FNC Anchors/Hosts

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a fundamental problem with this "study" in that it asks questions that have gradations of possible answers, but casts "misperceptions" as black and white.

Is it a "misperception" that world public opinion favored the US going into Iraq. Depending on the measure you use there are arguments that world public opinion did or didnt favor us going in. What does "favor" mean? Does it refer to governments or citizens? Is it by population, or a simple country by country count?

Or that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There clearly were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam, what is debatable is how important those contacts were or could have become. To take a poll asking the black and white question "were there links" and casting a "yes" answer as a misperception is a terribly biased approach to a "study".

The WMD "misperception" is also a matter of language. Were stockpiles of live/usable WMDs found? No. Was there evidence of WMD factories, warheads capable of delivering bio weapons and so on found? Yes. Do we have captured Iraqis who provide testimonial evidence that there were WMDs that have been hidden or moved? Yes.

early CIA report on WMDs

Two different, intelligent and informed people could answer "yes" and "no" to the question as posed and both be correct in the context of their interpretation of these questions.

[kickabuck]

I took the time to read more of your links Bluffe, not exactly earth shattering news here. Brit had the audacity to disagree with Juan Williams, that's despicable! After an article comes out in the Washington Post questioning the veracity of one of the Swift Boat Vet's account, Brit didn't immediately recant his previous assertions and diparage the entire book-HERESY! The folks you are getting these examples of bias from are no doubt ultra liberal, the examples are such that it seems if you do not spout the liberal orthodoxy, you are therefore biased. I see no deliberate misinformation by Mr. Hume, all I see is information given or emphasized that is not elsewhere.

The point that most of the guests in the one on one segment of the show are conservative or liberals with a conservative view on the subject in question, I will not dipute. However in said format I have foound it to be a sort of rebuttal to what the prevailing wisdom that has formed via the mainstream presses forming of public opinion. No doubt why your sources are quite displeased.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a fundamental problem with this "study" in that it asks questions that have gradations of possible answers, but casts "misperceptions" as black and white.

Is it a "misperception" that world public opinion favored the US going into Iraq. Depending on the measure you use there are arguments that world public opinion did or didnt favor us going in. What does "favor" mean? Does it refer to governments or citizens? Is it by population, or a simple country by country count?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is a mispersception. Look at the questionaire. They asked for what “people” thought, and they gave the options “majority”, “minority” and “evenly balanced”. If you payed attention, and not only to FNC, you know what the answer is, and that it isn’t close.

[ QUOTE ]
Or that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There clearly were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam, what is debatable is how important those contacts were or could have become. To take a poll asking the black and white question "were there links" and casting a "yes" answer as a misperception is a terribly biased approach to a "study".

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but if you look at the questionaire, you find that room for such nuances. There were more options than “yes” and “no”. One of the options are “Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks”, a view that never has been supported by facts. Of course, you’ve made up your mind about the study already, so why bother to look?

[ QUOTE ]
The WMD "misperception" is also a matter of language. Were stockpiles of live/usable WMDs found? No. Was there evidence of WMD factories, warheads capable of delivering bio weapons and so on found? Yes. Do we have captured Iraqis who provide testimonial evidence that there were WMDs that have been hidden or moved? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, look at the questionaire.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
I took the time to read more of your links Bluffe, not exactly earth shattering news here. Brit had the audacity to disagree with Juan Williams, that's despicable! After an article comes out in the Washington Post questioning the veracity of one of the Swift Boat Vet's account, Brit didn't immediately recant his previous assertions and diparage the entire book-HERESY! The folks you are getting these examples of bias from are no doubt ultra liberal, the examples are such that it seems if you do not spout the liberal orthodoxy, you are therefore biased. I see no deliberate misinformation by Mr. Hume, all I see is information given or emphasized that is not elsewhere.

The point that most of the guests in the one on one segment of the show are conservative or liberals with a conservative view on the subject in question, I will not dipute. However in said format I have foound it to be a sort of rebuttal to what the prevailing wisdom that has formed via the mainstream presses forming of public opinion. No doubt why your sources are quite displeased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you disagree with some of the articles, there is no question that Hume is quite a misinformer.

[New001]

[ 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 ]
I've got to disagree with you here, I can't stand Shepard Smith and Cavuto is the only one on that channel I like.

[natedogg]

I don't know most of these but it's *really* hard to imagine a person less intelligent than Sean Hannity. Trying to imagine it..... can't do it.

natedogg

[Boris]

bluffe - Maybe it makes you feel better to blame the Iraq propoganda on Fox. But if you remember, everyone in the mainstream media jumped on that WMD crap lock stock and barrel. It wasn't just FNC. Now the liberals are trying to weasel their way out of any complicity in the war but you guys were part of the problem too. If I remember correctly there was only on representative from Oakland, CA who had the sack to say no.

[bluffe]

[ QUOTE ]
bluffe - Maybe it makes you feel better to blame the Iraq propoganda on Fox. But if you remember, everyone in the mainstream media jumped on that WMD crap lock stock and barrel. It wasn't just FNC. Now the liberals are trying to weasel their way out of any complicity in the war but you guys were part of the problem too. If I remember correctly there was only on representative from Oakland, CA who had the sack to say no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we agree.

1) I know that FNC was far from alone, the other networks and mainstream media were terrible too. FNC was the worst though.

2)I don't know why you call these mainstream liberals "you guys". I was opposed to the war and I am certainly not a democrat. In fact, I think they are awful.

This is the only high-ranking politician i respect:

Bernie Sanders

[irvman21]

Alan Colmes is by far the least intelligent person on Fox News. It's such an obvious setup by Fox. They put their star on a point counter-point show with a liberal who isn't particularly bright so that no matter what Hannity says, he looks intelligent by comparison.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Alan Colmes is by far the least intelligent person on Fox News. It's such an obvious setup by Fox. They put their star on a point counter-point show with a liberal who isn't particularly bright so that no matter what Hannity says, he looks intelligent by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides his intelligence, you can find his picture on wikipedia under "pencil neck geek". Definitley someone who was meant to be on radio.