| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BUSH IS THE KING OF CLASS WARFARE!
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"WillStG" wrote in message ... "reddred" Last night, for instance, he misqouted what GW said about not winning the war on terror (which incidentally, is one of the few intelligent things I've ever heard GW say, and dead on accurate) then O'reilly proceeds to say 'he didn't say that'. Which is true, because O'reilly misqouted him to begin with, but the misconception that 99 percent of the Fox news viewers who never heard, read or saw the original quote is that the quote itself is a fabrication. Even O'Reilly ocassionally has trouble reading teleprompter. You can call "mispeaking" "a lie" if you wish, but you are not the only one watching and the public does not generally agree with your view. That's not what happened. He editorialized, as best as I can recall - 'all this business about Bush saying we would not win the war on terror - well, he didn't say that.' Which is correct, Bush didn't say that. He said something else. But without quoting Bush, and presenting a misqoute, O'reilly is creating FUD and spreading misinformation. What a mouthpiece. The public is not stupid, to think they are and treat them with consdescention is a mistake. The ones who watch Fox news are consistently misinformed. Did you read the survey? I refer you to the second half. jb |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
For the first time in History, an upstart Cable News outfit beat ALL 3
NETWORKS in the ratings head to head. Will, you are a sucker of Satan's cock. (nothing personal). |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark Steven Brooks wrote: Will, you are a sucker of Satan's cock. (nothing personal). None take, I'm sure. : ) |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will - the guy that works for those pretend journalists at FNC (Fake News Channel) wrote: BTW, on Tuesday night from 10-11pm Eastern Time Fox News Channel beat all 3 major Networks in the ratings - ABC, CBS, and NBC. For the first time in History, an upstart Cable News outfit beat ALL 3 NETWORKS in the ratings head to head. LOL. This is priceless. Let's read some reality into this stat that Will of FNC is so proud of. The country as a whole is so utterly disinterested in the GOP convention, that it's media mouthpiece, Fake News Channel, won in the ratings despite being in a fraction of the homes that the networks are. That's right, so FEW Americans tuned into the convention on the networks, that Fox and it's L00ny GOP cult won that time period. And Will the Republican is bragging about it. How's America's favorite L00ny weatherman Steve D......something doing, Will? Nothing like a white guy that gives you the weather and then makes fun of Democrats, eh? Fine, fine "news" and "journalism" goin on there, huh folks? LOL. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Altasrecrd)
This is priceless. Let's read some reality into this stat that Will of FNC is so proud of. The country as a whole is so utterly disinterested in the GOP convention, that it's media mouthpiece, Fake News Channel, won in the ratings despite being in a fraction of the homes that the networks are. That's right, so FEW Americans tuned into the convention on the networks, that Fox and it's L00ny GOP cult won that time period. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But consider the situation from a Broadcasting Network Programming perspective. However pathetic you may think the GOP Convention was, about half the Nation give or take voted Republican in the last election. Therefore there is a signifigant base of viewers available out there. Yet we beat our *nearest* competitor CBS News by more than a million viewers; we beat NBC in total viewers even though they were combining their Network ratings with their MSNBC Cable ratings. Do you honestly think that your rhetoric, repeated by Network Executives to their bosses would fly as excuse for being beaten by Cable, by Fox News Channel in the ratings? They have Bigger Stars than we do, more juice for "Gets" (guests) and budgets that exceed ours by a factor of something like 25 to 1. I tell you it is far more likely all their asses are in a sling right now, for so misreading the interest of the public in the political Conventions, for not "owning" the coverage, for not being able to attract a larger audience, for most of all their Networks *losing face*. The major 3 Networks decided before the Democrat Convention that no one was interested and that neither convention was worthy of broad Prime Time coverage, as there was "no news" involved. BIG mistake IMO when you have members of *both* Parties calling this the most important election in our lifetimes. And while jaded Network executives may not evaluate Candidates by their demeanor and the sincerity they perceive during major events, the general public *does*, this is why Candidates actually go to States and campaign face to fact with the public. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message... What kind of gross incompetence would lead an administration to drop something as important as the hunt for Al Qaeda? (and the battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people...remember that?) Oil (and personal vengeance) became more important than controlling the world's largest source for opium ? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote: Oil (and personal vengeance) became more important than controlling the world's largest source for opium ? Priorities. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: And I'll wager you the $5 I won from Rob predicting that Grey Davis would be recalled as Governor of California this will be the case. You in? No piece of any such bet for me. Should that nightmare become reality I'll need to hedge every penny to support the resistance or to escape should it be successfully crushed. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote: WillStG wrote: And I'll wager you the $5 I won from Rob predicting that Grey Davis would be recalled as Governor of California this will be the case. You in? No piece of any such bet for me. Should that nightmare become reality I'll need to hedge every penny to support the resistance or to escape should it be successfully crushed. The $5.00 should be returned on a technicality - the spelling of Gov. Davis' name. (Surprise!) Where's Rob? Anyway? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: Pete Dimsman " Spam " 300 *and 5* Dimsman. You think getting on my case makes you look like less of an idiot? Good luck. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 03 Sep 2004 12:29:03 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote:
"reddred" Well, yes, in the sense that the people who got their news from Fox were more likely to believe in stuff that wasn't real. What is real is that big media News Organizations are no longer the gatekeepers for what the news of the day is. One can bemoan that like a Luddite or face the reality that News has become "Democratized", just like Music and everything else has been. That explains a lot, if you can't tell the difference between corporate control and democracy. Music and news are hardly democratized -- what planet do you live on? It's pretty much impossible to have a hit record without an enormous promotional budget, and no one can get their version of the "news" on TV without being a million dollar corporation. Evidence of this is that Fox News Channel beat the 3 Broadcast Networks during the RNC Convention in the ratings, but that put calls and email on the air doesn't make us any more immune to this trend, the rise of "Blogs" and that small groups like the Swiftboat veterans could with only about $200,000 drive the political discourse in this country is much better evidence of this. Increasingly the public is deciding for themselves what the important stories of the day are, and Big Media less and less. The public definitely does not decide which stories FOX reports or ignores, nor do they have any say in the tone or slant of the reporting. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 03 Sep 2004 12:29:03 GMT, ospam (WillStG) wrote:
"reddred" Well, yes, in the sense that the people who got their news from Fox were more likely to believe in stuff that wasn't real. What is real is that big media News Organizations are no longer the gatekeepers for what the news of the day is. One can bemoan that like a Luddite or face the reality that News has become "Democratized", just like Music and everything else has been. That explains a lot, if you can't tell the difference between corporate control and democracy. Music and news are hardly democratized -- what planet do you live on? It's pretty much impossible to have a hit record without an enormous promotional budget, and no one can get their version of the "news" on TV without being a million dollar corporation. Evidence of this is that Fox News Channel beat the 3 Broadcast Networks during the RNC Convention in the ratings, but that put calls and email on the air doesn't make us any more immune to this trend, the rise of "Blogs" and that small groups like the Swiftboat veterans could with only about $200,000 drive the political discourse in this country is much better evidence of this. Increasingly the public is deciding for themselves what the important stories of the day are, and Big Media less and less. The public definitely does not decide which stories FOX reports or ignores, nor do they have any say in the tone or slant of the reporting. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
playonATcomcast.net
That explains a lot, if you can't tell the difference between corporate control and democracy. Music and news are hardly democratized -- what planet do you live on? It's pretty much impossible to have a hit record without an enormous promotional budget, and no one can get their version of the "news" on TV without being a million dollar corporation. Dude - thanks to modern technology almost anyone can compose and record Orchestral music without having to have a King or the Holy Church as a patron. One can record and mix a 48 track recording project in one's basement, without needing a record company, a drug lord or the mafia as a sponsor to do so. That's what I mean by the "Democratization" of the music business - you seem to take it all for granted. It is also true there are more outlets for distribution now than ever, and many feel direct marketing will eventually surpass major labels. The good news is everyone can make a CD - and the bad news is everyone can make a CD. Similarly cable news and the rise of web "Blogs" and web columnists like Drudge, Salon and the like arguably reflect the same trend of "democratization". Sure cable TV takes more money than a server does, but compared to the Broadcast networks - with their massive budgets, established viewing trends, brand names, market penetration and bureaus all over the world? An enormous difference in scale my friend. Fox News Channel had nothing 8 years ago - no news gathering infrastructure, no programming, no studios, no talent, no brand name, no distribution, no advertisers, no place on cable systems let alone a decent position on the cable dial. Our budget was 1/10th of CNN's, they had 3500 employees, we hired 700, they had 30 established Bureaus abroad and in the States and we had a total of *8*. Yet *NO* company has ever risen so far so fast in the history of the business world - ever. And IMHO, although everyone who has contributed to our product deserves kudos for their hard work, I cannot help but also observe that the failure of our competitors, who possessed almost every possible advantage over us has also contributed to our remarkable success. The public definitely does not decide which stories FOX reports or ignores, nor do they have any say in the tone or slant of the reporting. You are very very wrong in this assumption. Why do you think we cover every damn car chase that somes down the pike, to the exclusion of more serious programming? Because the ratings spike by a factor of 3 or more when we do so, they track what stories viewers are interested in very, very closely. Our Fox News Channel logo is 3 dimensional and revolves because viewers complained that the logo was burning into their screens, so we made a logo that would be more "fan friendly". No one takes more viewer calls or reads as much email on air as we do either. Viewer interest absolutely drives our coverage and our product, and we do so with respect for a wider range of views than anyone else. You are I take it not a Broadcast audio professional, and even if you were you might not give a damn about any of this, that is fine. Many do not. But you might like to be a bit more circumspect in proclaiming your narrow set of assumptions as fact, based on little else than your personal bias. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
playonATcomcast.net
That explains a lot, if you can't tell the difference between corporate control and democracy. Music and news are hardly democratized -- what planet do you live on? It's pretty much impossible to have a hit record without an enormous promotional budget, and no one can get their version of the "news" on TV without being a million dollar corporation. Dude - thanks to modern technology almost anyone can compose and record Orchestral music without having to have a King or the Holy Church as a patron. One can record and mix a 48 track recording project in one's basement, without needing a record company, a drug lord or the mafia as a sponsor to do so. That's what I mean by the "Democratization" of the music business - you seem to take it all for granted. It is also true there are more outlets for distribution now than ever, and many feel direct marketing will eventually surpass major labels. The good news is everyone can make a CD - and the bad news is everyone can make a CD. Similarly cable news and the rise of web "Blogs" and web columnists like Drudge, Salon and the like arguably reflect the same trend of "democratization". Sure cable TV takes more money than a server does, but compared to the Broadcast networks - with their massive budgets, established viewing trends, brand names, market penetration and bureaus all over the world? An enormous difference in scale my friend. Fox News Channel had nothing 8 years ago - no news gathering infrastructure, no programming, no studios, no talent, no brand name, no distribution, no advertisers, no place on cable systems let alone a decent position on the cable dial. Our budget was 1/10th of CNN's, they had 3500 employees, we hired 700, they had 30 established Bureaus abroad and in the States and we had a total of *8*. Yet *NO* company has ever risen so far so fast in the history of the business world - ever. And IMHO, although everyone who has contributed to our product deserves kudos for their hard work, I cannot help but also observe that the failure of our competitors, who possessed almost every possible advantage over us has also contributed to our remarkable success. The public definitely does not decide which stories FOX reports or ignores, nor do they have any say in the tone or slant of the reporting. You are very very wrong in this assumption. Why do you think we cover every damn car chase that somes down the pike, to the exclusion of more serious programming? Because the ratings spike by a factor of 3 or more when we do so, they track what stories viewers are interested in very, very closely. Our Fox News Channel logo is 3 dimensional and revolves because viewers complained that the logo was burning into their screens, so we made a logo that would be more "fan friendly". No one takes more viewer calls or reads as much email on air as we do either. Viewer interest absolutely drives our coverage and our product, and we do so with respect for a wider range of views than anyone else. You are I take it not a Broadcast audio professional, and even if you were you might not give a damn about any of this, that is fine. Many do not. But you might like to be a bit more circumspect in proclaiming your narrow set of assumptions as fact, based on little else than your personal bias. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
playon wrote: Not quite nothing. FOX was not started, nor owned by your average American, but a foreign millionaire (billionaire?). In fact it isn't even owned by an American. True. Ted Turner did this in 1980. This is not new. What Ted did was new. People thought he was nuts. 20th Century Fox was a failing company in the '70's. I saw a screening of a film about a boxer from Philadelphia, and as I left the screening room, one of the the staff said that he hoped this film would do well, because they really needed some success. Some people in space ships didn't do too badly, either. Then comes Rupert with his money, buys some old films (like Ted did with MGM),and starts a network. Everyone laughed. The difference between CNN and Faux is that people are still laughing at the latter, because they are still failing in the things that matter. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
playon wrote: Not quite nothing. FOX was not started, nor owned by your average American, but a foreign millionaire (billionaire?). In fact it isn't even owned by an American. True. Ted Turner did this in 1980. This is not new. What Ted did was new. People thought he was nuts. 20th Century Fox was a failing company in the '70's. I saw a screening of a film about a boxer from Philadelphia, and as I left the screening room, one of the the staff said that he hoped this film would do well, because they really needed some success. Some people in space ships didn't do too badly, either. Then comes Rupert with his money, buys some old films (like Ted did with MGM),and starts a network. Everyone laughed. The difference between CNN and Faux is that people are still laughing at the latter, because they are still failing in the things that matter. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: So what? When your budget is 1/10th CNN's and you have 700 employess to their 3500, beating them means everyone worked their damn butts off. No, it ain't that hard to run the Lacy Peterson story 24/7 why the other stations are busy putting together serious stories of the latest news events. Sinking to the lowest common demonanator has always been easy money. Just depends on if the actual goal is to make the world a better place in addition turning a profit. The Jerry Springer show makes TONS of money. Doesn't look like they're working all that hard. Seems like all they need is a couple of 10/hour body guards and some clowns for people to laugh at... |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: So what? When your budget is 1/10th CNN's and you have 700 employess to their 3500, beating them means everyone worked their damn butts off. No, it ain't that hard to run the Lacy Peterson story 24/7 why the other stations are busy putting together serious stories of the latest news events. Sinking to the lowest common demonanator has always been easy money. Just depends on if the actual goal is to make the world a better place in addition turning a profit. The Jerry Springer show makes TONS of money. Doesn't look like they're working all that hard. Seems like all they need is a couple of 10/hour body guards and some clowns for people to laugh at... |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
ospam (WillStG) wrote in message ...
"reddred" Well, yes, in the sense that the people who got their news from Fox were more likely to believe in stuff that wasn't real. What is real is that big media News Organizations are no longer the gatekeepers for what the news of the day is. One can bemoan that like a Luddite or face the reality that News has become "Democratized", just like Music and everything else has been. Evidence of this is that Fox News Channel beat the 3 Broadcast Networks during the RNC Convention in the ratings, but that put calls and email on the air doesn't make us any more immune to this trend, the rise of "Blogs" and that small groups like the Swiftboat veterans could with only about $200,000 drive the political discourse in this country is much better evidence of this. Increasingly the public is deciding for themselves what the important stories of the day are, and Big Media less and less. Personally, I think this is a good thing, but whether one agrees with this view or not, it is reality. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits I hate to break it to you Will, but Fox is big media. Even if I agreed with most of the things they said, I'd not watch it, because most of the people on there talk way too loud...can you turn down the output level or something? I mean seriously it sounds like they are yelling even when they are talking, and when they are yelling (which is much of the time) it's really unbearable. Analogeezer |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
ospam (WillStG) wrote in message ...
"reddred" Well, yes, in the sense that the people who got their news from Fox were more likely to believe in stuff that wasn't real. What is real is that big media News Organizations are no longer the gatekeepers for what the news of the day is. One can bemoan that like a Luddite or face the reality that News has become "Democratized", just like Music and everything else has been. Evidence of this is that Fox News Channel beat the 3 Broadcast Networks during the RNC Convention in the ratings, but that put calls and email on the air doesn't make us any more immune to this trend, the rise of "Blogs" and that small groups like the Swiftboat veterans could with only about $200,000 drive the political discourse in this country is much better evidence of this. Increasingly the public is deciding for themselves what the important stories of the day are, and Big Media less and less. Personally, I think this is a good thing, but whether one agrees with this view or not, it is reality. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits I hate to break it to you Will, but Fox is big media. Even if I agreed with most of the things they said, I'd not watch it, because most of the people on there talk way too loud...can you turn down the output level or something? I mean seriously it sounds like they are yelling even when they are talking, and when they are yelling (which is much of the time) it's really unbearable. Analogeezer |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| I love This Website | Audio Opinions | |||
| BUSH IS THE KING OF CLASS WARFARE! | Pro Audio | |||
| BUSH IS THE KING OF CLASS WARFARE! | Tech | |||
| Bad News For Sandman And The Irrelevant Left | Audio Opinions | |||
| A compendium of international news articles | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
