funny stuff, because its true. 😮
"Watters World" is the most -tongue-in-cheek ,light-hearted and funny. segment so no one watching (except liberals) actually thinks that is "serious journalism."
Great that students were able to think for themselves and apply their critique to a segment on O'Reilly. They should also watch the segments from Bernie Goldberg who used to be a CBS indoctrine who now highlights left wing media bias.
Quinnipiac poll results:
Fox News Most trusted cable news network in the US:
"Watters World" is the most -tongue-in-cheek ,light-hearted and funny. segment so no one watching (except liberals) actually thinks that is "serious journalism."
Great that students were able to think for themselves and apply their critique to a segment on O'Reilly. They should also watch the segments from Bernie Goldberg who used to be a CBS indoctrine who now highlights left wing media bias.
Quinnipiac poll results:
Fox News Most trusted cable news network in the US:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2173/blockquote >
It gets more interesting when yo look behind the headline...When asked, "Do you trust the journalistic coverage provided by FOX News," 20 percent of U.S. voters say "a great deal" and 35 percent say "somewhat." Scores for other networks are:
NBC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 46 percent "somewhat;"
ABC News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
CBS News - 14 percent "a great deal" and 50 percent "somewhat;"
MSNBC - 11 percent "a great deal" and 41 percent "somewhat;"
CNN - 18 percent "a great deal" and 43 percent "somewhat."So when you combine the "a great deal" and "somewhat" numbers, it paints a different picture:
ABC 14 + 50 = 64%
CNN 18 + 43 = 61%
NBC 14 + 46 = 60%
FOX 20 + 35 = 55%
CBS 14 + 50 = 54%
MSBNC 11 + 41 = 52%And then there's this:
The big winner is local television news, trusted by 19 percent of voters "a great deal" and by 52 percent "somewhat."
It is also interesting to look at the party-line makeup of support for FOX and the other networks:
In the comparison chart, FOX News is definitely the Republican choice as 58 percent of GOP voters say they trust FOX the most, while 13 percent turn to CNN, with 7 percent each for NBC and CBS, 5 percent for ABC and 2 percent for MSNBC.
Only 3 percent of Democrats trust FOX the most, with 32 percent for CNN, 15 percent for NBC, 14 percent each for CBS and MSNBC and 8 percent for ABC.
FOX tops CNN 34 - 18 percent among men, with women divided 25 - 25 percent. Voters 18 to 34 years old trust CNN more than FOX 33 - 21 percent, while voters 35 to 54 years old go to FOX 29 - 21 percent and voters over 55 years old trust FOX more 34 - 17 percent.
You'll have to excuse me if I take that "most trusted" tagline that gets bandied about every time someone dares to criticize FOX with a huge grain of salt.
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Quinnipiac poll results:
Fox News Most trusted cable news network in the US:
LOL!!! The smoking gun evidence we've all been looking for!! And what does "Most trusted" mean, as defined by the poll, and as interpreted by the random strangers who responded?
Polls....I love when people try to use polls as evidence. Hilarious.
Didn't P. T. Barnum say it best?
They might be most trusted but the facts reveal they are %ucking liars.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
If usage is a sign of trust, then YouTube is more trusted than all the news outlets in the US put together...
- YouTube has more than 1 billion users
- Every day people watch hundreds of millions of hours on YouTube and generate billions of views
- The number of hours people are watching on YouTube each month is up 50% year over year
- 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute
- YouTube is localized in 75 countries and available in 61 languages
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
There is nothing on youtube worthy of merit or trust?
Um, ok.
LOL all of this over some kids checking a segment on FOX News. its funny, because its true. 😮
I see pb is here to act the fool when muledouche is busy cleaning his basement room.
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
There is nothing on youtube worthy of merit or trust?
Um, ok.
YouTube is an aggregator. You'd have to verify each source individually. If something of merit is posted on YouTube, generally a more trustworthy "print" version is available elsewhere as well. So at the very least, citing from YouTube is lazy.
Funny that YouTube is being defended in this context. Almost ironic.
Says the guy who uses Wikipedia as a source 😛
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
There is nothing on youtube worthy of merit or trust?
Um, ok.
YouTube is an aggregator. You'd have to verify each source individually. If something of merit is posted on YouTube, generally a more trustworthy "print" version is available elsewhere as well. So at the very least, citing from YouTube is lazy.
Funny that YouTube is being defended in this context. Almost ironic.
According to MLA, for instance, you can cite from many online sources, including YouTube.
Let's say an astrophysicist gives a seminar and the speech is posted on YouTube. The speech is therefore invalid?
It's 2015. The world changes, you know.
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
Show us where I used youtube as a news source perry boy?.
Here's one example where you cite YouTube, feel free to find the rest yourself if you care that much.
http://www.allmanbrothers.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=138897Don't worry though, according to Bhawk YouTube is highly respected source here so you feel free to post as many YouTube videos as you like. 😛
I never said that. You mocked the very existence of YouTube, I responded to that.
Mediums of communication change. There's plenty of legit academic content on YouTube, and there's a bunch of cats doing funny things videos and heaven knows what else, plenty of it downright idiotic.
There was a time when quoting from a newspaper was a perfectly legitimate source. No one held that against newspapers because the papers also had a comics page.
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
There is nothing on youtube worthy of merit or trust?
Um, ok.
YouTube is an aggregator. You'd have to verify each source individually. If something of merit is posted on YouTube, generally a more trustworthy "print" version is available elsewhere as well. So at the very least, citing from YouTube is lazy.
Funny that YouTube is being defended in this context. Almost ironic.
According to MLA, for instance, you can cite from many online sources, including YouTube.
Let's say an astrophysicist gives a seminar and the speech is posted on YouTube. The speech is therefore invalid?
It's 2015. The world changes, you know.
Yeah and I'm stuck in the stoneage.
Anyhow, I feel like this went off on a tangent. I even left YouTube as sort of a trailing thought when I mentioned it initially. If I agree to strike it, will you defend salon, kos, etc. as legit too or will I kill the conversation? I'm really not that passionate about YouTube being a poor source of information sometimes. it's just a dumping site for videos.
Nice backpedaling.
One thing that is apparent from your posts is that you don't really understand much about YouTube.
BTW the thing about newspapers is they have editors.
I know Fox isn't a newspaper but, from what I've read, the editors at Fox compile the talking points and set the focus and themes of the shows.
BTW the thing about newspapers is they have editors.
I know Fox isn't a newspaper but, from what I've read, the editors at Fox compile the talking points and set the focus and themes of the shows.
Yeah that is the traditional role of the editor, he's kind of the signoff on everything. Which TRADITIONALLY was a position of integrity with pursuit of actual fair and balanced reporting. Which is what makes FoxNews so repulsive and slimy, their editorial staff clearly has departed from this tradition. Actually they thumb their noses at it.
First sane comment you've made here.
Probably sarcasm on your part though.
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
There is nothing on youtube worthy of merit or trust?
Um, ok.
YouTube is an aggregator. You'd have to verify each source individually. If something of merit is posted on YouTube, generally a more trustworthy "print" version is available elsewhere as well. So at the very least, citing from YouTube is lazy.
Funny that YouTube is being defended in this context. Almost ironic.
According to MLA, for instance, you can cite from many online sources, including YouTube.
Let's say an astrophysicist gives a seminar and the speech is posted on YouTube. The speech is therefore invalid?
It's 2015. The world changes, you know.
Yeah and I'm stuck in the stoneage.
Anyhow, I feel like this went off on a tangent. I even left YouTube as sort of a trailing thought when I mentioned it initially. If I agree to strike it, will you defend salon, kos, etc. as legit too or will I kill the conversation? I'm really not that passionate about YouTube being a poor source of information sometimes. it's just a dumping site for videos.
Nice backpedaling.
One thing that is apparent from your posts is that you don't really understand much about YouTube.
So your post was serious then? LOL
About you not really understanding the YouTube platform? Yes, I was serious.
I get a kick out of the liberals attacking fox news all the time , like that is the problem
I guess you don't like other opinions outside the liberal main stream media
Liberals are like the zombies in invasion of the body snatches
where they just point the finger at non liberals and scream and then attack
I mocked the very existence of YouTube? That's so silly and dramatic. Love it.
Merely responding in kind...
No, I was mocking someone critical of FoxNews who then cites regularly from kos and other equally trashy sources. This includes YouTube, depending on the specific video.
Fair enough, except...why hold YouTube accountable for the video content?
BTW the thing about newspapers is they have editors. It is difficult to me to see your parallel in any way to the most uncurated source of video on the planet. The only thing that gets edited on YouTube are violations of TOS.
I would counter and say, depending on the situation and the context, raw content may be much more valuable than edited content, regardless of platform.
Oh and YouTube always a trusted source.
?
Just taking inventory of pops42's latest highly trusted citations here in the WP.
There is nothing on youtube worthy of merit or trust?
Um, ok.
YouTube is an aggregator. You'd have to verify each source individually. If something of merit is posted on YouTube, generally a more trustworthy "print" version is available elsewhere as well. So at the very least, citing from YouTube is lazy.
Funny that YouTube is being defended in this context. Almost ironic.
According to MLA, for instance, you can cite from many online sources, including YouTube.
Let's say an astrophysicist gives a seminar and the speech is posted on YouTube. The speech is therefore invalid?
It's 2015. The world changes, you know.
Yeah and I'm stuck in the stoneage.
Anyhow, I feel like this went off on a tangent. I even left YouTube as sort of a trailing thought when I mentioned it initially. If I agree to strike it, will you defend salon, kos, etc. as legit too or will I kill the conversation? I'm really not that passionate about YouTube being a poor source of information sometimes. it's just a dumping site for videos.
I think we are looking at these things differently. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've evolved on it over time...I try not to condemn an entire news or opinion source on one column or piece or whatever. There's so many things written about at a site like Salon, for instance, or Daily Kos, or Breitbart, or Newsmax, whatever. I think it's careless and lazy to say "left wing rag" or "right wing rag," and dismiss anything on the entirety of whatever merit there may or may not be.
Besides, we're talking about political biases here. I don't think it really matters who attacks what site or what source anyway. No one on the right is going to admit there's a thing wrong with Fox News to anyone on the left, or vice versa with MSNBC, etc.
quote:
I get a kick out of the liberals attacking fox news all the time , like that is the problem
I guess you don't like other opinions outside the liberal main stream media
Liberals are like the zombies in invasion of the body snatches
where they just point the finger at non liberals and scream and then attackThe trouble is, fox news viewers have trouble distiguishing "opinion" from "fact". I believe its been established: those who look to fox news for facts, are less informed than someone who gets no news at all.
Study after study has shown that regular Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch Fox News.
So... who's the zombie?
And when are lies opinions?
Study after study has shown that regular Fox viewers are less informed than people who don't watch Fox News.
That is arguable the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Sure anything you say
You are a complete moron. . liberal are the liars they support liars like Obama and Clinton
How about that Harry Reid, so proud that he lied about Romney's taxes
I am sure your enlightened news sources covered that
And CBS has not even mentioned the phony Hillary Clinton's cash deals
ie 131 million from Russian uranium one Co. stockholders for the right to get at least 20% of amerca'a uranium supply's and then Bills gets 1/2 million for a speech in Russia.
I could go on and on , but I don't have to because you are so enlightened
You are a complete moron
Ha! One of the most obvious "pot calling the kettle black" statements ever!!
And CBS has not even mentioned the phony Hillary Clinton's cash deals
Oh, really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/clinton-foundation-on-the-defensive-over-clinton-cash-donation-claims/
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hillary-clinton-dismisses-clinton-cash-gop-critics/
Hey, the mayor of Gloucester called, he wants you to stop using his fine city as your handle and switch to "Snap-On" because you are such a tool!!
[Edited on 4/24/2015 by gondicar]
