and the MSNBC brain-washed viwers that are so full of hate swallow the far left gibberish and spin that they actually believe ed schultz has any journalistic integrity, or MSNBC for that matter. if they had any at all, they would not have edited the 911 call from zimmerman to appear racist, hence three workers getting fired, and no on air apologies to any viewers..suck on that one.

if they had any (journalistic integrity) atall, they would not have edited the 911 call from zimmerman to 911

that was one journalist who edited a tape. MSNBC reported on that, they showed journalistic integrity by reporting on it.

when "news of the world" (rupert murdoch) was discovered to have tapped into phone lines, and paid off police for stories that they later published, judy miller and cal thomas, on "fox news watch", were caught talking during a commercial break, where they thought they were safe, but they must have forgotten the camera was on. you know, so fox can show behind the scenes activity, what goes on during a commercial break.

cal thomas said to judy miller and others (i am paraphrasing here), "whose gonna bring up the news story we're not talking about"?. everyone around the table said, "not me".

it was only after they realized that they had been caught talking about rupert murdoch and the phone tapping scandal, that they finally did the story over there at fox. i'm sure you view that as "not very journalistic", as well.

not to mention the fact that fox news has been called out for the editing of tape many times, because they do it frequently. to make crowds look bigger than they are, they showed a tape of a bigger crowd than rellay was at health care reform protest. they also edited tape to make a sarah palin ralley look far more successful than it really was.

its common practice over there at fox. they never apologize either, and NO ONE GETS FIRED.

suck on that one?

Billie I got a better name for fox it's call Tabloid New it fit better.

Fox/Saudi/Propaganda entertainment news.

Not suppose to be a factual statements.

Fox might be full of lies but had I not tuned into them this week I wouldnt know anything abot the catholic church and the health care law. For some reason MSNBC has not reported on it and its not a lie. So I guess sometimes they do tell the truth. Another example would be the 2 reporters in Norfolk that got beat up It was a true story but didnt here it on MSNBC, had to see it on FOX.

If Fox news reported it then it is a made up fake outrage lie, end of story oh misinformed viewer of Fox.

High

Hate to tell you this but MSNBC reported on it. There were at least 2 different programs that covered the story. No, they didn't cover it enough to run it into the ground, but it was covered. But I guess over at Fox Lies, they need to repeat the story over and over to make sure Fox Lies viewers get it.

How bout the trevon martin case wasnt iT talk about a lot on MSNBC? Another possible hate crime happened in Norvolk it didnt get the same amout of coverage. No one was killed but it appeared to be a possible hate crime. When a mob of a certain race beats up 2 people of another race. So why did MSMBC RUN THE MARTIN CASE DAY AFTER DAY?

Waiting for a reply how why MSNBC ran the Trevon Martin case into the ground but not the Norvolk case. I mean ED is taking about birthers but not the law suits on the health care law. I guess Trump trumps the health care law suits.

Highrolla: Yeh like Hannity's running the J. Wright story into the ground...get some new news Fox...J Wright is old news and President Obama still won 4 years ago..lol

Fox should stop lying to the people with the title NEWS!

So should MSNBC. Just admit its a propaganda front for the Democrat party and be truthful about it. Instead of trying, however lamely to present itself as some kind of news channel. Their woeful ratings might go up if Democrats knew it was a channel they could tune in and agree with whatever is said, even if most of it is "progressive" stretch the truth crap.

MSNBC has never clained "news". They say they are a "political" network. At least they don't try to make people believe it has anything to do with news, other than politics. But then if you want "news" MSNBC has thet as well. Just not in the evening programing. Show us where the word "news" appears in MSNBC.

Well at least you admit it is not real "news" as most here believe it is. That's a start.

Fed get your head out of Fox ### it would do your good, somebody told me. MSNBC is Political and dose cover world news.

You should get your head out of MSNBC's a... it might do you some good to see things from a non-liberal bias for awhile.

MSNBC does the same think against Rodmey. They are going tp do ever thing they can to keep him out of The White House. So really its like the pot calling the kettle black.

highrolla: you can't even get his name correct...lol Rodmey...now that's funny...watching way to much Fox are you?

What about the Norfolk case Oreilys been talking about is that a lie? I think its true that 2 white reporters got beat up by a group of African Americans. For some reson MSNBC thought the Travon Martin case needed to be run into the ground, but not the Norfolk case. So actualy Fox does tell truths because yes the Norfolk case really happened.

Fox News viewers less informed than those who don't watch news at all: study

MEENA HARTENSTEIN
Tuesday, November 22, 2011

If Fox News viewers want to be informed about current events, they might as well turn off the TV.

A poll released by Fairleigh Dickinson University on Monday found that people who get their news from Fox News know significantly less about news both in the U.S. and the world than people who watch no news at all.

In a survey of 612 New Jersey natives, Fox News fans flunked questions about Egypt and Syria when compared with people who don't watch the news. Fox viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians toppled their government and 6 points less likely to be aware that Syrians have not yet overthrown theirs.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431182_1_fox-news-results-show-viewers

"In a survey of 612 New Jersey natives, Fox News fans flunked questions about Egypt and Syria when compared with people who don't watch the news"

Another example of how the low rated MSNBC which probably has fewer real viewers then the "612" in this study will run to the hills on another worthless example on why FOX is NUMBER 1 for the last 10 years and MSNBC is third or fourth!!!

Ed Schulz on his BEST day can't touch O Reilly or Hannerty viewership on their WORST DAY!!!

Why would he want to touch them?

Most TV shows beat out Fox in ratings because they're entertainment.

That's why Fox beats out news shows. It's entertainment, not news. People who watch it want to be entertained, not informed. And they are.

What's the matter, Johnny? Feeling your world coming crashing down?

You so want to be the town crier. All you are is the latest clown out of the car.

Another study from Ed.

Ed comes up with some study

As opposed to you Johnny, who offers nothing but your opinion.

johnny,

you told us (Endot) yesterday (thrusday, may 24), under "wisconsin may be voting for a criminal", post #2.2, that you "hardly watch fox".

yet you try to persaude us to watch the "spin zone", "the five", or even a couple of hannity's. you sure know alot about fox news programming for "hardly watching" it.

2 hours is an awfully long time for hardly watching fox.

at least we know why you are so ignorantly misinformed.

Johnny

you be sure to let us know when the "slander suit" is filed against Ed...

btw - "very first place network".....if you meant FOX News - didn't you mean to add in "cable news"?

when FOX News starts out drawing Spongebob give us all a heads up!

I just call it humorous that someone lke Chris is enlightened on people not being informed...

While I find it typical that you are one of them.

Hey Suzette....I do not watch Fox....I work most of the day. When I am on the road, at times I "listen" to Fox on satellite radio...along with Ed, msnbc and cnn. Watch and listen...there is a difference. I accept your apology.

Answer me this Suzette....how many Fox news shows have you ever watched? Have you ever watched O'Reilly? Have you ever watched Hannity? Have you ever watched Greta Van Susteren? Have you ever listened to Sheperd Smith on the news?..........or listened to any of them on satellite radio in your vehicle?

Answer that for me. Thanks

What the study actually concluded was different sources of news will produce different levels of knowledge on a particular subject. According to the study, viewers are generally more knowledgeable when watching a Sunday morning style broadcast - where the format is often calmer and more time is spent on a single issue, rather than the talking head, back and forth format on many cable news stations. For example, viewers of this format were 16 points more likely to know the situation in Egypt, listening to NPR caused an increase of 11 points, and reading a national newspaper caused an increase of 12 points.

While the study does say that viewers of Fox were less likely to know the situation in Egypt and Syria (-18 and -6 points, respectively) viewers of MSNBC were most likely to misidentify the political affiliation of OWS protestors. Talk radio listeners were most likely to be aware of the Republican presidential candidate leading at that current time.

Bottom line - each source of news is biased and can manipulate what the viewers get from a particular program. The best course of action is to get information from multiple sources to get to an educated decision.

Johnny-3188986-

Interesting how you ignore the link I posted on another blog about O'Reilly saying nobody knows what creates the tides, or how come no other planet has moons.

Still see him as a source of information, do you?

Chris...everybody says stupid things. I didn't hear him say that but if he did...that was pretty dumb. Its does not matter....all show hosts say dumb things. That does not mean you don't listen to them. Look at Ed....all the dumb things he says and you still listen to him. And all the dumb things Bill O says and I still listen to him.

We all have to look at all sides with clear glasses. I just happen to be a conservative person who believes in God, who believes marriage was designed by God to be between a man and a woman.....and other biblical principles.

I believe the current president has not been good for this country. Throw away your right or left....conservative or liberal views. He has not been good. He talked a big talk in 2008 and he failed.

Now he wants to do it again and is using the same line....CHANGE.....That is what he used last time. He had 4 years and blew it. No more. This is my opinion. His health care law is a joke and you know it. We do need health care reform...but not Obamacare. You know that.

I just don't like it when people like Ed lie and spin on their show just to push their agenda. Tell the truth. I watch or listen to the first five minutes of Ed's show and have to turn it, he starts to lie and spin. And then he only has people on his show that agree with him and worship him. At least on Fox, the hosts have the other side on to discuss the point.

I am done for the day. See you all.

johnny,

i have watched fox news since its inception in 1996. i still watch fox a little, because i like to know what the repubs are saying.

i have watched and still occasionally watch greta, bill oreilly, hannity, john stossel, huckabee, fox and friends, fox news watch, the five, red eye, judge jeanine, fox news first, sheperd smith, america's newsroom with martha and bill, meygan kelly, geraldo. i'm missing a few, but i think you get the idea that i am VERY familiar with fox news.

i listen to it for entertainmnet purposes, and to see how often they bring up "solyndra" and Eric Holder and "fast and furious". they have nothing good to say about our president, unless it something neutral, like the President's dog. but usually, even when they might have a nice comment about the president, say, in regard to his singing voice-just to be "fair and balanced" they throw in a slam or two.

slamming our president and lying about him is hannity's # 1 job. like the repubs who met on the day of Obama's inauguration, his # 1 goal is to make President Obama a one term president. bill oreilly and greta do the same thing, they just don't repeat themselves as often. greta tries to play devils advocate sometimes, but how she got her own show is beyond me. she is boring, and talks out of the side of her mouth (sorry, i had to slam her).

in regard to bill oreilly, he has people on like dennis miller, bernie goldberg, laura ingraham, dick morris, and etc. who say the things that he will not. he won't say the things that they will, but he shows his approval by giggling like a school girl.

john stossel is a pompous ass- huckabee, too, all under the guise of christianity. that is probably the most offensive thing about fox. they use patriotism, religion war, soldiers as props to hook in a certain type of viewer. i find that disgusting when i believe it is used to manipulate and distract, just like the female "reporters" with their short skirts and implants-sexism at its finest.

allen colmes quit "hannity and colmes" because he found out what a bigot hannity was/is during Obama's run for President.

you all love to say that MSNBC is the same to the left as fox is to the right. that simply is not true. MSNBC leans to the left, but they are not the propaganda arm of the democratic party like fox news is to the repub party. look at all the presidential candidates that were employees of fox news-MSNBC doesn't do that. MSNBC gives a morning talk show to a conservative, joe scarborough who gets to promote his political views for 3 hours a day 5 days a week. tell me where a democrat has that opportunity on fox.

sheperd smith is boring. i don't like the way he delivers the news. and i find it shameful that he has to hide his sexuality (gay) because he works for fox. however, as a repub, that is his choice to be a member of a party that doesn't want him to have the civil rights that the rest of us take for granted.

is there anything else you want to ask me about fox news?

i know all about fox news, having watched it for years.

Saying Obama hasn't done what he said he would, so you want to vote for a Republican, is like saying the police force hasn't done a good job arresting criminals, so you want to hire the criminals.

So Johnny, haven't you watched 'Out-foxed?' Or are you afraid to find out the real truth? Don't you know that Fox News is not allowed in Canada because they have a law that if you claim to be a news station you can't deliberately lie? Did you know that the only people promoted at Fox are those that are willing to 'spin' tall tails about how terrible Obama is, or progressives or anything that doesn't agree with their far-right stance? Did you hear recently of the 'Fox Mole' (Joe Muto) who just wrote a book about what really goes on inside Faux News? Do you know anything about Murdoch who owns the channel and wasn't even born in America? I personally cannot watch Fox because every time I do, they are outright nasty, character assassins of anyone who doesn't agree with them. And they very obviously have hated Obama from the start. Come on, not giving him credit for killing Osama Bin Laden or saving the Auto Industry or for anything else for that matter. But you'll never hear anything negative about Mitt, because he's part of the elite pack.

Chris, as I've said before on here. There are liberals on these blogs who use logic, congruent thought processes, etc. I disagree with them, but see their point. I've never thought of you in that light. Maybe someday, you will respond to something in a way that would be idictative of thought processes. I will point it out in a congrats mode when I see it.

Oh, joy. I wait in anticipation. Kind of like waiting to see a mentally challenged person learn to use a spoon.

johnny,

no response to MY answer to YOUR question, how many fox news shows have you watched? have you ever watched oreilly, hannity, greta van susteren? have you ever listened to sheperd smith on the news?

no response?

i wrote all that for nothing?

botany lady,

thanks for the tidbit that fox news is not allowed in canada. i wasn't aware of that.

Suzette

If you don't think MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democrat party, you are being naive. If you think they are anything approaching a legitimate news organization you are naiver still. MSNBC and FOX are exactly the same. If you rely on anything they say to form your opinions and biases then you are not doing your home work. They are around to attempt to incite their respective bases, who fortunately represent a tiny miniority of voters in this country. The far radical left and right. I occasionaly watch Ed and Maddow for the entertainment value. Same with Hannity and Greta. I rely exactly 0% on any of them for factual, objective reporting of the facts. Same thing for the RNC or the DNC.

The one thing I do know is factual is the Department of Treasury's Financial Management Service website which has black and white numbers in the Monthly Treasury Statement for how much the Federal Government is spending by program and how much the deficit and accumulated debt are. And being a financial/budget professional that is what I am basing my decision on who to vote for. I voted for Clinton due to the way he and the Republican Congress managed the budget. I can not say the same for Obama. when he claimed during the 2008 election that he was going to cut Bush's deficit in half I supported his position whole heartedly. He has failed miserably. It is his job to have his administration through the Office of Management and Budget work with the Congress and reduce the out of control spending. That has not happened and we now have $15 trillion in debt of which $5 trillion is his. Pundits will try and slant the responsibility for the debt on Bush but the black and white numbers are in the Treasury statements. And nothing Ed or anyone else says will change that.

afed,

most of the 5 trillion is paying off what W. bush put on the credit card.

plus, when bush reported on the "state of the union", and etc, he did not include the debt/cost of the two wars, he never told the american people the "true" deficit because he never INCLUDED IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

when President Obama took office he told us this, and when Obama reports on the deficit, debt and spending, he INCLUDES THE TWO WARS.

no way could President Obama rack up 5 trillion, unless he was paying down W. bush's debt.

MSNBC is NOT the propaganda arm of the democratic party. i am not confused, i am not drinking "the koolaid", and i am not naive.

MSNBC AND FOX are NOT exactly the same. MSNBC did not have 5 paid democrats who were thinking of running/running for president, like fox news did.i have watched fox news for years, so don't tell me that MSNBC is the same as fox.

you don't see that the repubs/baggers in washington have refused to do anything with this president, because they "don't want to give him a win". the repub/baggers are keeping their promise to EACH OTHER to say "no" to every economic policy that that President Obama puts forth. they are also keeping their pledge to grover norquist, to not raise taxes. their only concern is for themselves and their party, not the american people.

we have to make cuts, but we also have to increase revenues.

the repubs are a "do nothing" party, they have refused to work with this president, and they think "compromise" means coming over to their side.

stop telling me i am naive. i don't agree with everything MSNBC says. fox news viewers are the naive ones. they follow like sheep.

their loyalty is to breast implants and short skirts (sexism).

anything for ratings, but their ratings are going down.

MSNBC doesn't manufacture phony videos like Fox does. Go to YouTube, type "phony fox videos" in the search box, and see what you get. There's a lot of them.

Chris

I don't trust MSNBC. FOX or you tube.

Suzette

You've got to stop using the Dem's talking points when it comes to the President's record on the budget and the deficit. Department of Defense military expenditures including those for funding the two wars have always been on budget and are reflected in the Department of Treasury's Monthly Treasury Statement. Just go to the web site and see how much it increased after 2002. I know it takes a little time and effort and using your mouse but it is not that hard. And the reason the deficit ballooned to $1.4 trillion during Obama's first year and has continued since is the additional $900billion stimulus spending, not paying off Bush's war debt. Obama has actually increased Defense spending for the Afghanistan war. Facts my dear, facts. Now go and have a nice Memorial Day and honor our fallen heroes like I will.

afed,

don't patronize me. i know alot about this, because i make it my business to learn the TRUTH.

the US military has LARGELY paid for the wars in iraq and afghanistan using emergency spending measures, which means they kept the wartime costs off the books. they "hid" the soaring budget growth at the dept. of defense. members of congress probably didn't like this lack of oversight, but for the most part, they went along with it.

i remember when President Obama addressed the nation on feb 24, 2009, he said, "NO MORE", "that is why the budget looks ahead 10 years and accounts for spending that was left out UNDER THE OLD RULES-and for the FIRST time, that includes the full cost of fighting in iraq and afghanistan. for seven years, we have been a nation at war. no longer will we hide its price."

the budget may have increased after 2002, but bush kept the majority of the wars OFF THE BOOKS. do some research, it is common knowledge. i don't know why you find that so hard to believe, he lied about WMD in iraq, and then lied again and said the intelligence was bad. he outed Valarie Plame, a CIA agent because her husband, Joe Wilson wouldn't lie about WMD in iraq. his was a personal vendetta against saddam hussein for threatening to kill his daddy. he pulled troops from the tora bora mountains in afghanistan when they had bin laden in their sights, and gave no reason to the troops, just sent them into iraq, a second war in march of 2003, the same month he signed the second part of the bush tax cuts into law.

who does that? starts two wars, and cuts taxes.

stupid, stupid, stupid.

i know all about what Obama did in afghanistan. he said he was going to do that, and he also said he would ramp up the hunt for bin laden, and kill him. DONE.

i watched fox and friends this morning, and i was treated to a CELEBRATION OF WAR. all the symbols of patriotism and war. oliver north, the war criminal. the eagle, and flags and vietnam.

repubs sure are big on the symbolisms of war and patriotism.

one of the fist signs of FASCISM.

Its really useless to try and debate the Federal budget process, deficits and hard facts with closed minded progressives. I'll just let the fact that I spent 35 years as budget analyst in a central financial agency in the Federal Government as to who knows what they are talking about. Adios.

afed,

on sept 21, 2011, mitch daniels, who once served as top budget official to W. bush, in an interview with Brian Lehrer, denies that the wars in afghanistan and iraq seriously contributed to the budget deficit.

Lehrer asked daniels if democrats have a point when they say that "bush caused much of the debt problem by putting the iraq and afghanistan wars off the books".

daniels replied, "no, they really don't have a point, and it isn't useful to look backwards". he also went on to say that it isn't necessary to defend the reason that the wars were kept off the books. he says he doesn't spend much time in the "books", because that would be looking backwards, it would be counterproductive to place blame for keeping the wars (and medicare part D) off the books, and we would be wasting precious time. he asks the question, "what do we do now"?

blame President Obama? it looks to me like that is what they have decided to do.

admission from mitch daniels, the top budget official to WW. bush, is NOT denying, in fact he is AGREEING, that iraq and afghanistan (and medicare part D) were KEPT OFF THE BOOKS.

there are too many articles to count by repubs and democrats who say that "bush cooked the books".

the main reasons the united states went from huge surpluses (clinton) to huge deficits is mostly because of the bush tax cuts and war spending in afghanistan and iraq (illegal war) and medicare part D.

daniels defends going to war in afghanistan and iraq, and cutting taxes while we were fighting 2 wars.

surprise surprise.

And Obama's unfunded $900 billion stimulus in 2009 and which has continued for all the years he has been president is just a figment of everyone's imagination. Riiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt.

11.23

LOL oh my thanks for the good laugh this morning before heading off to work after a good three day weekend.

We had a great weekend down here in Carolina too. Golf, the beach, waterskiing, cookouts and honoring our fallen heroes. And I'm glad you got a laugh about something on this wacky site, although it's hard to understand what is funny about $5 trillion in new debt. But to each his own.

Suzette

I respect your attempts to look at both sides of the issue. But I want to provide you with some dollar amounts on Defense Military spending for the past 10 years from the Monthly Treasury Statement.

FY 2001 $291 Billion

FY 2002 $332 Billion

FY 2003 $389 Billion

FY 2004 $437 Billion

FY 2005 $474 Billion

FY 2006 $500 Billion

FY 2007 $530 Billion

FY 2008 $595 Billion

FY 2009 $637 Billion

FY 2010 $667 Billion

FY 2011 $678 Billion

You can see from this data that defense spending has indeed been reflected on budget based on the large increases beginning in FY 2003 and continuing through 2011. There was no huge spike in Obama's first year 2009. Just the average % spending increase that occurred during each year of Bush's last term.

Also if you look at other major spending programs for the 2009-2011 time frame, the Depts of Agriculture, Education, HHS, Labor, and Transportation had large percentage increases from 2008 that reflect the original and on-going stimulus spending.

You can debate whether the wars were justified and whether the stimulus spending was worth it, but to keep insisting that Defense spending on the wars was only put on budget when Obama became pres is just not factual.

Also, Mitch Daniels was the first of four OMB directors under Bush. And he left in 2003 before most of the war spending occurred. I don't think that qualifies him as the ultimate expert on the presentation of war expenditures in the Federal budget .

oh, you hardly "watch", but you listen?????

please.

you are getting into semantics.

technically, what's the difference between "watching" and "listening"?

is the information you receive on you car radio somehow different than when you "hardly watch" it on TV?

i don't understand your logic. please explain to me what the difference is.

perhaps you are trying to avoid all the implants and short skirts, the exploitation of their female "reporters"?

fake noise, or the no news channel.......Never saw a lie they wouldn't use.

Always look for scandal or making it up.

It is amazing how they operate and how the right wing nut jobs lap it up.

They praise idiots like lush limpbrain

and laugh at the nut jobs every time they get away with their stupidity.

Their follewers, bless their hearts, are too dumb to know they have been had.

By the way, the topic of this post is about fox.

Did you know Obama said that he has lowered the deficit since he has been president. Can you believe that? That is just a down right lie. He has tripled it. Stop the lying folks. Play fair.

Johnny, it sounds like you are getting debt and deficit mixed up. They are not the same thing. Just saying....

you are getting debt and deficit mixed up. They are not the same thing.

LOL how are they different exactly?

Debt = what we owe

Deficit = Revenue - Expenses = a negative number representing what we owe = Debt

The national debt...

So each year's deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending,
it's called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt.

Every time the federal government receives more revenue than it spends, it decreases the national debt. Is the national debt going to get paid off overnight? No, it's going to take time but every time we lower the deficit we're that much closer. Everyone who has an outstanding balance on their personal credit card and makes monthly payments on that credit card should understand that.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying you are one of the millions of people who make monthly payments on credit cards. I don't know you. As far as I know, you could be like my husband and I who pay our CC's off every month.

Johnny you have learned to lie just like Fox News, Romney and Walker... I bet you are proud of yourself. You shouldn't be.........

Why not bring up old news? Did you also hear his appology to her. On the radio program, On the TV program ands by phone. Did you also hear that he removed himself from the Radio and TV for a week without pay? Didn't think so.

And just for your information, Ed did not do the survey. He reported on it. But don't let that stop you from coming on this blog for the sole purpose of bad mouthing him.

he removed himself from the Radio and TV for a week

Larry..........he went fishing......and you know that!!!!!!

btw A lot of people take a week off without pay........it's no big deal.

btw a lot of people take a week off without pay.....its no big deal

no one on fox news does it after they have slurred someone. no one on fox news has taken themselves off the air, or have been suspended for slurring others. the reason for that is because fox news tells their employees what to say, and they all agree.

as for going fishing, may as well do something with time off.

Yeah cause you know it isn't really watching Fox news unless you are sitting in front of a TV so he isn't really misinformed because he doesn't watch Fox news he only listens to Fox news and everyone knows it isn't the words Fox news misinforms with it is the images. Boy talk about misinformed, he takes the cake.

Eduardo- could you address the accuracy of the study? Maybe the p value for statistical significance. Or the Adj R sq value or the MAPE of the study? That data should be available because it was from an educational institution.

I think they're fairly unbalanced.

Tell me John...how does your observation of Fox compare to your observation of MSNBC...i.e. Hardball, Ed show....Lawrence O'donnell...come on man...tell me if that network is distorted. I would like to hear your opinion.

Johnny- As for bias- I would put Fox News on par with MSNBC. Most of the difference is that MSNBC doesn't really have a news segment- they only have opinion segments followed by "Prison- Reno style" reruns.

And more misinformation and distraction by good old Fox viewer rusty.

WHY has MSNBC not reported on the catholic church and health care this week. Are did they and I just missed it, because that story is true and Fox has been talking about it all week. How about the 2 reporterrs in Norfok that got beat up, that story is true as well.

Because it isn't a story but a fabrication made up in the minds of Fox news producers and spread to keep Fox viewers in the delusional land of fake outrage.

rolla,

it is true, about 40 catholic churches/groups are suing the Obama administration.

there are MANY others who are NOT suing. they agree with President Obama.

there have been many discussions about this on MSNBC.

the only reason fox news discusses it is because they think it is a scandal, like fast and furious and solyndra.

fox news LOVES anything that they think makes Obama look scandalous.

Ok- One liberal is lying. Which is it. Whom says Catholic Orgs suing about health care is made up and Suzette says it is true.

Either whom is in the middle of a bold face lie or suzette is. Could anyone shed some light on which one is being honest?

No oh rusty one what I said is that Fox is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Or better known as fake outrage, what Fox is doing is saying a few Catholic organizations are suing that its doom and gloom for Obama even though the majority of Catholics don't care.

whom- let me paste your quote: "a fabrication made up in the minds of Fox news producers and spread to keep Fox viewers in the delusional land"

are you now claiming that you misspoke? I can accept that in the act of being stupid, you used the wrong words. And I enjoy the fact that you will most likely continue to draw attention to that fact.

Suzette- you are off the hook. It seems you spoke the truth, and the other side has come clean.

Still trying to discredit me I see rusty, you failed again. Anyone with reading skills would have known that what Suzette said and what I said are the same, she just chose to say more then I did because I try to keep it simple so you tea bagging republicans can understand it, we know you have a weakness of word comprehension. A fabrication is taking something out of context to make it seem to be a bigger problem then what it is and making mountains out of mole hills or better known as fake outrage.

whom- there wasn't any context except for a statement that there was a lawsuit against Obamacare. Your words said that it was a fabrication. Suzette's words were that it was true. You've now come back with a "what I really meant was..."

I'm willing to leave it at that- you shot off stupidly without thinking and wrote something that you really didn't mean.

What about the Norfolk incident it was rather big story, a group of africa americans beat up 2 whites? I know usaly when its a possible hate crime it gets a lot of coverage.

No rusty what I said was Fox news fabricated the story to make it sound worse then it was. That you are making a big issue out of what I said is a classic example of what Fox news does. That don't fly here rusty.

I know you said Fox News fabricated the story. The reason they did- to make it sound worse, to ruffle up feathers, etc- is a matter of speculation. You could be right or you could be wrong- you just have an opinion.

If you really meant it differently- then you would have used words like enhanced, or exaggerated. Fabricated means they made it up.

What you do on these blogs does fly here. It is the norm. Liberals responding to everything by calling names and tossing out talking points. Must be a class you all take when you join moveon and huffpo.

It is fabricated rusty just because you chose to ignore that Fox tried to create a scandal doesn't mean that it wasn't Fox news intentions to not fabricate a outrage. The way Fox news ran the story made it a fabrication. Pretty much like you rusty in your attempts to fabricate I said more then if it is put out by Fox news then it is nonsense and just goes to show how misinformed people like you are.

Sort of like when you claim people are working longer hours. You are fabricating that in order to make your theory sound more plausible.

Right rusty because it is all a plot made up by liberals to fool you poor wannabe rich into giving up your dreams of wealth. Of course rusty is right because he is a big man in his own mind. Keep it up rusty all you are doing is proving how misinformed you really are.

Sort of like when you claim people are working longer hours

When I was making my way up the ladder I prayed for longer hours. Long hours are one of the keys to success.

Poor jerry once again shows just how dumb Fox news makes its viewers. Why next week jerry will claim that he won the Boston Marathon, after all jerry we already know how internet brags are 99.9% made up in the minds of braggarts, or better known as delusions of grandeur.

Whom- there are two sorts of fabrications. One stems from ignorance. Someone just doesn't know any better. I truly believe this is the camp you were in when you started down this path. Just ignorant. No crime in that. Just takes an open mind to get beyond that. Then- once the facts are realized and the fabrication continues- well, that becomes just plain lies. The positive is that on this subject, you have moved beyond being ignorant. The negative is that you've shown your colors as to being willing to knowingly lie in order to foment and argument. But, now back to the positive- I haven't lost an ounce of respect for you in all of this. I have the exact same lack of respect for you as when we started.

Gosh- you present facts that whom is a liar- and she is nowhere to be found.

Cute. You compare daytime reporting on Fox, when the individual hosts aren't on, to nighttime reporting on MSNBC, when it's all individual hosts, and complain that MSNBC doesn't report the news.

Well, I WATCHED MSNBC during the day, and guess what? All they do is report the news. Just like you say Fox does.

Keep it up, Johnny. You're fooling everyone.

Chris

When Kerry was running how many times did MSNBC refer to his massive wealth.? Thanks for asking. The answer is 2....two!!

How many times have they referred to Romney's massive wealth? More than two ????

Ola Eduardo...who said I thought less of Suzette. See how you distort things? Just a prime example.

The reason left-wingers go on Fox is because they aren't afraid to. The reason you rarely see right-wingers on MSNBC is because they won't come on. They are repeatedly invited, but they know they won't get away with the lies they tell on Fox.

Republicans lie about things and not being called out about them. Romney does it
every time he gets in front of a microphone. He tell the same lies so many times
that I think people will believe him.
I would say to anyone that hears Mitt
Romney talk to an audience or be in an interview to google what he said. You
will find that most of the time it is not the truth.

John D. Taylor

I've noticed that, too, John D. Consistent, verifiable falsehoods, half-truths, exaggerations, etc.

I know this because I obtain information that shapes my worldview from multiple sources - print, op-ed columns, NPR, broadcast news, cable news, including MSNBC and CNN. I occasionally take in FOX just to see what they're saying. The conclusion I've come up with FOX is that they present real news from a hard right perspective, but they interestingly omit certain details that might not reflect positively on their favorite politician. Because of this deliberate presentation of incomplete and bias reporting, I don't usually pay much attention to them other than when I'm in the lobby of a building downtown where TV sets are tuned in to FOX.

As for MSNBC, yes, their prime time talk show hosts present news from a left of center perspective (I'm thinking Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Lawrence O'Donnell, but as far as I can tell they do present real, verifiable news using charts from official agencies such as BLS, IRS, etc.

But, and this seems to be overlooked by FOX fans, MSNBC has Morning Joe Scarborough, a self-professed "small government conservative" and former Republican Congressman from Florida. They also have as regulars on their talk shows such as former Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, Republican strategist, Steve Schmidt, and others. Until recently Pat Buchanan was on staff. The prime time hosts interview people from all ideological persuasions if they can find people willing to come on the shows. Examples are Grover Norquist, Chris Christie, and other similar died-in-the-wool conservatives. As such, MSNBC is much more rounded and broad based than FOX, where prime time hosts conduct interviews with only other conservatives where there is no back and forth, no debating the issues - just ganging up on "leftists, "liberals", and other enemies of the conservative movement.

Again, I base my worldview on what I consider reliable sources, be they newspapers, NPR, or whatever. And I've found that FOX is an utterly unreliable source of information (mis-information, if you will). Unfortunately there are a lot of people who just don't know any better - FOX is all they watch - and some of them are my friends and neighbors. In their minds, they have the right ideas about the issues of the day, such as taxes, the machinations of Congress, etc. They think I'm dead wrong, and there's nothing that will change that.

They lie to for example Madow made big thing about woman getting paid less than men . Flat out lie on my last job a lady with the same job title as me made 10 dollars more an hr than I did. She made more money than anybody in that dept. So to say that women makes less than men is a lie. I know this for a fact because the lady made more than me a fact. Also Ed got 1 billionare to come on and say he didnt have any employees. Another lie no way in hell the biilionare didnt have any employees , if he had 1 employee he created 1 job. So you see MSMBC lies alot too.

Yeah. They didn't find out what your personal experiences were. So that negates the experiences of millions of women.

Thats right she should have got the facts straight and said some women instead of saying women period. Fact some men make less than some women fact. Rachel however lied fact.

rolla,

there will always be an exception to the rule as in your personal experience above.

AS A GENERAL RULE, men make more than women across the board.

one case doesn't prove anything.

there will always be exceptions.

Rachel didn't lie.

how much of an explanation do you all need to grasp the truth?

Truth or truth that fits their delusional beliefs? There lays the problem Fox news panders to the delusional paranoid population that bought the Reagan myth on everything from the economy to deficits, they will ignore all truth if it fails to fit their beliefs.

Ok she didnt lie however she was very misleading because like you say there are always exceprions to the rule. She should have stated that there are exceptions instead of makin like its all women who make less. Which brings us to the point if a man makes less can he sue as well? If a women can sue should a man, it only makes sense. Maybe Foxes lies are exception to the rule as well.

rolla,

with all due respect, i have noticed, especially since participating on this blog, that you all think in black or white only. there is no gray area.

MEN MAKE MORE THAN WOMEN ACROSS THE BOARD, as a general rule.

if a man wants to sue, more power to him. i don't care. if he thinks he has a case, he should sue.

as a general rule, women have a very good case, as men do make more than women across the board.

i don't need anyone to tell me, "there are exceptions to the rule".

the fact that there are exceptions to the rule IS UNDERSTOOD. why do we have to tell you that? how old are you, if you don't mind my ask?

i feel like we have to explain things to you that should be taken for granted. it must be a genetics thing, this repub "condition" that you all have.

live and let live.

thank god i'm a liberal.

Why didn't you admit that you copied this from Fox? Didn't want people to know that Fox didn't like the poll?

Welcome to the Vine watsonelizabeth@yahoo.com. Just an FYI, your post violates section 4A of the COH.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement will not be tolerated. If you did not write something, do not portray it as your own (use the "blockquote" tag and cite your source by linking to the original content). If you do not have the right to republish the content in question, do not post it to Newsvine.

http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/cms/info/codeOfHonor

Here's how ya do it.

Fox News responded to the University, as this is the second study from the university saying the same:

“Considering FDU’s undergraduate school is ranked as one of the worst in the country,” said the FNC spokesperson, “we suggest the school invest in improving its weak academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling – their student body does not deserve to be so ill-informed.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/yet-another-survey-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed-npr-listeners-best-informed/

By the way, you do know there are more than 650 colleges in the US, don't you?

The University is proud to be ranked by Forbes Magazine as one of the top 650 four-year undergraduate institutions in the United States, out of more than 2,700 universities.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205240015

No, she doesn't. She doesn't know anything.

Thanks for the heads up, T-800. I'm not watsonelizabeth but I forgot to list my source in post #15.5. I found it on http:// www.afn.org/~concord/coalition/debtdef.htm.

LOL thanks.

its not about ratings.

tell that to the advertisers?

Yet You and Ed Schulz love talking about Rush Limbaugh's ratings all the time!!

But then again If I was always STUCK in 3rd or 4th Place I would say the same thing

"its not about ratings."

LOL

I wouldn't use OReilly, Hannity or Rush for toilet paper. They are below my standards... Guess you can guess what I think about you "watson"...You're not to bright to use an email address by the way...I'm just saying...

yes you would rather get it from the unbiased MSNBC"s Chris Matthews:

Last night during MSNBC's Potomac Primary coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were discussing Barack Obama's speech. Matthews — who, in the past, has both cried over an Obama speech and compared him to Jesus — described exactly what happens to him when Obama speaks:

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.

LMAO

Here's a larger sampling:

What you know depends on what you watch: Current events knowledge across popular news sources

People learn most from NPR, Sunday Morning Shows, 'The Daily Show'

According to a follow-up survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMindTM, NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people's current events knowledge. This nationwide survey confirms initial findings presented in a New Jersey focused poll (from November of 2011).

In the study, 1,185 respondents nationwide were asked about what news sources they consumed in the past week and then were asked a variety of questions about current political and economic events in the U.S. and abroad. On average, people were able to answer correctly 1.8 of 4 questions about international news, and 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs.

However, the study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly. The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Results for questions about international current events were similar. People who didn't have any reported exposure to news sources were expected to answer 1.28 questions correctly, a figure which rose to 1.97 for people just listening to NPR, to 1.60 for people just watching The Daily Show or listening to talk radio, and 1.52 for Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind people watching Sunday morning shows. By contrast, people who reported watching just Fox News were expected to answer just 1.08 questions correctly.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/