fox Business is the gem of cable network news. Stossel. The Judge. Kennedy. Matt Welch. Kmele. Nick Gillespie. It's an all star line up over there. Stossel is the highest rated show on FBN and his show does so well it is rebroadcast on Fox News proper. There are a few other more mainstream guys that aren't too bad either over there like Cavuto.

(12-17-2013 10:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm just thrilled Fox Business is getting basic cable pickup as the alternative and even replacement to CNBC.

Fox Business is the gem of cable network news. Stossel. The Judge. Kennedy. Matt Welch. Kmele. Nick Gillespie. It's an all star line up over there. Stossel is the highest rated show on FBN and his show does so well it is rebroadcast on Fox News proper. There are a few other more mainstream guys that aren't too bad either over there like Cavuto.

I really don't understand how they can call it Fox Business when it doesn't have much to do with business and is in reality, just an extension of Fox News spewing rightwing propaganda.

Fox's audience is overwhelmingly old people. Their lead in the key demographic (25-54) isn't large. They need to change their slogan from the laughable "fair and balanced" to "old and bitter". That better reflects their viewers.

(12-19-2013 01:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 10:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm just thrilled Fox Business is getting basic cable pickup as the alternative and even replacement to CNBC.

Fox Business is the gem of cable network news. Stossel. The Judge. Kennedy. Matt Welch. Kmele. Nick Gillespie. It's an all star line up over there. Stossel is the highest rated show on FBN and his show does so well it is rebroadcast on Fox News proper. There are a few other more mainstream guys that aren't too bad either over there like Cavuto.

I really don't understand how they can call it Fox Business when it doesn't have much to do with business and is in reality, just an extension of Fox News spewing rightwing propaganda.

What? Have you even watched the channel? It has Stossel, not exactly a rightwing propaganda spewing nutjob. lol

(12-19-2013 02:03 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fox's audience is overwhelmingly old people. Their lead in the key demographic (25-54) isn't large. They need to change their slogan from the laughable "fair and balanced" to "old and bitter". That better reflects their viewers.

But you are admitting that they do have a lead in that "key demographic"?

(12-19-2013 02:03 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Fox's audience is overwhelmingly old people. Their lead in the key demographic (25-54) isn't large. They need to change their slogan from the laughable "fair and balanced" to "old and bitter". That better reflects their viewers.

Two things from this post...

1) Fox leads in 25-54 demo. But hey, according to UM, it dont' matter... cause they only lead by "that much".

2) UM HATES old people!! They're all "old and bitter", per our old-person expert