Comparing Fox News vs. MSNBC

Ah, dreaming again!!!

 

They also call themselves 'Fox'. To be a fox, they need to be a small furry animal. DOUBLE FAIL!

Oh, wait... 'Fox' is also a euphemism for a 'pretty woman'. In that regard, they WIN!

Does that offset the 'news' fail?

 

Nope, they are FOX, Failed On eXecution, a standard Rupert theme.

 

Ah... good to know.

Maybe they should call it 'newz', or 'nooz'.

As a side note, I became the cynical bastard I am when I made the surprising discovery that there was no crab in 'Krab'.

 

Media matters is giving out propaganda......again...

Kelly was correct when she said there was no flight ban over where the airliner went down: (from your link) which quotes Kelly as saying: not even one over Ukraine, where a commercial airliner was just shot down.


FAA issued a flight ban in a region 200 miles away from where the Malaysian crash occured in the Ukraine.

See here...http://time.com/3001874/ukraine-crash-faa-crimea-airspace/

 

Nah, it's like anything else today, the New Age Progressives have screwed up the language that nothing means anything any more. To them, mass media is the news, they know no better.

 

You're trying to use one mass media source to try and refute another mass media source, not that I really care. Your only challenge was to provide a link where FOX lied and Megyn Kelly is pretty consistent in that arena. Now back to the facts, were there no lies in that piece or did her whole story start off with a lie? Whether she told one lie or a hundred lies is moot, that she lied fits what was asked.

Again, personally I care less because I do not watch her because if there ever was a prostitute, wait I misspelled that, presstitute then the poster child would be her. Oh well same thing except one enjoys more than money.

 

No, I provided a link from TIME magazine that says there was no flight restrictions over the exact area Megyn said there were no flight restrictions. Did you not read it?

She didn't tell any lie about flight restrictions. I PROVED it to you.

We are having a discussion about certain facts, the comment you made about Megyn Kelly is off topic.

 

Time Magizine owned by Time Warner which is the world's second-largest entertainment conglomerate with ownership interests in film, television and print. Can you say CNN that is among them. Are you not aware of reality?

As to the article, not only did I read it but you have plastered some false assertion about it more than once. False you say, yes false as in every lie has some elements of the truth but it's still a lie. Her whole piece led off with a lie interspersed with some aspects of truth to make the lie not so obvious, the mass media and government do it all the time.

Actually you have proven nothing but your ability to cherry pick information to hide what you do not want to understand. Her whole argument was based on a lie.

Again a total lie. We are having a discussion on FOX and MSNBC and who lies the most or as the Title goes "FOX vs MSNBC". You have made a pretty bold statement that FOX doesn't lie and asked for a link to a lie, you got one. So don't stand there and insist that FOX is any different that MSNBC in that department.

 

Yes they are. Fox is perfect for neutering the would be opposition to globalism. Fox has made the gop platform exactly what a global socialist would want it to be. So they win either way. Fox and MSNBC are the same.

 

Explain yourself. From what I'm seeing, you're simply countering any factual data with your personal feelings on the data, and not countering with any facts to prove them wrong. "Got you snowed too eh?" is not a counter argument. Put your facts up to disprove mine cited if you want any credibility in this thread. Just because YOU say it's so does not make it so. Cite sources.

- - - Updated - - -

....except that MSNBC is a DISTANT third place, and has been since Jesus was in short pants.

 

How about you explaining yourself, it was your source or did you not comprehend what it implies? It would seem that the blind see more than most with sight. However, it does have you snowed to the level of not being able to discern facts and just accepting what is shown you as gospel when it is nothing more than conjecture.

Have you actually seen the test data? Of course not. Are you aware that the whole assumption of your source is just that, an assumption based on applying some set of factors with no way to actually determine the validity of those factors? Of course not. Are you aware of the actual sample size, demographics and other relevant factors that make up the actual sample and how this equates to the validity of the factors applied by the formulas used? Of course not.

But somehow you are an expert based on a google search that showed you some chart that you have little knowledge in how to trace or validate the source data. So let's make it easy on you, just what is the data that you use for gospel used for?

So, yes just because I said so after applying the set of criteria as above makes your data unreliable for the purpose for which you try to stipulate it applies, it doesn't.

Oh by the way, your source provided links to footnotes.

 

I didn't expect you being able to explain your comments. But you're good at deflecting with your condescending comments. "So, yes because I said so..." is not a valid response, regardless of how much personal criteria you apply to it. But it does show that the truth has struck a chord with you that you appear unwilling to accept, yet are unable to dispute.

Since I've not had dialog with you before, I'll give you one additional opportunity to cite a source that disproves my source as inaccurate, just in case you didn't understand my previous request.

 

Fox and MSNBC both have news and commentary. Some people cannot tell the difference between the two.

MSNBC is not something that sprung up as something new, FOX was as a response to the left wing MSM and that is why it became popular since there was a drought in bias the rest of the country was hungering for. After all, we all are susceptible to confirmation bias. Since the MSM was only playing to 1/2 of the country, the other 1/2 welcomed FOX.

Now, everyone thinks they are right but when you see something like FOX come along, those opposed attack it because it does not confirm their bias.

MSNBC was an attack response to FOX and like all of the left wing responses to right wing popularity, they never do as well, mostly because they are usually much angrier and people really don't respond to that the same way they respond to more positive messages.

 

I need explain nothing, it was your source. I used nothing other than the source itself as it's own confirmation of inaccuracies. It was you that jumped to conclusions that were never intended nor implied.

Just because you google and find something that meets your preconceived notions does not mean the source is valid for your purposes. Until you can answer the questions I posed, then the source is invalid as presented by you.

 

But their is a real difference between MSNBC and FOX. Only FOX has Rupert Murdock and there is no telling what Rupert will be up to next. He even hires Liberal Progressives just to keep the crap stirred up. Well let me clarify my previous comment, for sure Rupert will never allow too much truth without slant to appear.

Now good old MSNBC, don't even need to watch as you already know their slant, sort of like ice cream and apple pie, comforting to those so addicted.

 

Some people think bias in reporting is something new and awful yet it has always been there from the beginning.

 

I wouldn't say from the beginning. In the early years news had 18 minutes, weather 2 minutes and sports 10 minutes, including commercials. Not much time to do more than report a story and run. Newspapers provided the details.

 

Reporting can be biased in more subtle ways, for instance, not reporting something or reporting one issue as positive and the same issue by someone else as negative. I saw a glaring example when Buchanan was running for President (I know, current age but still applies) where CSPAN had his speech televised from before he went onstage to after and one of the MSM reporting a very negative view because he allegedly choked up during one portion of the speech. The news portrayed it as him having trouble with the question except if you had watched CSPAN you would have seen he had a terrible cold and it had nothing to do with the question.

 

Just another poster making noise without any backup. FAIL! You cannot dispute my source based on your "feelings," so you're just another liberal noisemaker. ROFLMAO!!

 

That is exactly what it has become but I am referring to long ago when news was news. Where sometimes 18 minutes was too much to fill and the mundane had to be used. The days before live broadcasts because trucks weren't big enough to haul a studio.

 

Don't need backup, what part of your source disputing itself do you have a problem understanding? Do you have no clue what your source was? Obviously not, as your source was not intended to prove what you are trying to claim, but then you could find that out if you had actually read it instead of just taking for granted it somehow met the purpose you imposed.

 

Pitiful...

 

msnbc according to a study by Pew research is 85% opinion and 15% news
as fox is 55% opinion and 45% news
so it goes to show that if you watch msnbc for news you are 85% of the time aren't getting news but opinion
so it is fair to say that msnbc is a propaganda network more so then a news network

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/

 

So PEW says and I have no reason to not believe them as I will never watch MSNBC to ever find out personally. FOX, I do somewhat watch because it is more convenient to my schedule even though I prefer NBC, but too much syndicated programming and I care less what is happening at Rockefeller Center.

I will confirm that while both offer much more opinion than facts during the weather forecast, NBC does show the radar more often. As to the rest, they bore me with their bull.

However, that is not the point of contention that you are responding to. That was a source posted as gospel on viewer share that is used to determine not actual users but share data for commercial costs. The whole source is based on huge mathematical factor assumptions using a very small sample without any data on the validity of the sample other than course share data.