Most trusted name in news... my a$$.

[mezz]

Soledad, pathetically, tries to make her network proud.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...d-debate-romne

[finnbow]

I'm no fan of CNN, but think it's OK for an interviewer to challenge a partisan politician with the opposing viewpoints. Otherwise, the network would become like Faux and simply become a mouthpiece or propaganda tool for a party. As bad as it is, CNN has a long way to go before it's as bad as Faux.

[mezz]

Yeah. Their ratings continue to head in opposite directions.

[beej]

Originally Posted by mezz

Yeah. Their ratings continue to head in opposite directions.

Should I infer from this that you equate viewership with credibility?

[mezz]

Originally Posted by beej

Should I infer from this that you equate viewership with credibility?

Not really. But I've watched them all and Fox deserves its high ratings. MSNBC is the absolute worst. Have you ever seen The Ed Show? Ed Schulz is perhaps the dumbest guy on TV (he tries to be a left-wing Rush... yet fails miserably)... while Chris Matthews is the rudest interviewer going. I've never seen Matthews not talk incessently over any guest who espouses any views which oppose his own. I'll channel surf through MSNBC during FOX commercials sometimes, but usually can only watch a few minutes as the stupidity of the commentary is so insulting. I'll usually choose to watch a commercial or the weather channel instead.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by mezz

Not really. But I've watched them all and Fox deserves its high ratings. MSNBC is the absolute worst. Have you ever seen The Ed Show? Ed Schulz is perhaps the dumbest guy on TV (he tries to be a left-wing Rush... yet fails miserably)... while Chris Matthews is the rudest interviewer going. I've never seen Matthews not talk incessently over any guest who espouses any views which oppose his own. I'll channel surf through MSNBC during FOX commercials sometimes, but usually can only watch a few minutes as the stupidity of the commentary is so insulting. I'll usually choose to watch a commercial or the weather channel instead.

What you see depends on where you stand (and it's obvious where you stand). Maddow and Shulz are no different than Hannity and O'Reilly in terms of obnoxiousness (though Maddow is probably the smartest and least obnoxious of the bunch). All of this sort of "journalism" is guilty of confirmation bias, i.e., putting a spin on things to confirm the audience's bias. None of this stuff is news. It's chewing gum for the minds of the brain-dead.

[beej]

I'll give you MSNBC is hardly objective but they are not really any different from Fox in that regard. MSNBC is decidedly left leaning; Fox clearly right-leaning. Surely you can't disagree with that.

[Twodogs]

Originally Posted by beej

I'll give you MSNBC is hardly objective but they are not really any different from Fox in that regard. MSNBC is decidedly left leaning; Fox clearly right-leaning. Surely you can't disagree with that.

Yes indeed, however I feel O'Reilly is pretty good at giving equal time.

[CarlV]

I feel blessed not to be paying for any of those bullshit news channels. They should be paying you guys IMO. At least make it free and so you would be paying for what it is worth.


Carl

[barbara]

Ok.... I'm waiting..... Which right winger is going to say that fox entertainment is the most watched 'news' show?

Being the most watched show puts fox right there with the Jerry Springer show.... Some people just love sensationalism regardless of the slop they have to put up with while viewing it.