FNC Anchors/Hosts

[kickabuck]

Bluffe,

I see you are using the tried and true liberal default mode of 'if you are conservative you must be dumb '(usually applied to presidential nominees, but nevertheless). I will not quarrel with the assessment that Fox News' perspective and reporting is from a conservative viewpoint. Your 'who's dumber poll' is just silly.

I also take exception to your characterization of Brit Hume as one who has a 'history of bias and misinformation'. I did not read the littany of supposedly damning statements by Mr. Hume, other than the John Bolton section. Big Deal. Bolton was pilloried everywhere in the press on a daily basis, Brit gives some time with people defending Bolton, and you call that blatant bias? So about one million viewers got to hear something other than 'Bolton is a horrible, unfeeling, cold devil'. At least on Fox you get to hear some differing perspective, I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as conservative perspective anywhere in the mainstream press. That's precisely why they are so successfull. Conservative yes, stupid-not any dumber than any one else giving you the news.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluffe,

I see you are using the tried and true liberal default mode of 'if you are conservative you must be dumb '(usually applied to presidential nominees, but nevertheless). I will not quarrel with the assessment that Fox News' perspective and reporting is from a conservative viewpoint. Your 'who's dumber poll' is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that all conservatives are dumb. Brit Hume, for example, does not seem to be unintelligent. Sean Hannity on the other hand, is clearly not a very bright person. I can see why some might feel my poll is silly; that is why I included the last option.

[ QUOTE ]
I also take exception to your characterization of Brit Hume as one who has a 'history of bias and misinformation'. I did not read the littany of supposedly damning statements by Mr. Hume, other than the John Bolton section. Big Deal. Bolton was pilloried everywhere in the press on a daily basis, Brit gives some time with people defending Bolton, and you call that blatant bias? So about one million viewers got to hear something other than 'Bolton is a horrible, unfeeling, cold devil'. At least on Fox you get to hear some differing perspective, I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as conservative perspective anywhere in the mainstream press. That's precisely why they are so successfull. Conservative yes, stupid-not any dumber than any one else giving you the news.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hume does have a well documented history of false statments and clear bias. I wish you had read more of the examples, he outperforms any non-FNC host in falsehoods. While bias will always be a part of news, FNC doesn’t even try to be “fair and balanced”. That makes them different from other news networks. I don’t think “conservative” network is the best description; FNC is just plainly Republican.

A study has shown that those who had FOX as their primary news source were most likely to get the facts wrong on Iraq.

Study

[Boris]

I'd rate Cavuto as slightly more intelligent than Hannity. Both are most likely fairly stupid.

How come Shepard Smith wasn't in the poll? He's the best newscaster on TV.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rate Cavuto as slightly more intelligent than Hannity. Both are most likely fairly stupid.

How come Shepard Smith wasn't in the poll? He's the best newscaster on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cavuto seems to be one of the smartest ones on Fox. Although Hume may be close. Any time I see Cavuto on O'Reilly, it is comedy and shows how ignorant O'Reilly is. When O'Reilly claimed they should "ban futures trading, because it's driving prices up", you could feel Cavuto's pain in having to listen to this blowhard.

I can't recall anything that gives me a bearing on Gibson, so I will leave him out, but it seems pretty clear to me-

O'Reilly < Hannity << Hume < Cavuto.

And about the post bluffe made about Fox Viewers being misinformed, it may be more related to dumber people watching Fox News than the quality anything being broadcast. But that never stopped him from trying to prove causation from correlation before. Also, a lot of the Fox viewers are probably more of the "entertainment" audience than people who care about news. Whereas, PBS/NPR is so bland and boring, the only audience they have is from people who only care about the news.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't find Hume's bias more glaring than traditional news anchors like Blitzer, Rather, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not that those guys are great, but I think you are wrong. Here are a few examples:

MM's Hume Collection

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOL... are you freaking kidding me??????

That article was about as good an example of biased reporting as one can find. Most of the "outrageous" stuff posted about Brit was in n o way outrageous and no more biased than most any news anchor.

Here's a simple example of the "dirt" they unvovered about him:

Following White House's lead, Special Report investigation into Katrina response shifted blame to state, local officials.

WTF? That was an example of his bias--because he didn't give a pass to those most reponsible for public safety?

Ridiculous.

Keep posting "attacks" like that and you'll only end up shooting your agenda in the foot. I like Brit more after reading their "expose"--and I was no real fan of his to begin with.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
And about the post bluffe made about Fox Viewers being misinformed, it may be more related to dumber people watching Fox News than the quality anything being broadcast. But that never stopped him from trying to prove causation from correlation before. Also, a lot of the Fox viewers are probably more of the "entertainment" audience than people who care about news. Whereas, PBS/NPR is so bland and boring, the only audience they have is from people who only care about the news.

[/ QUOTE ]

No:

[ QUOTE ]
Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read about it here

Of course, you posted this “maybe” stuff, without looking at the study.

This study, combined with FNC’s record of misinformation about Iraq related issues, makes it highly likely that these viewers got their misperceptions from watching FNC. That is about the worst record a news channel can have.

I have not tried to “prove causation from correlation before”. I to explain this in the tax thread (I never claimed to “prove” anything). As expected from a political forum on the internet, people made these claims about me regardless of what I wrote. And that is why I stay away from forums like these, most of the time.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't find Hume's bias more glaring than traditional news anchors like Blitzer, Rather, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not that those guys are great, but I think you are wrong. Here are a few examples:

MM's Hume Collection

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOL... are you freaking kidding me??????

That article was about as good an example of biased reporting as one can find. Most of the "outrageous" stuff posted about Brit was in n o way outrageous and no more biased than most any news anchor.

Here's a simple example of the "dirt" they unvovered about him:

Following White House's lead, Special Report investigation into Katrina response shifted blame to state, local officials.

WTF? That was an example of his bias--because he didn't give a pass to those most reponsible for public safety?

Ridiculous.

Keep posting "attacks" like that and you'll only end up shooting your agenda in the foot. I like Brit more after reading their "expose"--and I was no real fan of his to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, ok

I suspect you didn't read anything beyond the head lines.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]

lol, ok

I suspect you didn't read anything beyond the head lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your source for Brit's bias defines themselves as:

"Who We Are

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation ..."


Gee, that sounds unbiased.

Would you accept TownHall as a source for other anchors' bias? No. Nor would I.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't find Hume's bias more glaring than traditional news anchors like Blitzer, Rather, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not that those guys are great, but I think you are wrong. Here are a few examples:

MM's Hume Collection

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty weak "collection". Nothing that comes anywhere near Rather/Burkett for example.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about Hume being more or less intelligent than Gibson (that would be question #1); I think Hume is more intelligent, by the way.

They were simply my top 2 choices for question #2, and yes, I do find Hume more disagreeable than Gibson. I can discard what Gibson says. Hume's more subtle tactics to pull the wool over his viewers eyes is far worse for society, in my opinion. He's the only guy on Fox who tries to come across as a traditional news anchor, and he is therefore, supposedly, a neutral source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't find Hume's bias more glaring than traditional news anchors like Blitzer, Rather, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not that those guys are great, but I think you are wrong. Here are a few examples:

MM's Hume Collection

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty weak "collection". Nothing that comes anywhere near Rather/Burkett for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I back up my claims with examples; you don't.