2007-01-13 23:03:44 · 11 answers · asked by chefssaltyballs 1 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
most things to do with rupert murdoch are pretty stinky. Dont trust the a hole
2007-01-13 23:07:32 · answer #1 · answered by b-overit 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's gonna be hard to understand the significance of this question without having the chance to compare it with other networks. I think fox news needs to be more balanced in its political stance, but seeing as the owner of it is Republican who can blame them for not being biased? At least they are not christian, so that takes care of many things. They should also be more international. US politics affect the world as much as the world affects it, americans should be given the chance to understand why based not simply on republican commentary but simply on facts. CNN has its merits, but is not as comprehensive as people think. Euronews has good coverage but lacks documentaries and is boring to watch (no news casters!). BBC is not always around and is also not as comprehensive as it should be (i.e. FYI BBC: "Asia" includes other countries beyond India). The point is, Fox News suck, but the others suck in their own ways too, although none of them called a presidential candidate winner before the facts were confirmed, the rest DID follow suit, now i don't know what's worse! I'm forced to watch as many channels as I can, there's just too much going on in the world...and it's not looking good!
2007-01-13 23:38:11 · answer #2 · answered by charlie c 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fox's vitality comes as a consequence of another significant change in the media landscape. Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public's news viewing habits. Since 2000, the Fox News Channel's gains have been greatest among political conservatives and Republicans. More than half of regular Fox viewers describe themselves as politically conservative (52%), up from 40% four years ago. At the same time, CNN, Fox's principal rival, has a more Democrat-leaning audience than in the past.
The public's evaluations of media credibility also are more divided along ideological and partisan lines. Republicans have become more distrustful of virtually all major media outlets over the past four years, while Democratic evaluations of the news media have been mostly unchanged. As a result, only about half as many Republicans as Democrats rate a variety of well-known news outlets as credible a list that includes ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report.
CNN's once dominant credibility ratings have slumped in recent years, mostly among Republicans and independents. By comparison, the Fox News Channel's believability ratings have remained steady both overall and within partisan groups. Nonetheless, among those able to rate the networks, more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say
that about Fox News Channel (32% vs. 25%).
The partisan nature of these ratings is underscored by the fact that, while roughly the same proportion of Republicans and Democrats view Fox News as credible, Fox ranks as the most trusted news source among Republicans but is among the least trusted by Democrats.
The biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that ideology and partisanship also are at work in other media choices and attitudes. The nationwide poll of 3,000 adults, conducted April 19-May 12, 2004, finds that the audiences for Rush Limbaugh's radio show and Bill O'Reilly's TV program remain overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. By contrast, audiences for some other news sources notably NPR, the NewsHour, and magazines like the New Yorker, the Atlantic and Harper's tilt liberal and Democratic, but not nearly to the same degree.
The signs of greater polarization in news choices come against a backdrop of overall stability in the public's preferences. Local TV news continues to be the most popular medium, but regular viewership is still below levels recorded in the mid-1990s. Similarly, reported levels of regular newspaper reading and viewing of network evening news broadcasts have not recovered from their decade-long slump, though they have not declined further.
The traditional news outlets have failed to expand their audiences despite the high level of interest in the war in Iraq, which has led to an uptick in the amount of time Americans spend on the news. Moreover, there has been a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans who say they closely follow international news most of the time, rather than just when important developments occur. The number tracking overseas news closely
most of the time has increased from 37% in 2002 to 52%, which appears to be driven by the broad interest in the conflict in Iraq.
2007-01-14 06:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't like getting both sides of a news item or want to be really informed, it would really suck. I suggest not watching it if it upsets you.
2007-01-14 00:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't suck.
They just happen to show there is another side to the story.
There is no news organization out there telling the whole truth just what they want you to hear to keep you happy.
Because if you did hear the whole truth you may have to admit you maybe wrong.
I knwo no liberal will ever want that to happen.
2007-01-14 08:49:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
LIKE AN ORECK VACUUM CLEANER really well!!!
with more folks asking leading questions like this, maybe the end is closer than they think...
2007-01-13 23:32:40 · answer #6 · answered by mark [mjimih] 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
lol, is it really that bad? I only watch CNN anyway
2007-01-13 23:07:03 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
really bad
2007-01-13 23:09:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
not that bad
2007-01-15 03:30:09 · answer #9 · answered by jerry 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we have a couple of anchors in our area that are really cool.
2007-01-13 23:11:01 · answer #10 · answered by norwood 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋