MSNBC's top programs provide more than 18 times as much coverage of Haiti earthquake as Fox News' to

@djjd62,

CNN, MSNBC and Air America....following the path of the Raphus cucullatus...yawn...

@BigTexN,

i watch one half hour of national news a day, and it's news, no commentary, no propaganda, just here's what happened i the world and the country (canada)

95% of the cable news crap from both sides of the spectrum is not news it's propaganda to promote on political cause or another, it should be labeled as such

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Quote:

95% of the cable news crap from both sides of the spectrum is not news it's propaganda to promote on political cause or another

If it's truly propaganda then isn't it a bit disingenuous to expect that they cover "real" news stories?

How is it that Oddermann and Madcow are expected to "report" on Haiti when we all know they are 95% leftist propaganda?

When I watch them, I know what to expect. I don't expect them to be serious news journalists...therefore, extolling an argument that a MSNBC or CNN non-journalist covered the Haiti story more than the FOX non-journalist would be a mute argument, wouldn't it?

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

there's a lot of idiots on both sides of the fence that either don't know or don't care, that's the problem

you guys saw that in your last election, oooh free stuff where do i sign up, and the next is likely to be the same, oooh, we're fighting communism on our home soil, were do i sign up

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

Apparently, you're just as stupid as Rapist Boy. Once again, if you follow the link which Miss Olga posted, you will see that the comment i made referred to the report that CNN's online news site gets almost 26 million hits per month, as opposed to Fox's online news site, which gets just over 7.5 million hits. Why are these things so difficult for conservatives to understand? Is it because they only have a one dimensional view of the world? Do you think that people only get news if they watch the television? Have you heard of newspapers, magazines, the internet?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

...and their shows ratings? How do they compare?

A wayward Google search could count my "hit" on CNN's site but I have to consciously decide to watch a FOX, CNN or MSNBC show.

Which is more representative of true, loyal and interested viewership?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Apparently, you're just as stupid as Rapist Boy. Once again, if you follow the link which Miss Olga posted, you will see that the comment i made referred to the report that CNN's online news site gets almost 26 million hits per month, as opposed to Fox's online news site, which gets just over 7.5 million hits. Why are these things so difficult for conservatives to understand? Is it because they only have a one dimensional view of the world? Do you think that people only get news if they watch the television? Have you heard of newspapers, magazines, the internet?

BTN's point IS about the cable outlet, not the online outlet. You said:

Setanta wrote:

My comment was that when people go looking for news online, they go to CNN

However, what you previously said was:

Setanta wrote:

When people go looking for the news, they go to CNN, not Fox.

You said nothing in that earlier post about only looking online.

Dumbass.

0 Replies

It's in the text of the linked report, which apparently you didn't read either, dumbass.

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

I noted quite early on in this thread (which i suspect you have not read) that Fox has higher viewer ratings, and that it is noted in the sources that publish this information that this is among repeat viewers. As i also pointed out later, Fox has affiliated stations which broadcast in the clear, and that people watch those stations for local news, weather and sports as well as the conservative drivel. So, it appears that you have neither read the thread, nor read the link provided by Miss Olga, to which my remarks referred. When people go looking for news, as in actually making an effort more strenuous than sitting on your fat ass on the sofa and pushing buttons on the remote, they go to the CNN news web site more often than to the Fox news web site by a factor of more than three to one.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

When people go looking for news, as in actually making an effort more strenuous than sitting on your fat ass on the sofa and pushing buttons on the remote, they go to the CNN news web site more often than to the Fox news web site by a factor of more than three to one.

Evidently, for you, sitting on your fat ass in your chair clicking with your mouse constitutes strenuous activity. And you expected the rest of us to know that by "looking for news" you meant clicking the mouse rather than clicking the remote.

What a maroon.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

While we are considering the inane prattlings of Setanta on this thread, we must be mindful of this jewel:

Setanta wrote:

Comparing CNN and MSNBC to Fox is a case of comparing apples to oranges, because CNN and MSNBC are to be found either on cable or on a satellite feed, but not through an affiliated television station. Many people who tune into a Fox affiliate (or ABC, NBC or CBS) do so because they want to get local news, weather and sports coverage. PBS has many respected news programs, such as "The News Hour," "Washington Week in Review" or "Tony Brown's Journal," to name but three--however PBS stations do not provide local news coverage, so they're not typical in that respect, either.

The link Hawkeye provided regarding ratings (this one: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-thursday-ratings-dominate-cable-news-haiti-coverage/) refers specifically to the Fox News channel, a specific and distinct news network, not the Fox Channel affiliates. Thus it appears the only one comparing apples to oranges is you, jackass.

The hypocrisy of you wading into this thread to accuse others of being "stupid" and not reading the links, is stunning (but not surprising).

0 Replies

You're hilarious, dancing boy. You just can't resist the temptation to try to pick a fight with me, can you? You seethe with what one perspicacious Prussian referred to as the rage of dreaming sheep. Have fun with your bile and your outrage, dancing boy--who won't be joining you is me. (And i'm not suprised to see you ally yourself to the Rapist Boy--a.k.a. Hawkeye--your dreaming rage will lead you into any devil's bargain if you think you can take a swipe at me. How pathetic you are.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

As i also pointed out later, Fox has affiliated stations which broadcast in the clear, and that people watch those stations for local news, weather and sports as well as the conservative drivel.

I'll have to try and catch Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly on my local "affiliated station" ...oh yeah, I CAN'T!!

If CNN's website is the bomb, why bother with them having a ratings losing cable newscast at all?

Let them be all web all the time!

Ah, but we all know the reason why they can't do that now don't we?

Bankruptcy would be that much swifter!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
This earthquake is part of a continuum of self inflicted Haitian tragedies. Money and sympathy are better spent elsewhere, someplace where their is a reasonable expectation of return on investment.

The entire situation is the result of plate tectonics and nothing more. Unless of course , you request that Port au Prince be relocated to a tectonically inactive area. I think that you and Pat Robertson have a lot in common in the logic department.

The entire situation is not at all the result of plate tectonics.

The earthquake was indeed entirely a result of plate tectonics, but the pre-existing poverty, inadequate infra-structure, and high levels of lawlessness have made the entire situation much worse than had an earthquake of the same strength hit any number of other places around the world.

Do you believe that the entire situation in New Orleans post Katrina was the result of hurricane force winds and storm surge?

Had there been no earthquake in Haiti, it still would be a sorry cesspool of a country. This doesn't mean that our hearts and our help should not go out to the Haitian people, but let's not kid ourselves and suggest the chaos there is solely the result of the earthquake, or that very many people cared at all for the horrible plight of Haitians before the earthquake..

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I thought I'd bump this important point of DrewDad's. If Fox did extensively cover it in special reports, but didn't cover it in its political commentary shows, they did their job as a news provider. Media Matters' methodology of focusing only on top-rated shows is disingenuous.

That may be true, but Glen Beck and others on the right are complaining that Obama is paying too much attention to Haiti and are campaigning against US involvement. Haiti doesn't fit their narrative.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

the high body count is directly caused by the Haitians own behaviour over these last decades, not developing a functioning government and not caring about safety standards in buildings.

Even if this were true it doesn't fix your brainfart of claiming this is non-news. They could have all been directly responsible for their deaths and it's still news when up to 200,000 die.

There are few events in recorded history that have such death tolls, you are trying to deflect from your brainfart of claiming this is not news worth more than 10 minutes of coverage but trotting out your superiority complex does nothing to fix it.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Because MSNBC has a greater degree of coverage of the Hatian earthquake than Fox, doesn't mean that the degree of Fox coverage is inadequate or inappropriate.

If the Fox news shows are covering the earthquake, I don't understand why it is neccessary for the opinion shows to dedicate their programs to additional news coverage.

There really isn't that much to report on. I suppose they could keep up a constant death count, but how is that newsworthy?

Americans have not shrugged off the Haitian dead. In fact, the premise of this thread is that MSNBC has been providing intense coverage, and the outpouring of emotional and financial support has been remakable.

Who has called it an non-event?

And I'm sorry Robert but Americans are going to be more concerned with an American catastrophe than a foreign one. I don't know why you find this so unseemly. It's perfectly natural.

9/11 was a much bigger news story than the Hatian earthquake. I don't know how anyone (other than perhaps a Haitian) could argue otherwise.

Being a bigger news story though doesn't make the human tragedy any less which is what you seem to be arguing (some) Americans are suggesting.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

I believe there are some Americans that do not empathize well with foreigners' tragedy. O.K. What I do not understand is why does it seem like there are some that are ready to stand in judgement of that? As private citizens, do we not have the right to choose with who to commiserate?

Of course, and as a private citizen I have the right to call it lacking in perspective.

Everyone empathizes with some more than others, fbaezer has told us about how they decide what kind of deaths make the front page of his newspaper and whether or not they are compatriots makes a difference for just about everyone.

But so does the sheer scale of the death in Haiti. Despite being foreigners and all, death on this magnitude should meet any journalist's criteria for legitimate leading news.

Quote:

Sometimes I do believe that the liberal progressive movement may subscribe to the concept of "thought policing." I wonder if standing in judgement of others' level of empathy is a vestige of the historical societal emphasis on proselytizing (religion)? In other words, subscribe to the religion you were born into; however, learn to have the "correct" values and we can all be one.

That's silly. It's no more "thought policing" than is your argument about thought police itself. It's merely an expressed opinion, just like its counterparts.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're hilarious, dancing boy. You just can't resist the temptation to try to pick a fight with me, can you? You seethe with what one perspicacious Prussian referred to as the rage of dreaming sheep. Have fun with your bile and your outrage, dancing boy--who won't be joining you is me.

What I cannot resist is pointing out your hypocrisy. If I can point out your idiocy at the same time, it's just bonus points.

Setanta wrote:

(And i'm not suprised to see you ally yourself to the Rapist Boy--a.k.a. Hawkeye--your dreaming rage will lead you into any devil's bargain if you think you can take a swipe at me. How pathetic you are.)

I've allied with no one, but for you to claim I've allied with Hawkeye just shows again how you fail to comprehend even the most basic things.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Let me be candid; I empathize better with people that speak English. Mind you, that is regardless of their national origin, or complexion. The key is English in my empathic synaptic connections. Also, the more grammatically correct English, the more empathy. I also value correct spelling and correct punctuation.

This is not very revelatory. Sociologists have long observed that language divides and unites more than almost anything else.

0 Replies

MSNBC's top programs provide more than 18 times as much coverage of Haiti earthquake as Fox News' to

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know