Way to go Fox News.....

[Ned]

Sorry

FAUX NEWS wasnt trying to belittle anyone's post. It was a joke. Faux=Fake, therefore Fake News

I am about to give up on the thread, because internet debating seems like a pandora's box. I only hope my links have been entertaining or illuminating.

One thing though: I think you all are missing the point. Fox sucks not because it is right or left, but because it is bad journalism. There are whole university departments and majors studying and teaching what is good journalism. It is a scientific, not emotional, criticism. Fox tries to copyright "Fair and balanced." How insanely anti-free speech is that? What's next? New and improved (C)?

Some elements of bad journalism:
North: convicted of lying to congress, don't reporters bring us truth?
Rivera: blurs the combatant/reporter line by bringing a gun and a camera onto a battlefield
O'Reilly: cuts off mics when he feels threatened
Guests: Republicans and generals; guests and airtime can be analyzed scientifically.

I dont think this is circular logic, it is just a verifiable fact that Fox provides a very mediocre factually light news-like product. Sheesh. And if people here like it, I am not going to diss you, but just say: "Please consider broadening your nets for information a little. The results may suprise you"

Sunch, good job by you, for cruising the links.

[Gooberman]

I don't think it should legally be allowed to call itself Balanced. Fair, I dunno, thats too subjective. But Balanced is not true, and anyone can just take their own statistical poll by watching TV. I encourage you to try it.

I think by calling themselves balanced they do a huge disservice to conservatives who claim that the 'main stream' media leans to the left.

[Birdseye]

One thing though: I think you all are missing the point. Fox sucks not because it is right or left, but because it is bad journalism.

Agreed. It's sad that republicans feel the need to defend it though, just because they agree with the conclusions, damn the shoddy methodology.

[CUDA]

ok ferno here ya go,for Sept 8 2005 this is an MSN poll, it lists the top cable shows PERIOD not just the news programs. 13 of the top 15 cable programs are Fox news programs. not a single other news agancy is even listed. its obvious that you do not like Fox news, but they are obviously popular with more ppl than any other cable news organization. I also stumbled onto another survey that stated that 3 out of 4 ppl considered the majority of news media outlets to lean to the left either moderatly or significantly
I wish I could find the link, I'll look again later

http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/article ... ews=201026

Ratings for Basic Cable Networks
Sep 8, 5:48 PM EST


Rankings for the top 15 programs on basic cable networks as compiled by Nielsen Media Research for the week of Aug. 29-Sept. 4. Each ratings point represents 1,096,000 households. Day and start time (EDT) are in parentheses.

1. "The Closer" (Monday, 9 p.m.), TNT, 3.8, 4.19 million homes.

2. "The O'Reilly Factor" (Friday, 8 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.6, 3.96 million homes.

3. "Fox News Live" (Monday, 10 a.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.6, 3.93 million homes.

4. "The O'Reilly Factor" (Thursday, 8 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.5, 3.89 million homes.

5. "Hannity & Colmes" (Friday, 9 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.5, 3.83 million homes.

6. "Hannity & Colmes" (Thursday, 9 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.5, 3.81 million homes.

7. "Hannity & Colmes" (Wednesday, 9 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.4, 3.78 million homes.

8. "The O'Reilly Factor" (Wednesday, 8 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.4, 3.75 million homes.

9. "Studio B With Shepard Smith" (Friday, 3 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.3, 3.65 million homes.

10. "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren" (Wednesday, 10 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.3, 3.63 million homes.

11. "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren" (Thursday, 10 p.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.2, 3.57 million homes.

12. "WWE Raw Zone" (Monday, 10 p.m.), Spike, 3.2, 3.55 million homes.

13. "Special Report: President Bush and FEMA Director" (Friday, 11:24 a.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.2, 3.49 million homes.

14. "Fox News Live" (Friday, 11:40 a.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.2, 3.47 million homes.

15. "Fox News Live" (Monday, 11 a.m.), Fox News Channel, 3.1, 3.44 million homes.



Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

as for moveon.org and thier being liberal, have you ever heard of George Soros?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.

His campaign began last summer with the help of Morton H. Halperin, a liberal think tank veteran. Soros invited Democratic strategists to his house in Southampton, Long Island, including Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta, Jeremy Rosner, Robert Boorstin and Carl Pope.

They discussed the coming election. Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million.

Moveon is one of if not the most liberal activist organization in the country, so watch out how you critisize one organization when the one you quote is even further in the opposite direction

[Suncho]

So here's the difference:

moveon.org:

A liberal activist organization that calls itself a liberal activist organization that digs deep and uses legimate journalism to back up their ideas.

Fox News Channel:

A conservative activist organization that calls itself a fair and balanced news channel and twists/spints/contorts facts to derive shallow conclusions in order to back up their ideas.


Personally, I consider myself liberal in some areas and conservative in others. I see some Fox News type stuff on the liberal side of the aisle and it makes me just as sick. Both sides are trying to spin things their way and move the middle of the road further left or right.

Fox News is the *ONLY* cable news channel that uses this tactic. I DO NOT see it from CNN or MSNBC.

It's a good strategy. Many people have been duped by Fox News into believing there's a liberal slant in the mainstream media. Perhaps there is. But if there is, it's only because Fox News has actively redefined the meaning of "Fair and Balanced." It's a sneaky political tactic and many people are buying into it.

If I recall correctly, Communists in China used similar tactics with their news media.

Thankfully, America is protected by something called the first ammendment. People are free to speak out against Fox News and actively argue that it's biased. So does Fox News frutstrate me a little bit? Yeah. Do I think it's the end of the world? No.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats just assume you're stupid, tell you you're stupid, and convince you that because of it, you need to agree with their better judgement.

Republicans just assume you're stupid, tell you you're smart, and use your ego to trick you into agreeing with their better judgement.

[CUDA]

So here's the difference:

moveon.org:

A liberal activist organization that calls itself a liberal activist organization that digs deep and uses legimate journalism to back up their ideas.

Fox News Channel:

A conservative activist organization that calls itself a fair and balanced news channel and twists/spints/contorts facts to derive shallow conclusions in order to back up their ideas.

ah I see how it is, so as long as your on the left your journalism is legitimate, but if your on the right you use twist/spin/contort facts to back up your shallow conclusions, how blind can you get Suncho. I suggest you spit out the hook before they reel you in any further, it would seem by the ratings that a majority of the ppl that watch cable TV would disagree with you. I got it figured out tho, maybe the only people that can afford cable are rich white republicans huh, or even better maybe they dont let poor democrats subscribe to cable, ya thats it. cmon Suncho you cannot be that naieve

Thankfully, America is protected by something called the first ammendment. People are free to speak out against Fox News and actively argue that it's biased. So does Fox News frutstrate me a little bit? Yeah. Do I think it's the end of the world? No.

I agree but to think that fox is the only one as some here have suggested to do this is also naieve. I have aready said I do not agree with all of Fox, but it does represent my ideals better than any other news out there, as it apparently does most cable subscribers

[TheCope]

Cuda,

Suncho said moveon.org openly admits their agenda while fox definitely has an agenda but tries to play it off like they are rational and balanced. Itâ??s clear as day what he was saying.

[CUDA]

Cuda,

Suncho said moveon.org openly admits their agenda while fox definitely has an agenda but tries to play it off like they are rational and balanced. Itâ??s clear as day what he was saying.

I know what he was saying. but how can journalism be legitimate when you freely admit it has an agenda. if it is journalism with an agenda then it is no longer journalism it is propaganda. he said Moveon is legitimate journalism and Fox twists and spins.so either he is blinded by his liberalism or he doesnt understand the meaning of journalism.

jour·nal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jûrn-lzm)
n.
The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.

my entire point of this debate and the original intent of this thread was to point out to those of you that fail to admit is that ALL news is biased dont fool yourself into thinking its not. some here do call it Faux news thats right it is, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ALL NEWS. they are all the same they all put thier slant on what they report. I just find it comical those here that seem to think otherwise. big bad fox is an arm of the right wing, so what!!!!! I say its about time, and by the ratings I would say those most ppl agree

[Ned]

Just for kicks I am going to lay a few opinions on the line:

I think almost ALL the media is biased and slants, and of the ones mentioned they are all fairly RIGHT leaning. Bush or Fox calling the media liberal is kind of a joke. Even PBS and NPR interviewed VERY VERY few dissenting antiwar voices prior to the war. Out of hundreds and hundreds of interviews prior to the war, only like 4 guests across all the networks were critical voices. I can find the study if anyone needs it. Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. all very RIGHT, yet with fox being very RIGHT and lesser quiality methodolgy.

If you want some LEFT, I would go to:
DemocracyNow.org
BBCnewc.com
truthout.org
London Independent
GuerrillaNews.com
Indymedia.com

(I think those are the URLS)

I like you guys, but I think your definition of LEFT is too narrow and out of synch with international standards.

[CUDA]

even by their own admission most journalists are left of center, and yes we are more conservative than Europe

[quote]

How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalistsâ?? self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.
Journalistsâ?? Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as â??liberalâ?

[Stryker]

out of synch with international standards.

Good.

[Ned]

Probably in most free societies the gov't twists facts and the media challenges them. Probably their job to challenge authority. Not sure if that is exactly a left definition. But media is probably, by definition, suppost to be challengers and diggers.

Go Guckert go!

[DCrazy]

Ideally, the job of the press would not be to provoke change (which by its very definition requires an agenda of some sort). Rather the media would be reporting straight facts on the citizens' movements for change (their selectiveness in reporting different movements would be reflective of any bias). Unfortunately, citizens are too lazy to exercise the extremely little power for change they have, so the media takes it upon itself to attempt to influence the changes it thinks are best for the people, an agenda which typically sides with the "liberal" label.

For example, I have no problem with special interest groups or muckrakers digging through the Congress or big businesses. They're crucial to making sure our country doesn't fall over on its side, and 99.9% of the time they are quite upfront with their agendas and affiliations. Unfortunately the media acts in this same way without being completely upfront with its politics, and that includes CNN's function as a workhorse for the Democratic party (see Ted Turner) as well as Fox's gruntwork for the Republican party (see Ailes and Murdoch).

Notice the subtle distinction between "media" and "press", and how the former connotes an active presence in the daily lives and functioning of this country, while the latter is the ideal nonpartisan information reporting agency, instead of a story creator.

[Top Wop]

So Palzon, if you were one to practice what you preach you would have made a post right now in light of what was now confirmed by someone who actually watched the show, so I guess I will have to call you out on an actually GENUINE charge as opposed to yours of the case of under-reaction.

[Suncho]

You have a good point Cuda. I'm actually not surprised about the statistics. Being a journalist generally requires some level of education and people with educations tend to be more liberal.

I don't think it's out of the question that the general media could slant in the liberal direction without even intending to do so. That's perfectly reasonable and perhaps likely.

In this scenario, the only way for conservatives to be equally represented, would be to intentionally go against the grain and purposefully report with a conservative tilt.

Fox News Channel seems to be filling that niche quite nicely. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with Fox News having a policy of conservatism. I'm not even really bothered by the lie that they're fair and balanced. What really irks me and grinds at my soul every time I watch is the blatant lapse of logic and reason that pervades the programming.

[Birdseye]

Cuda,

Suncho said moveon.org openly admits their agenda while fox definitely has an agenda but tries to play it off like they are rational and balanced. Itâ??s clear as day what he was saying.

I know what he was saying. but how can journalism be legitimate when you freely admit it has an agenda. if it is journalism with an agenda then it is no longer journalism it is propaganda. he said Moveon is legitimate journalism and Fox twists and spins.so either he is blinded by his liberalism or he doesnt understand the meaning of journalism.

jour·nal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jûrn-lzm)
n.
The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.

my entire point of this debate and the original intent of this thread was to point out to those of you that fail to admit is that ALL news is biased dont fool yourself into thinking its not. some here do call it Faux news thats right it is, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ALL NEWS. they are all the same they all put thier slant on what they report. I just find it comical those here that seem to think otherwise. big bad fox is an arm of the right wing, so what!!!!! I say its about time, and by the ratings I would say those most ppl agree

I don't think you get it. Moveon.org is not journalism. It does not call itself journalism. It is in no way a news organization. Of course its equivelent to fox in bias, but fox claims to be FAIR AND BALANCED

I think we ALL agree here that all news is biased, the question here we are debating, is to what degree.

Get it now?

BTW, on your statistics, you forgot to include polls of the managers, editors, and owners who actually make the decisions as to what is in the broadcast/paper. They, like most people in a position of power, may be predominantly republican. So it's not as simple as it might seem to you. BTW, don't just reply to this point and ignore that moveon.org is not a journalistic organization, but a admitted political organization. Thanks.

[roid]

CUDA, why do you keep posting stats regarding media outlet popularity (which i see FOX is on top of)? i don't see what that has to do with the main point you are making (that being that "FOX is good"). it makes perfect sense however in another context... as i said on the first page:

Why does FOX still have viewers I don't know...

The same reason George Bush is in power.

i won't say that what reason is. i'm sure you all know it without me saying.

Nope, can't say i do. :p

what is your theory as to why Fox news still has viewers?

Plain and simple: the entertainment factor.

and what kindof person would prefer that to actual news?

the answer to that question is obvious to me:

What i'm saying is that "popularity" just means you are popular, that's all. All it does is reflect the preferences of the society. Macdonalds is very popular with kids, does that mean they are the best restaurant? ★■◆● no. Kids are stupid, and if there's one thing Macdonalds (in fact the entire advertising industry) knows: it's how to market to stupid people.

i honestly think that if more people actually WANTED to know the truth (as shown by their taste in news choices), it would correlate directly with a change in government for the better - as these citizens, having an accurate knowledge of their world around them, would make fine democratic decisions.

[CUDA]

No birds I dont think you get it, Suncho is the one that called it

Legitimate Journalism

maybe you should try reading a post before your respond to it.

So here's the difference:

moveon.org:

A liberal activist organization that calls itself a liberal activist organization that digs deep and uses legimate journalism to back up their ideas.

I salute Suncho he gets the point I've been making you obviously don't

BTW, on your statistics, you forgot to include polls of the managers, editors, and owners who actually make the decisions as to what is in the broadcast/paper. They, like most people in a position of power, are predominantly republican. So it's not as simple as it might seem to you.

really??? where's YOUR proof, I have givin my proof showing the media has a slant to the left, so now its your turn, you make an accusation that all the editors and owners are predominatly Republicans and according to you if your in a position of power your a republican, Hrm I'm sure ppl like Ted Turner, George Soros, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and may more would be surprised to hear that

BTW, don't just reply to this point and ignore that moveon.org is not a journalistic organization, but a admitted political organization

never said they weren't but if again you had read any of the previous posts before responding you would have seen Ferno mention a "documentary" called outfoxed, that was produced by moveon and he used it as his standard to judge Fox, BTW, don't just reply to this point and ignore that the FACTS of a left leanin media bias

[Bold Deceiver]

Hmm. I've sort of skipped through the thread, so forgive me if someone else has mentioned this:

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace is, in my opinion, the best Sunday morning news program running. I also like Sunday Morning, but I don't consider that a hard news show.

The Panel: Brit Hume, Juan Williams, Mara Liason, and Bill Kristol. Great debates, every week. For free. I'm not a big fan of some of the Fox silly morning shows, but Fox News Sunday is brilliant. You're just not paying attention if you think otherwise.

And by the way, Chris Wallace is one of the finest journalists who ever lived. All there for you, on Fox.

BD

[roid]

but thx CUDA for the bit post with "liberal media" statistics. it was honestly quite surprising.

but to think that fox is the only one as some here have suggested to do this is also naieve.

i should chime in with everyone else that has already said this:
i obviously don't like FOX, but while FOX seems far the worst - i also don't like any of the other major commercial american media outlets.

if you wish to have a good knowledge of what's going on in the world, look elsewhere.

[CUDA]

CUDA, why do you keep posting stats regarding media outlet popularity (which i see FOX is on top of)? i don't see what that has to do with the main point you are making (that being that "FOX is good").

show me where I said Fox news was good, I said because of its Obviuos popularity compared to other networks it is more of the mainstream cable news outlet. on a side note I do think they are good. not all of it but most of it as I have previously stated

What i'm saying is that "popularity" just means you are popular, that's all. All it does is reflect the preferences of the society.

THANK YOU!!!!! you made my point. Fox news is popular because it reflects the preferences of society

[CUDA]

if you wish to have a good knowledge of what's going on in the world, look elsewhere.

agreed to stick totally to one outlet will never give you the whole picture

[Birdseye]

some day you will have an open minded debate instead of an ego defense reflex

[CUDA]

some day you will have an open minded debate instead of an ego defense reflex

heh someday you will do something other than post your "OPINION" in a blipvert and dash out the door. I produced my evidence to backup my statement birds, again I ask where is yours?

[Skyalmian]

Birdseye, the day the global ego collapses will be both a beautiful, long-awaited one, and a dangerous one.

[Birdseye]

heheh, "evidence" that fox news is not biased - nope don't see it, sorry, you posted a general poll that the average journalist is liberal. We already knew that, bash has posted those polls a million times.

You have yet to address the issue of Fox's bias with statistics.

You haven't seen outfoxed, you won't bother doing your own count of republican or democratic guests on fox, so why should I even bother?

you just seem to be getting really angry while defending your position. Take a deep breath. Relax. I'm your friend. I can learn something from you and you can learn something from me.

[CUDA]

heheh, "evidence" that fox news is not biased - nope don't see it, sorry, you posted a general poll that the average journalist is liberal. We already knew that, bash has posted those polls a million times.

You have yet to address the issue of Fox's bias with statistics.

You haven't seen outfoxed, you won't bother doing your own count of republican or democratic guests on fox, so why should I even bother?

you just seem to be getting really angry while defending your position. Take a deep breath. Relax. I'm your friend. I can learn something from you and you can learn something from me if this doesn't have to be some shouting match.

nice cop out birds, first of I never denied Fox has a bias, I stated several times that all media is biased, as for your why should I bother comment, you wont bother because you cannot back up your statement of owners and editors being predominatly republican. you expect me do prove it for you, if you want those facts dig them up yourself if you can, then we will have something to debate. I have produced articles showing a liberal media bias, you seem to want to focus on Fox news and Fox news alone while ignoring the FACTS I have presented. both Suncho and Roid understand my points, open your mind and become elightened

and nope not getting angry defending my position, I dont need defend it the facts speak for themselves, your position on the otherhand seems to have no defense and your now trying to get me to defend it for you

[roid]

What i'm saying is that "popularity" just means you are popular, that's all. All it does is reflect the preferences of the society.

THANK YOU!!!!! you made my point. Fox news is popular because it reflects the preferences of society

but this is nothing to be proud of. i was saying the society's preferences are for style over substance. it's not a good thing.

[CUDA]

you may be correct, but it may also be possible that people like the substance along with the style

[Birdseye]

You still aren't reading my posts. I've already read that you think Fox has bias.

The issue is how much. I think a lot more, and it's pretty easy to back up with statistics.

I'm not arguing that I have statistics to back up that a higher percentage of managers and owners are republican than the average journalist is. If this weren't true, it would be a significant social abberation, as in almost all companies the top level people are usually republican. *shrug* if you really want to be that petty, we're wasting our time here. If you want to wave your *I win* flag on this one, I can live with that. I don't think either of us have a study on owners/editors managers but I think can at least agree that less than 90% of manager/owners are democrats.

That's really all I'm trying to say. That while the journalists might be 90% democrats (although I don't see this on tv, maybe this is referring to newspaper writers) a smaller percentage of manager/owners are democrats.


...but the real point, is still: Fox news has an over the top bias that includes Orwellian double speak. It is not news. It is political commentary, a ra-ra station for the republicans. If you want stats to back this up, I am happy to engage in this debate statistically. Your first item is to watch "Outfoxed". Next, like I did, watch at least 1 hour of fox news on a random weeknight and count the # of republican guests and # of democrat guests. To do this you may have to write down their names and look them up on the internet.

[Birdseye]

By the way, Thanks Bold - I will have to give that program a try, never have seen it. I only usually watch news on weeknights.

[woodchip]

i obviously don't like FOX, but while FOX seems far the worst - i also don't like any of the other major commercial american media outlets.

if you wish to have a good knowledge of what's going on in the world, look elsewhere.

Like perhaps the BBC?

[Suncho]

No birds I dont think you get it, Suncho is the one that called it

Legitimate Journalism

maybe you should try reading a post before your respond to it.

So here's the difference:

moveon.org:

A liberal activist organization that calls itself a liberal activist organization that digs deep and uses legimate journalism to back up their ideas.

I salute Suncho he gets the point I've been making you obviously don't

Actually I wasn't trying to imply that they write their own legitimate journalism. I was trying to say that they use other people's legitimate journalism to back up their points.

... and you still haven't answered my question. Is Fox News Channel successful because there are *THAT* many more conservatives in this country, or is it because there's something fundamentally different about the way they operate as compared to other cable news channels?

[Suncho]

i obviously don't like FOX, but while FOX seems far the worst - i also don't like any of the other major commercial american media outlets.

if you wish to have a good knowledge of what's going on in the world, look elsewhere.

Like perhaps the BBC?

That's a good place to start. =)

[Pandora]

how can journalism be legitimate when you freely admit it has an agenda.

Because - as long as journalism is made by humans - it cannot be "objective" or "without an agenda". The only honest way is to make your particular viewpoint apparent. Then viewers can put your news into perspective. If an outlets viewpoint is unknown, this is impossible.

[Will Robinson]

One thing though: I think you all are missing the point. Fox sucks not because it is right or left, but because it is bad journalism.

Agreed. It's sad that republicans feel the need to defend it though, just because they agree with the conclusions, damn the shoddy methodology.

Maybe because if Fox was to go away you would still have bad journalism but the one national source that is sypathetic to the rightwing would be gone...

There is a perception that the others slant to the left and it's based, at least somewhat, in fact.

[Suncho]

One thing though: I think you all are missing the point. Fox sucks not because it is right or left, but because it is bad journalism.

Agreed. It's sad that republicans feel the need to defend it though, just because they agree with the conclusions, damn the shoddy methodology.

Maybe because if Fox was to go away you would still have bad journalism but the one national source that is sypathetic to the rightwing would be gone...

There is a perception that the others slant to the left and it's based, at least somewhat, in fact.

I don't want Fox to go away. I just think it'd be nice if they changed their tag line from "Fair and Balanced" to "Conservative News for Conservative Conservatives Conservatively Conserving Conservative Viewpoints."

Hehe! "Conservative" is a funny word. Just say it a buncha times.

[CUDA]

... and you still haven't answered my question. Is Fox News Channel successful because there are *THAT* many more conservatives in this country, or is it because there's something fundamentally different about the way they operate as compared to other cable news channels?

ok this is PURELY my opinion since I dont think there is anyway to prove it, but honestly I think its both and I'll give some reasoning for that, talk radio. Rush, Michael Savage, O'Reilly, Hannity, all VERY sucessfull conservative radio talk show's with HUGE listenership, there are few if any Liberal talk radio that are popular and that come even close to the numbers they put up, that would tend to say that.
1. either conservative radio listeners are more vocal, which historically this hasnt been the case,
2. there are more conservatives.

as for the way they deliver the news, it doesnt matter what you say if your boring in the way you say it. you need to keep your viewers interested or you wont have any. so they obviously deliver the news in a way that draws in viewers. maybe it is more WHAT they say I dont know, but if we just assume that fox is a arm of the right wing then it would be a fair indicator that there are more conservatives in this country

[Behemoth]

fox always seemed way too conservative to even cloud good judgement in their broadcasts, and when people present other viewpoints on shows ive seen them try to argue them down fiercly,
as it is it seems like doing that wouldnt really put your channel at the highest or most popular rating.
Fair and balanced = bs

[Suncho]

Well you might have a point there Cuda. America is a lot more conservative than the rest of the world.