See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am, tomg51 said:

   If the Fairness Doctrine was imposed on CNN, their ratings would go up.

2. #2
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:45 am, RedDog said:

   The Left’s view of the world is totally skewed. They apparently discount the fact that 99% of world news media are cheerleading and protecting their interests constantly.

3. #3
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:46 am, babiesgrandma said:

   Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news.

   From CNN’s own website.

   What’s the diff from this and “Fair and Balanced, You Decide”?

4. #4
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am, iamsaved said:

   Maybe the White House would rather listen to “Susan from Glendale” to hear what the average citizen has to say.

5. #5
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am, Truesoldier said:

   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:46 am, babiesgrandma said:
   Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news.
   From CNN’s own website.

   What’s the diff from this and “Fair and Balanced, You Decide”?

   The liberal slant.

6. #6
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:54 am, Truesoldier said:

   I did see over on Fox News that Obama has quietly decided to send more troops to Afghanistan. No, not the 40,000 that Gen McCrystal requested; instead he is sending 13,000.

   In an unannounced move, President Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced in March, according to a published report.

   The additional troops are primarily support forces — such as engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police — The Washington Post reported, bringing the total increase Obama has approved for the war-torn nation to 34,000.

7. #7
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:55 am, cabrerski said:

   What really frosts my behind is that the White House is afraid of Fox News but expects us to believe they have the cajones to handle Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Russia, the economy, healthcare, etc, etc.

   When the time comes, and Iran says “Boo!”, I suspect the majority of the Obama administraion will leave yellow puddles and be found cowering under the nearest piece of furniture.

   Only those with something to hide are afraid of the sunlight…

8. #8
   On October 13th, 2009 at 8:57 am, stillontheroad said:

   That smell, that acrid smell. I love the smell of Liberal desperation

9. #9
   On October 13th, 2009 at 9:02 am, jangar said:

   “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

   Translation: “I know Fox comes in first every time we run the race, but that doesn’t mean they are the winner”

   Liberal victimhood has now hit the newsrooms. They sound just like that 20% of the population that voted 98% for Obama. They hate everything.

10. #10
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am, stevevvs said:

    Fox has ignored the Free Speech issue of Michael Savage being Banned in Britain. The alleged Conservative News Outlet, can’t seem to find the time, apparently.

    I don’t watch any TV “News” they all tend to have selective reporting.

11. #11
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:04 am, zyzzyg said:

    It is said you don’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

    Yep, the White House appears to have conflated opinion and news. Conflation is nothing new and it is unfortunate that it is done. And, Fox opinion media is no saint on this issue, either.

    Speculation, conjecture and projection; mischaracterization and misrepresentation of the facts; it is wrong when the White House does it, and it is wrong when Fox news and opinion media does it, too.

    The White House should be more specific in its’ challenges, and in some cases it has. Yes, take Fox opinion media to task, and also, speak to Fox news.

    When the White House removes all Fox reporters from the press corp, then and only then, has the White House truly jumped the shark.

12. #12
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:06 am, jangar said:

    Yeah, you’d think a Nobel Peace Prize winner would know better.

    Didn’t help Jimmah.

13. #13
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:08 am, Kwill said:

    Hah, who’s the party hack rag outfit now, MSNBC, CNN? I don’t know if the coverage was fair, but no one can argue that 40-40 isn’t balanced.

    (I would contend that if it really was 40-40 the coverage would NOT have been fair, because let’s face it: are Obama’s strengths vs. weaknesses really 60/40? I think not, try 3/97.)

14. #14
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am, spaceycakes said:

    Oh, please. FOX is the only network that doesn’t drool over the Prez, and it is like sand on the teeth of a narcissist.

    That is all.

15. #15
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    This is just preparation, or a lttle bit of ground-work, for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. I don’t care that Obama may have said he opposes it. He also said his socialist health care takeover would save America money, and that you can keep the plan you like and it wouldn’t cover illegals…… What he says is meaningless. Just watch what he does.

    The Fairness Doctrine is on their agenda.

16. #16
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am, graysonret said:

    So when is Obama and congress going to reinstate the Sedition Act of 1798? This is only the opening round of eventual censorship of the press. It starts with the same old…create an enemy, get the people to side with you, and then take over.

17. #17
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:33 am, et said:

    The mantra of the community organizer is You Report, We decide. The Fox News Channel mission statement of We report, You decide is the polar opposite of this Whitehouse’s mentality that the sheep must be lead not liberated.

18. #18
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am, jangar said:

    The Fairness Doctrine is on their agenda.

    As well as freedom and the sovereignty of America. Global goverment is their objective.

19. #19
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am, chapoutier said:

    The Fox News Channel mission statement of We report, You decide

    And North Korea’s actual name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

    Just saying…self imposed, self serving slogans don’t really mean much, do they?

20. #20
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am, Flyoverman said:

    One normally counters “lies and distortions” with facts. Since they present no facts to the contrary, their complaints are empty.

    They give the impression of being the little boy with his hand in the cookie jar, whining about the fact his big sister tattled on him.

    These wimps can’t take a punch.

21. #21
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:40 am, GOPGin said:

    The Obama Administration wouldn’t give a rats booty about Fox News if it didn’t have the top ratings & the most viewers. It’s not just that Fox offers a different POV than NBC, CNN, ABC, & CBS; it’s that more people actually watch Fox than the other networks. It bothers Obama that people are turning away from NBC & The NY Times, and turning to Fox.

    People have realized that the left leaning news organizations are becoming more and more irrelevant and this is Obama’s way of trying to make Fox irrelevant. He’s trying to discredit Fox by saying it’s an arm of the Republican Party. And quite honestly: so what if is? Let’s not pretend that the White House isn’t in bed with NBC (read: Jeffrey Immelt).

22. #22
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am, right4life said:

    Michelle, people like you and Beck are ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE!!!

    and the road is being paid to silence people like you, one way or the other…we’ve seen it before, the left cannot take criticism…

    the devil, that proud spirit, hates to be mocked—Milton (I believe)

23. #23
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:45 am, graysonret said:

    it’s that more people actually watch Fox than the other networks.

    That’s true and the liberals hate that fact. It’s a threat to their power.

24. #24
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am, chapoutier said:

    It’s not just that Fox offers a different POV than NBC, CNN, ABC, & CBS; it’s that more people actually watch Fox than the other networks.

    I love this argument. Tell me…if you live in a town roughly split 40/60 between Catholics and Protestants, and your town has one Catholic church but 6 Protestant churches, can you honestly argue that the Catholic church is better just because it pulls in more bodies than any of the single Protestant churches?

25. #25
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Calling Fox News “a wing of the Republican Party,” the Obama administration on Sunday escalated its war of words against the channel…

    The Obama administration is just upset that Fox News appears to be
    the only “mainstream” news organization that is not “a wing of the
    Democrat[ic Socialist] Party”!

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

26. #26
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:53 am, Red State Skeptic said:

    Conservatives’ complaints of how much negative coverage McCain got in the closing weeks of the campaign are completely misguided. His coverage was “negative” only in the sense that the news covered the fact that he was getting his ass kicked. To whine about that would be like whining about the Chiefs (0-5) getting worse coverage than the Broncos (5-0).

27. #27
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am, granite said:

    “What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,”….

    Ya think there’s any projection going on here?

    Another one of the idiots…another one of the adolescent, stupid, dangerous, evil, socialist idiots.

28. #28
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am, right4life said:

    oops road is being PAVED…need some caffeine…

29. #29
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:56 am, right4life said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:53 am, Red State Skeptic said:
    Conservatives’ complaints of how much negative coverage McCain got in the closing weeks of the campaign are completely misguided.

    conservatives could care less about mccain…beck is right about him.

30. #30
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am, chapoutier said:

    conservatives could care less about mccain…beck is right about him.

    You mean “could not care less” right? If you could care less, it means you somewhat care now.

    And of course conservatives cared about McCain then.

31. #31
    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:59 am, Hurricanes said:

    The columnist (and active water carrier for the WH) Leonard Pitts wrote a column two Sunday’s ago about Fox’s Lies.

    What a coincidence! Absolutely pathetic. Way to speak truth to power there Pitts! Way to be your own man!

32. #32
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am, right4life said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am, chapoutier said:
    conservatives could care less about mccain…beck is right about him.
    You mean “could not care less” right? If you could care less, it means you somewhat care now.

    And of course conservatives cared about McCain then.

    not this conservative.

33. #33
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:04 am, Flyoverman said:

    conservatives could care less about mccain…beck is right about him.

    And of course conservatives cared about McCain then.

    I would estimate 40% of McCain’s votes were actually Palin votes.

    If you were reading these posts last year, I was NOT VOTING for the office of President. I ultimatey did vote for McCain ONLY because he added Sarah Palin to the ticket. Without Palin, McCain would have received less than 30 million votes.

    Britt Hume pointed out correctly that the White House was careful to accuse Fox News of being a wing of the Republican Party, because CONSERVATIVES, not Republicans are the primary viewers of Fox News.

    They do not want the conservatives anymore engaged than they are.

34. #34
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:07 am, chapoutier said:

    I would estimate 40% of McCain’s votes were actually Palin votes.

    If you were reading these posts last year, I was NOT VOTING for the office of President. I ultimatey did vote for McCain ONLY because he added Sarah Palin to the ticket. Without Palin, McCain would have received less than 30 million votes.

    I did not say you cared FOR McCain, but you certainly should have cared ABOUT McCain.

35. #35
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:12 am, Marc said:

    CNN should be known as ANN for Arab News Network. CNN is known for its proArab propaganda and for its repeated slurs of Israel. On Sunday, John King led the antiIsrael hit parade at CNN. He asked McCain if Obama deserved the Nobel peace prize in light of “Obama’s failure to get Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians”. What kind of nonsense is this Mr. King? Your friends in the PA have repeatedly said that they would not go back to negotiating with Israel unless the Israelis make a series of concessions in advance. Hamas has said no negotiation ever with Israel. But since this is CNN, Mr. King could not resist twisting reality to fit in with CNN’s proArab view of the world.

36. #36
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am, ex-expat said:

    The WH whining is a tacit acknowledgment of the effectiveness of Fox News reporting; otherwise, they’d not give week-old used coffee grounds over Fox.

    Time for them to wake up that not all drank the kool aid.

37. #37
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am, jangar said:

    The cockroaches are pissed that the lady of the house turned the kitchen light on.

38. #38
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am, GladzKravtz said:

    Dang it!
    There’s a reason why people switched to FNC!
    Need I say more? Good grief.

39. #39
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am, GladzKravtz said:

    CNN is known for its proArab propaganda and for its repeated slurs of Israel.

    and passive slurs of America via their international reporting.
    I got so sick of CNN in Europe that it was less stressful watching cooking and games shows over there.
    CNN has shaped peoples’ opinions around the world – very sad.

40. #40
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am, Flyoverman said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:07 am, chapoutier said:

    ………, but you certainly should have cared ABOUT McCain.

    Chap, I am not understanding your comment here. In what context should I have cared about McCain?

    I was “concerned’ about McCain, because his views on so many issues were similar to Obama’s. McCain just struck me Dole revisited. He was not a very good choice in my opinion.

41. #41
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:33 am, chapoutier said:

    Chap, I am not understanding your comment here. In what context should I have cared about McCain?

    You had absolutely no preference whatsoever on whether or not McCain or Obama won?

    N.B. I love how WordPress’s spell checker still hasn’t been updated to include the word “Obama.” That is racist.

42. #42
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:35 am, FruNobulux said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am, chapoutier said:

    I love this argument. Tell me…if you live in a town roughly split 40/60 between Catholics and Protestants, and your town has one Catholic church but 6 Protestant churches, can you honestly argue that the Catholic church is better just because it pulls in more bodies than any of the single Protestant churches?

    Good point, but FNC regularly pulls in more viewers than the other (cable) stations combined, in which case, it’s hard to dispute the conclusion that FNC has something that the other stations lack, and that something is attracting a greater audience.

    As a matter of fact, FNC’s 3 AM show gets more viewers in the “important” demographics than CNN gets at 8 PM. Ouch.

43. #43
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am, MarcoPolo said:

    But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

    Shouldn’t that be “GNN?”

44. #44
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am, MarcoPolo said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:03 am, stevevvs said:
    I don’t watch any TV “News” they all tend to have selective reporting.

    To quote Doug Wead, there’s no such thing as TV news anymore.

45. #45
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am, chapoutier said:

    Good point, but FNC regularly pulls in more viewers than the other (cable) stations combined

    Two things: Why do you exclude NBC, CBS, ABC News? Aren’t they part of the liberal media as well?

    I do recall Beck beats all the cable news folks combined, but I don’t think one popular show at a time when most people are still at work or in route (I can’t think of one professional person that gets home by 5) really proves or disproves anything.

    Fox is doing great and it’s not its fault that it is the only game in town for conservative viewers. But lets not inflate its impact or quality by comparing its single apple to many many oranges.

46. #46
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:48 am, MarcoPolo said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am, chapoutier said:

    I love this argument. Tell me…if you live in a town roughly split 40/60 between Catholics and Protestants, and your town has one Catholic church but 6 Protestant churches, can you honestly argue that the Catholic church is better just because it pulls in more bodies than any of the single Protestant churches?

    I am sorry. Please forgive me, web overlords, for what I’m about to say.

    Chap, that’s just dumb.

    Not to mention sort of ironic, in that it illustrates that underneath all the rhetoric, the substance is apparently all the same.

47. #47
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:50 am, John Deaux said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:53 am, Red State Skeptic said:
    To whine about that would be like whining about the Chiefs (0-5) getting worse coverage than the Broncos (5-0).

    Your statement would be true if the Chiefs relied on public opinion for victories. Broadcasting negative stories against one candidate while neglecting to do the same for the other candidate is an attempt to influence the election.

    Basically, you’re wrong. Again.

48. #48
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am, ChicagoRobb said:

    If McCain were President, there would be much less sabre rattling. I don’t see Iran and the Taliban acting up under McCain’s watch. I guess we see what the answer looks like to the question posed in Hillary’s “3AM ad”.

49. #49
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am, chapoutier said:

    Chap, even in your 40% Catholic / 60% Protestant example, do you realize that this is like the White House condemning the 40% Catholics because they aren’t Protestant?

50. #50
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am, Dave Turson said:

    Chop-chop Chap. The One reminds me of Queen Elizabeth I. The Queen and her advisors didn’t like sharp witty criticisms. Poor John Stubbs lost his hand in retaliation, as did his publisher.
    Since The One and Nixon share a trait, all journalists working at Fox News should put locks on their medicine cabinets, pronto.

51. #51
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am, chapoutier said:

    Chap, that’s just dumb.

    Please explain.

    Or maybe this is better. If 40% of the town buys chicken and 20% buy steak, 15% buy hamburger, 18% buy brisket, and 7% buy sirloin tips, should we conclude that chicken is more popular than beef?

52. #52
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am, chapoutier said:

    Chap, even in your 40% Catholic / 60% Protestant example, do you realize that this is like the White House condemning the 40% Catholics because they aren’t Protestant?

    No. It would be more like the White House condemning the church leaders because they like to protect pedophile priests.

53. #53
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:56 am, cheapseat said:

    chap; at least you are honest enough to admit the other six news stations are left wing tools of the democrat party. i can live with fox being right wing, if you can live with every other news organization being left wing. now let’s talk about FAIRNESS.

54. #54
    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:59 am, FruNobulux said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am, chapoutier said:

    Good point, but FNC regularly pulls in more viewers than the other (cable) stations combined

    Two things: Why do you exclude NBC, CBS, ABC News? Aren’t they part of the liberal media as well?

    I do recall Beck beats all the cable news folks combined, but I don’t think one popular show at a time when most people are still at work or in route (I can’t think of one professional person that gets home by 5) really proves or disproves anything.

    The broadcast media are usually discounted because anybody with a TV can get broadcast, whereas you have to buy cable, so they’re really two different media. O’Reilly regularly beats the other cable “news” channels (combined) in his time slot by lots (all you have to do is watch his show to know this — he regularly informs his audience how wonderful he is), and as I recall has even beaten competing broadcast “news” programs (Couric, if memory serves) in the same time slot at least once.

    Beck competes for the same audience as all the other shows in that same time slot. I would have to say that the composition of the potential audience would lean more heavily liberal at that time, before people who actually work for a living get home (forgive me the gratuitous shot, it was low-hanging fruit and had to be picked).

55. #55
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am, right4life said:

    I did not say you cared FOR McCain, but you certainly should have cared ABOUT McCain.

    well I don’t wish him any ill…he is a great man and war hero….but he’s like obama…only a little less…

    better for the nation (foreign policy marginally) but worse for conservatism.

56. #56
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am, rightwingrocker said:

    I blogged about this today as well.

    If CNN had been doing its job as recently as 1996, there would be no Fox News. Ailes and Murdoch simply saw a need and filled it. Now they’re both filthy rich from it. No wonder CNN and the liberals are pissed.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

57. #57
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Speakup said:

    The left isn’t attacking, and Obama isn’t trying to stifle, Fox news, because Fox is disingenuous.

58. #58
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Drained Brain said:

    It’s offensive that Obama is spending taxpayer money (e.g. the White House blog) to attack one network. Yet again, he diminishes the office by his words.

    It’s amusing that it’s finally dawned on CNN that the attacks are actually hurting them more than any FNC advertising could.

    Seriously, the media might well reflect on Niemöller’s adage… When they came for the Fox News Channel, I did not speak out… No, I’m not comparing the Administration to Nazis; rather, the point applies to many situations in life. There are times to stand up and be counted and this should be one of them.

    Can the Fairness Doctrine be far behind?

59. #59
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am, chapoutier said:

    Fru,

    According to several sources, between 85 and 90% of the country has cable or satellite. I think its time we start treating the big 4 networks on the same basis as the cable stations.

60. #60
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:09 am, GOPGin said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am, chapoutier said:

    Fox is doing great and it’s not its fault that it is the only game in town for conservative viewers.

    Chap, a Pew Research Poll shows that Fox’s audience is more evenly distributed among Republicans & Democrats; 39% and 33%, respectively. Whereas, MSNCB is 18% and 45%, respectively; and CNN is 18% and 51%, respectively. Although Fox has a higher Republican audience than the other networks, it also has nearly as many Democratic viewers. Your analogy suggests that Fox’s audience is strictly Republican.

    Don’t you find it interesting that Fox’s audience is made up of almost as many Democrats as Republicans, and still has more viewers than the other networks combined?

61. #61
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:11 am, akoypinoy said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am, chapoutier said:
    Good point, but FNC regularly pulls in more viewers than the other (cable) stations combined

    I do recall Beck beats all the cable news folks combined, but I don’t think one popular show at a time when most people are still at work or in route (I can’t think of one professional person that gets home by 5) really proves or disproves anything.

    It’s not just the 5:00 Glenn Beck Show, it’s the O’Reilly Factor at 8:00, Hannity’s America at 9:00 and Greta’s On The Record at 10:00 and the reruns of these shows from 11:00 – 1:00. To quote O’Reilly, “what say you?”

62. #62
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am, pueblo1032 said:

    Years ago,(many,many) there was a distinct division between NEWS REPORTER, and NEWS COMMENTATOR… You were advised when listening or watching when it switched to COMMENT… Now in MSM,(all of them), there is no dividing wall… In FOX I know the difference and am comfortable with it… The rest, well, that is why I choose not to participate… It would behoove the WH to put away the AX for FNC, for they are ignoring a good portion of the ELECTORATE with this BATTLEGROUND ATTITUDE…

63. #63
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am, chapoutier said:

    It’s not just the 5:00 Glenn Beck Show, it’s the O’Reilly Factor at 8:00, Hannity’s America at 9:00 and Greta’s On The Record at 10:00 and the reruns of these shows from 11:00 – 1:00. To quote O’Reilly, “what say you?”

    Not pull in more, but pull in more COMBINED than the rest of the TV news outlets. Show me that.

64. #64
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:19 am, prendad said:

    LMAO while I was watching tv over the weekend and the libby lefties were accusing right wing conservatives of being “WHINERS”. I’m sorry folks, but that adjective was reserved for you decades ago.

65. #65
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am, FruNobulux said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am, chapoutier said:

    Fru,

    According to several sources, between 85 and 90% of the country has cable or satellite. I think its time we start treating the big 4 networks on the same basis as the cable stations.

    That is, prima facie, an interesting point. Yet how many of those subscribers must pay extra to get the “news” channels? I’m not saying I know one way or another, but it seems to me that would be a key fact in assessing the equivalence of cable and broadcast “news”.

    At the risk of being a bore, it would be interesting also to know: i) how liberals vs. conservatives are represented in that 85% to 90%; ii) how the audience is counted (does CNN count everybody who passes through an airport as being in their audience?), iii) what other ways the potential audience is segmented?

    Of course, now, having made (or at least having attempted to make) that point, and having drawn you into a discussion, I must confess I haven’t sufficient interest in the matter to pursue the answers myself.

    But thank you, I think, for adding another item to my list of those things I must ponder on sleepless nights.

66. #66
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am, akoypinoy said:

    Let the WH grind their ax. The more they try to demean and dismiss FCN, the better will it be for Fox. WH comments or “communications” are aired in not just cables but also the MSM stations and by doing so they inadvertently raise the curiosity of their viewers and out of curiosity will check out Fox. Who knows, it may turn on the lights for some of them and become a convert of “We report, you decide”.

    The WH may have good intentions in their behalf but this strategy can backfire on them and may turn out to be the dog that bit their a$$.

67. #67
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am, chapoutier said:

    GOPGin,

    Have been looking for your survey and haven’t found it. Do you have a link? In the meantime, I submit THIS survey by Pew that shows much different numbers with respect to party affiliation.

    Fox News 52 17 30 1=100
    MSNBC 11 50 36 3=100
    CNN 13 45 38 4=100

68. #68
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am, akoypinoy said:

    Chap, don’t twist my words. I didn’t say ALL TV News Combined. I was just answering your comment, in your own words, Good point, but FNC regularly pulls in more viewers than the other (cable) stations combined Nice try!

69. #69
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:36 am, FruNobulux said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am, akoypinoy said:

    You may be mistaking chapoutier’s quoting me with his own words.

70. #70
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am, chapoutier said:

    Chap, don’t twist my words. I didn’t say ALL TV News Combined. I was just answering your comment, in your own words, Good point, but FNC regularly pulls in more viewers than the other (cable) stations combined Nice try!

    Couple things:

    1. When I said all the stations, I did mean in that context just the cable (which I guess would be MSNBC, CNN, HLN, CNBC…am I missing any? Thta said, show me where those programs consistently out pull all the other networks combined.
    2. I still don’t think cable and network should be treated any differently seeing as pretty much the entire country has equal access to both. Why do you think ABC News should be treated differently than Fox?

71. #71
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am, John424 said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am, FruNobulux said:

    Yet how many of those subscribers must pay extra to get the “news” channels?

    I don’t know if it’s still this way, but as recently as a year ago, if you subscribed to Dish Network, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC were all a part of Dish’s lowest-cost, “basic” package. If you wanted Fox News, you had to go to a more expensive package. The same holds true for a number of cable companies across the country.

    Basically, Fox News is costing a lot of people quite a bit more money to get than all the liberal networks – yet they still beat the pants off them when it comes to ratings.

72. #72
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am, GOPGin said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am, chapoutier said:

    Here you go!

    I’ll note the poll you cited is a “Partisan Profile of Election News Audiences,” and the poll I cited is “Partisan Profile of TV News Audiences.”

73. #73
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:52 am, swede said:

    I don’t know if it’s still this way, but as recently as a year ago, if you subscribed to Dish Network, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC were all a part of Dish’s lowest-cost, “basic” package.

    Depends what part of the country you are in. I travel a lot the hotels generally have basic cable. Some places have FNC on the basic but no MSNBC. Other pllaces vice versa. Take a wild guess which variant is found in the NE states and left coast, and which in the southern states.

74. #74
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am, chapoutier said:

    I’ll note the poll you cited is a “Partisan Profile of Election News Audiences,” and the poll I cited is “Partisan Profile of TV News Audiences.”

    That is true. I can’t figure out why the election news audience would be so different, but in any case some interesting tidbits from your survey.

    It would seem that there is little correlation between credibility and viewership. Fox News rated as one of the lowest TV outlets in credibility (page 56 of the survey). Maybe there are a large percentage of people who think Fox News is crap, but are curious to see what will come out of Beck’s mouth next.

75. #75
    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am, chapoutier said:

    I don’t know if it’s still this way, but as recently as a year ago, if you subscribed to Dish Network, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC were all a part of Dish’s lowest-cost, “basic” package. If you wanted Fox News, you had to go to a more expensive package. The same holds true for a number of cable companies across the country.

    Really? I have never seen this. FNC has always been wrapped up with everything else. This would be interesting if true.

76. #76
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, chapoutier said:

    I don’t know if it’s still this way, but as recently as a year ago, if you subscribed to Dish Network, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC were all a part of Dish’s lowest-cost, “basic” package. If you wanted Fox News, you had to go to a more expensive package. The same holds true for a number of cable companies across the country.

    Basically, Fox News is costing a lot of people quite a bit more money to get than all the liberal networks – yet they still beat the pants off them when it comes to ratings.

    Fox News is actually MORE available than CNN in the US, according to wiki (102 vs 93 million).

77. #77
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:08 pm, GOPGin said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am, chapoutier said:

    Fox News rated as one of the lowest TV outlets in credibility (page 56 of the survey). Maybe there are a large percentage of people who think Fox News is crap, but are curious to see what will come out of Beck’s mouth next.

    I don’t doubt there are people who tune to Beck (or O’Reilly or Hannity for that matter) to see what he’s up to. The polls are interesting nonetheless.

78. #78
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:08 pm, iamsaved said:

    Who cares which news channel pulls in the most viewers? Each person has to make their own choice. That being said, I have to wonder why the WH would cause such a fuss over one little under-watched cable news service of no consequence like Fox.

79. #79
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm, DBNinKY said:

    Our local cable system – owned by a very Democrat family – did not even carry FNC until shortly after 9/11. Since then it has become the most watched cable channel they carry in this heavily Democrat region, while MSNBC has been kicked into the high-rent district of premium package where, with all the available versions of HBO, Showtime, et al, no one sees it.

80. #80
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, blues said:

    All the whining about Fox is just another Obama conjob.
    Obama is playing the same game that Clinton did.On every possible domestic issue,he either waffles or takes no clear stance,thereby letting Democrats create as big a mess as possible,distracting attention away from his traitorous foreign policies.
    In order to ensure Republican wins in Congress and Senate,
    (next year,before the elections) Obama will begin to cultivate a better relationship with Fox,in the name of bi-partisanship.Then he can sit back and take credit for the work that Republicans do straightening out the mess that Democrats caused.
    Fox will of course soften its opposition to Obama and ignore the fact that Obama is giving American Sovreignty away to the Globalists and the Mullahs. Obama places himself in a good position for re-election in 2012.
    If he doesn’t get re-elected,so what?He was the first(or second)black POTUS,and moreover, the irrepairable damage to America is already done;which is his ultimate goal.

81. #81
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm, theporch said:

    I think most are missing the point about the obama’s attack on Fox News. I think it is an act of intimidation. If they can intimidate Fox into going more liberal then it will be successful. If they can just cut down Fox a little and convince just some liberals and middle of the road voters that Fox News is in the tank for the Republicans then they would consider these attacks as helping their agenda.

82. #82
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm, Flyoverman said:

    What is significant is that the only media outlet the White House feels it has to concern itself with is Fox News. What their actions imply is all of the other media outlets of significance are considered “friendly.”

    Good journalists are supposed to be by nature skeptical. The lack of skepticism from the rest of the media over all things Obama is the real story here.

    Chap and company can debate how many devils can dance on the head of a journalist’s pen, but the bottom line is jouurnalism as a profession is DEAD. What remains for the most part are politicized cheerleaders.

    These are the conditins which spawn the tyrants. I am not saying Obama is …..yet, but the conditions are ripe for someone, if not today, then soon.

83. #83
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, theporch said:

    I have always found it interesting when I have gone into the VA Hospital in Mobile,Al that the tv’s are always turned to CNN. Never Fox. Guess who runs the VA in Mobile?

84. #84
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, theporch said:

    Just think, the white house says they might go onto Fox News in the future. When that happens it will only drive up Fox’s ratings and viewership. I don’t think they will let that happen. They are being dishonest about the Pres going onto that station.

85. #85
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, Hannibal said:

    My, isn’t that just special Chapoutier. You trot out a PEW poll that you contend shows GOPGin’s statement was in error concerning audience political party preference. That PEW poll was researched as to where people go for their campaign news, not general viewing. Guess you figured the non-professional, home before 5 crowd wouldn’t know the difference.

86. #86
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, chapoutier said:

    They are being dishonest about the Pres going onto that station.

    Like Obama was dishonest when he promised O’Reilly an interview during the primaries?

87. #87
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, John424 said:

    according to wiki

    Now there’s a reliable source!

    I didn’t mean to imply that EVERY cable outlet in the US was like that, just that the practice is widespread.

    But satellite delivery – I find that more interesting. Dish DOES charge more to get into a higher tier to get Fox News. DirecTV (which I believe Rupert Murdoch has an ownership stake in) offers all the news channels at the same price point.

88. #88
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, chapoutier said:

    You trot out a PEW poll that you contend shows GOPGin’s statement was in error concerning audience political party preference.

    No, you tool. I said I could not find his poll and asked him to cite it. In the meantime I cited a poll from the same org that was 1) very similar 2) had very different numbers and 3) was the only one I could find. And then we had a nice discussion about it. I would be happy to discuss with you why you think there would be such an apparent stark difference in where people choose to get their election news, as opposed to their regular news, from.

89. #89
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm, John Deaux said:

    On October 13th, 2009 at 11:53 am, chapoutier said:
    I can’t figure out why the election news audience would be so different…

    I stopped watching the alphabet channels in 2000 after NBC gave Florida to Gore with only 1% of precincts reporting shortly after 7:00 p.m. Eastern. They maintained their position even when Bush had a lead with 3% reporting. Ordinarily, that wouldn’t bother me except for the fact that Florida is in two time zones and the polls hadn’t closed in the Panhandle. That’s a violation of election law and as usual, nobody faced any punishment at all.

    When it comes to news, I want facts, not conjecture, analysis, opinion, or snide comments. I don’t want to hear that whether I agree with it or not.

90. #90
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pm, chapoutier said:

    Dish DOES charge more to get into a higher tier to get Fox News.

    That is most likely because Fox News charges way more per subscriber than CNN or MSNBC.

    I think Fox charges $.60 for each subscriber, CNN charges $.50 and MSNBC charges $.15.

91. #91
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm, John424 said:

    Fox News is actually MORE available than CNN in the US

    Ahh, but “availability” does NOT take into consideration how much you have to pay to get it.

    A station may be “available” on more outlets than another, but it can cost a considerable amount more to get it.

    See the NFL Network for an example of this. The NFL makes this network available to ALL distribution outlets, but they insist on it being a part of the lowest priced, “basic” package no matter the carrier. They have withheld the rights to carry it to those outlets that will only carry it as part of a higher-priced tier. The NFL knows the difference between “availability” and “price point”.

    If you carry a station – at all – then you can claim “availability”, even though the “price point” makes it effectively “unavailable” to the majority of your customers.

92. #92
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:43 pm, chapoutier said:

    John, not sure if this is what you were implying, but the survey was not about election NIGHT coverage, but of all their campaign news through the course of the election.

93. #93
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:46 pm, chapoutier said:

    Ahh, but “availability” does NOT take into consideration how much you have to pay to get it.

    Honestly not sure what they meant. But I assumed they meant “available” as in “it is in the household available for viewing.” It would not make any sense to cite a figure for where it is theoretically available, as that would basically be exactly concurrent with every other mainstream channel out there.

94. #94
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm, John424 said:

    That is most likely because Fox News charges way more per subscriber than CNN or MSNBC.

    Ahh, but couldn’t that difference be made up by the rate they charge for advertising? Higher ratings = higher ad revenue.

    That’s the route that DirecTV seems to have chosen. Why couldn’t Dish do the same?

    Plus, it could actually gain them some customers. Some people may look at the programming packages and say “Well, DirecTV includes stations A, B & C as a part of this price-point, while Dish has those same stations at a higher price-point . . . guess I’ll go with DirecTV.”

    More subscribers means more revenue means better ability to provide even more programming at better price points. And the ability to charge even higher ad pricing.

95. #95
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:50 pm, John Deaux said:

    chap,

    I was mentioning one incident and lamenting the sorry state of the news industry.

96. #96
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, John424 said:

    It would not make any sense to cite a figure for where it is theoretically available

    Oh, but that’s exactly how they do it. Whether it makes any sense or not, availability means just that – the carrier has the station available to the consumer. “Availability” has nothing to do with the rate that is being charged to access the programming.

97. #97
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm, chapoutier said:

    More subscribers means more revenue means better ability to provide even more programming at better price points.

    Wait…you think that getting more subscribers is going to cause Fox News to LOWER their price point? Because that is the exact opposite of what FNC did. They leveraged their high ratings into a bump in their subscriber fee.

98. #98
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:54 pm, chapoutier said:

    Oh, but that’s exactly how they do it. Whether it makes any sense or not, availability means just that – the carrier has the station available to the consumer. “Availability” has nothing to do with the rate that is being charged to access the programming.

    So, by your theory, there are cable or satellite providers in the US that offer FNC but do not offer CNN?

    You cannot be serious.

99. #99
    On October 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm, John424 said:

    addendum:

    “availability” also has nothing to do with how many people actually have the programming in their household (programming package) – it’s strictly whether or not that service provider can provide that particular channel, regardless of how many actually subscribe to it.

100. #100
     On October 13th, 2009 at 12:57 pm, John424 said:

     Wait…you think that getting more subscribers is going to cause Fox News to LOWER their price point?

     That’s not what I’m saying. I’m referring to the service provider’s ability to charge for advertising on that particular station.

     I speak of the service provider, not the programming provider.