By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - What's your opinion on Fox news?

pokoko said:
The interesting thing about Fox News is that so many of their viewers really do believe they are "fair and balanced".

Also, that the median Fox News viewer is 68 years old is pretty damn amazing.

Are there more demographics for their viewership available out there?

OT: Hilarious drivel. Whenever I visit my parents and my dad has Fox on I just have to sit there with my mouth agape in awe at how ridiculous their reporters are and blatantly biased and obvious their agenda is. It's impressive they've brainwashed their viewers into thinking they're somehow not a part of the problem.



Around the Network
NintendoPie said:
pokoko said:
The interesting thing about Fox News is that so many of their viewers really do believe they are "fair and balanced".

Also, that the median Fox News viewer is 68 years old is pretty damn amazing.

Are there more demographics for their viewership available out there?

OT: Hilarious drivel. Whenever I visit my parents and my dad has Fox on I just have to sit there with my mouth agape in awe at how ridiculous their reporters are and blatantly biased and obvious their agenda is. It's impressive they've brainwashed their viewers into thinking they're somehow not a part of the problem.

Just a few points from the company that does TV ratings.  

The interesting part is that 1.1 per cent of Fox News viewers are black.  I guess that includes d21lewis, too.  



GProgrammer said:
Locknuts said:
They're conservative, but at least they admit it unlike some liberal networks like CNN etc.

52% of their coverage of Trump has been negative as opposed to 93% negative on CNN so I think they're far more balanced. I'm in Australia though so I only get to see Youtube clips from these networks and can't watch them in their original format anyway.

48% positive coverage for trump! Seems far too much WRT what he's actually achieved,

Or do you think every topic should have a 50-50 balance?

eg 50% positive ISIS coverage, 50% positive coverage for people that believe in a flat earth etc

What a strange thing to type. 

Anyway, considering Fox News viewership are more likely to have been the ones to elect Trump into office, I think having 52% negative coverage is pretty balanced. He has had his achievements. 

Overall though I think he is working very hard to do the things he was elected to do, sometimes he gets is wrong but not 93% of the time. Lol. 



It's the WWF of news. Purely entertainment not meant to be taken seriously.



VGPolyglot said:
My thoughts? They're shit, just like CNN, NBC, etc.

Yeah, all mainstream news, and probably all "alternative" news as well, is crap.  Fox is the Repub news, MSNBC is the Dem news, CNN is the pretend centrist, really total bullshit news.  I don't watch TV news ever, and very rarely read stuff online.  

10-15 years ago, I watched news all day.  Then, I learned how to read between the lines, think for myself, etc.  I figure I know about 25% of what's going on nowadays, and probably half ot that is wrong.  Back in the day, I thought I knew everything.  But, it turns out almost everything was wrong.    



Around the Network

Fox News is owned and controlled by a very old, arrogant, pompous billionaire Rupert Murdoch. His views are prehistoric and out there. Eye candy female journalists purpose is to draw in the target audience, male viewers. Fox News is rude and condescending towards minority groups, blatant misogyny and the network spews propaganda 24/7.



I can't stand any large news channel. It's all about ratings truth is a afterthought.



pokoko said:
NintendoPie said:

Are there more demographics for their viewership available out there?

OT: Hilarious drivel. Whenever I visit my parents and my dad has Fox on I just have to sit there with my mouth agape in awe at how ridiculous their reporters are and blatantly biased and obvious their agenda is. It's impressive they've brainwashed their viewers into thinking they're somehow not a part of the problem.

Just a few points from the company that does TV ratings.  

The interesting part is that 1.1 per cent of Fox News viewers are black.  I guess that includes d21lewis, too.  

That it does.

I was raised to embrace pretty much all forms of entertainment. Any genre of music, etc. It makes it easier to empathize if you can relate. I don't agree with every point of view (obviously) but I make an effort to understand.



Locknuts said:
GProgrammer said:

48% positive coverage for trump! Seems far too much WRT what he's actually achieved,

Or do you think every topic should have a 50-50 balance?

eg 50% positive ISIS coverage, 50% positive coverage for people that believe in a flat earth etc

What a strange thing to type. 

Anyway, considering Fox News viewership are more likely to have been the ones to elect Trump into office, I think having 52% negative coverage is pretty balanced. He has had his achievements. 

Overall though I think he is working very hard to do the things he was elected to do, sometimes he gets is wrong but not 93% of the time. Lol. 

Its not a strange thing to type its just pointing out have a 50:50 balance is often not a good viewpoint, if its so far from the reality, Its much better to report the Facts.

He is probably doing worse than you think, eg Check his website

I don't know if you remember before the Election he released a document,

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

---------------------------

Donald Trump's contract with the American Voter 

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again

------------------------------------------------------


Check the 2nd page, He promised 10 pieces of legislation. OK now its after 100 days so how many do you think got done?, 4 or 5 maybe.

No, Zero. He achieved not a single thing from his Contract with the American Voter, he could not of done worse, he just has a habit of promising the world and then failing to deliver, its just his modus operandi



GProgrammer said:
Locknuts said:

What a strange thing to type. 

Anyway, considering Fox News viewership are more likely to have been the ones to elect Trump into office, I think having 52% negative coverage is pretty balanced. He has had his achievements. 

Overall though I think he is working very hard to do the things he was elected to do, sometimes he gets is wrong but not 93% of the time. Lol. 

Its not a strange thing to type its just pointing out have a 50:50 balance is often not a good viewpoint, if its so far from the reality, Its much better to report the Facts.

He is probably doing worse than you think, eg Check his website

I don't know if you remember before the Election he released a document,

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

---------------------------

Donald Trump's contract with the American Voter 

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again

------------------------------------------------------


Check the 2nd page, He promised 10 pieces of legislation. OK now its after 100 days so how many do you think got done?, 4 or 5 maybe.

No, Zero. He achieved not a single thing from his Contract with the American Voter, he could not of done worse, he just has a habit of promising the world and then failing to deliver, its just his modus operandi

'I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration'

Well technically he has introduced them and fought for their passage within the first 100 days, but he hasn't passed them within the first hundred days, which I imagine is how most of his voters would have interpreted this (despite the fact that it would have been impossible). The wording gives him an out, but it is disappointing to see the anti establishment candidate acting so much like a politician.

He does seem to be moving things in the right direction though, but his over promising does deserve criticism, so I think anything up to around 70% negative coverage would be justified. Anything below 40% would be licking his boots.