Безнаказанные судьи отпускают на волю насильников маленьких детей.

[Mikhail-u]

Хоть не смешите! За маразматические идеи стоит именно Хэннити, который настолько туп, что не может отойти от своих [talking points]. Колмса он бьёт не аргументами (это было бы оксюмороном), а криком. Да и по времени, у Хэннити его всегда намного больше. А уж про подборку гостей я молчу. 90% приглашённых--это ярые репы.

Насчёт "экономического блока" на Фоксе, да, раз в неделю у них есть [panel], где примерно равное время у 5-6 участников. При этом, 3-4 из них обычно ярые репы. Никогда у левых нет равного времени там.
На [Fox News Sunday] тоже--4 участника, из них 2 ярые репы: Хьюм и Кристол, одна центристка и один умеренный левый.
"Плюрализм" в Вашем стиле ;)

Короче, Вы клинический большевик. У Фокса я насчитал не менее 20 левых и крайне левых ведущих и контрибьютеров. Столько правых в общей сложности у всех вместе взятых конкурентов не наберётся. Но Вам всё мало - потому, что у Вас сверхзадача. Это уже скучно - если не перестанете играть в андроида - останетесь наедине с инструкциями и программами Вашей партии.;)

А уж про ведущих Фокса--Кавуто и Гибсона уж и говорить нечего. Одни их "темы" чего стоят.

Да, они балаболкам типа Карвилла-Бегалы-Мэтьюса-Обдермана - не по зубам.

[Incognito]

Короче, Вы клинический большевик. У Фокса я насчитал не менее 20 левых и крайне левых ведущих и контрибьютеров. Столько правых в общей сложности у всех вместе взятых конкурентов не наберётся. Но Вам всё мало - потому, что у Вас сверхзадача. Это уже скучно - если не перестанете играть в андроида - останетесь наедине с инструкциями и программами Вашей партии.;)

Как я испугался, что Вы прекратите дезинформировать
Ваши подсчёты ничего не стоят, так как политических передач на Фоксе больше. На других каналах меньше людей с чётко выраженной позицией, вот и всё. Как уже неоднократно Вам тут говорил, есть только ОДИН либеральный ведущий на всём кабельном ТВ: Олберман. А правых ведущих пруд пруди. ;)


Fox News Channel


Launched in 1996, Fox News has in recent years consistently earned higher viewer ratings than the other cable news networks. It is owned by News Corp., which also owns Fox Broadcasting Co. The media empire of News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch also includes the conservative New York Post and The Weekly Standard. Roger Ailes, the chairman, CEO, and president of Fox News Channel, is a former aide to President Nixon, a consultant to President Reagan, and worked for George H. W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.

Fox News' programming features numerous on-air personalities who have furthered conservative misinformation, including Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor, who labels himself "a traditionalist"; Sean Hannity, who with Alan Colmes co-hosts Hannity & Colmes; and Brit Hume, host of Special Report, which is largely presented as straight news, though Hume injects his conservative perspective into much of the program's coverage. As a July 2004 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting study has documented, Special Report regularly features one-on-one interviews with subjects who are conservative far more often than liberal or moderate. The show also includes a discussion panel that often repeats Republican talking points. The morning program Fox & Friends features three hosts with conservative perspectives. Carl Cameron, the network's chief White House correspondent, and congressional correspondent Brian Wilson have both often presented ostensibly straight news programming with a slant that favors conservatives. Fox's other daytime programs (The Big Story with John Gibson, Fox News Live, and Your World with Neil Cavuto) and its marquee weekend news show (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, which also airs on Fox Broadcasting Co. affiliates) also are presented as objective news sources, yet Media Matters for America has compiled substantial research indicating the network's coverage most often favors the conservative viewpoint and often blatantly misinforms viewers.

Fox's featured programs (Fox & Friends, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity & Colmes) often advance misinformation that furthers the conservative position on an entire slate of issues. Besides the network's self-identified conservatives, Fox's "straight news" anchors and reporters continually amplify misinformation that favors the conservative viewpoint and on occasion have even admitted their own conservative perspective.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topic...hannel?f=h_hot

[Mikhail-u]

Я Вас уже не первый месяц просто заваливаю фактами, которые противоречат буквально каждой Вашей политической позиции, но кроме эмоций и огульного отрицания фактов у Вас ничего нет :( Видимо, запрещено ЦК реповской партии рядовым членам иметь свою точки зрения.

Мы уже вяыснили, что даже с самим понятием "факт" у Вас серьёзные проблемы. Например, Ваше "корелляция 0.9" - это факт или пропаганда? Где подтверждение?

[Incognito]

SINCE THE 2006 ELECTION

To supplement these findings, the study also examined the performance of all four shows since the Democratic victories in the 2006 election. Among the findings:

Although it had been significantly imbalanced in the past, ABC's This Week has been the most balanced of the four programs since the midterm election, dividing almost evenly between the two sides.
Despite the fact that Fox News Sunday remains the most unbalanced broadcast overall, they have made an improvement in the balance of its elected and administration guests. While there were nearly twice as many Republicans as Democrats on the program in 2005 and 2006, the two parties' officials have been equally represented since the 2006 election. It should be noted, however, that because Fox News Sunday's roundtable discussions are skewed so dramatically to the right, overall there are still substantially more Republicans and conservatives on the program than Democrats and progressives.
Meet the Press and Face the Nation have both performed poorly since the election, with both their overall guest list and the list of administration and elected officials featured on the shows skewing to the right.
COMPARING THE SHOWS IN 2005 AND 2006

The following tables summarize the results from 2005 and 2006. During this period, Republicans and conservatives had the advantage on every show, in every category measured. All four shows interviewed more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives overall, interviewed more Republican elected and administration officials than Democratic officials, hosted more conservative journalists than progressive journalists, held more panels that tilted right than tilted left, and gave more solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives.

By any measure, Fox News Sunday is the least balanced of the four shows. Every other show came out as the most balanced -- or nearly the least balanced -- in at least one category in 2005 and 2006:

This Week was the most balanced in its solo interviews and interviews of administration and elected officials. But it had the most tilted panels among the three major network shows and the most right-leaning collection of journalists.
Face the Nation had the most balanced collection of journalists (because it brings on mostly neutral reporters) and the most balanced panels, but it leaned furthest to the right among the three major network programs in its solo interviews and its overall guest list.
Meet the Press was the most balanced overall in 2005 and 2006, but the least balanced of the three major network shows when it came to administration and elected officials.

http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowre...nline_version/

[Incognito]

fig15.png

Вот, полюбуйтесь, как "сбалансировано" обсуждение политики на ТВ.

[Incognito]

OTHER KEY FINDINGS

Republicans and conservatives dramatically outnumbered Democrats and progressives on the Sunday shows in 2005 and 2006, by a margin of 44 percent to 27 percent (the remainder were neutral or nonpartisan figures).
Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Republicans had a stark advantage over Democrats, 62 percent to 37 percent.
Fox News Sunday's journalist panels are the most lopsided, with a typical lineup consisting of two or even three conservatives, one neutral reporter, and one progressive. But even on ABC, NBC, and CBS, conservative journalists were nearly twice as likely as their progressive counterparts to appear on the Sunday shows.
While a majority of guest panels on the ABC, NBC, and CBS shows were balanced or neutral in their composition, there were nearly three times as many right-leaning panels as left-leaning ones. Fox News Sunday was even worse.
The most frequent guests on the Sunday shows during the past two years were Sen. Joseph R Biden Jr. (D-DE), with 38 appearances, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with 30 appearances, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), also with 30 appearances. And, unlike most elected officials, McCain is almost always given a solo interview rather than being paired with a colleague from the opposing party.
The Sunday shows granted far more solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives than to Democrats and progressives. The top two Republicans to be interviewed solo, Rice and McCain, together were interviewed solo twice as often as the top two Democrats to be interviewed solo, Biden and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowre...nline_version/

[Mikhail-u]

Как уже неоднократно Вам тут говорил, есть только ОДИН либеральный ведущий на всём кабельном ТВ: Олберман. А правых ведущих пруд пруди. ;)

Ну что поделать если Вы говорите постоянно невпопад? Вы называете "центристами" агессивных леваков, типа Брокау, Дженкинса и Курик -просто потому, что сами - крайне левый.

Олберман - Ваш фаворит - злобная бестия, ктороый даже будучи в "солидном" кресле не может устоять, чтобы не коверкать название конкурирующего более успешного канала.

Fox News Channel

Launched in 1996, Fox News has in recent years consistently earned higher viewer ratings than the other cable news networks......

Вы бы ещё Суслова процитировали. Одиозно левацкая шарага, даже не претендующая на обьективность.

Wiki: Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog group founded by David Brock in 2004.

Media Matters for America describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media

[sharik]

Факт того что вы спорите на счёт сбалансированности Фокса смешён сам по себе. Это всеизвестный факт, не требующий доказательст...

Я же говорю, с таким подходом, скоро будем спорить про силы притяжения, и я уверена наидутся тоже какие-нибудь доказательства....

[Incognito]

Мы уже вяыснили, что даже с самим понятием "факт" у Вас серьёзные проблемы. Например, Ваше "корелляция 0.9" - это факт или пропаганда? Где подтверждение?

:grum: :grum: :grum:

Hounding Fox News coverage
By Mark Mellman
March 20, 2007
Journalists strive to report the news, not to be the news. So Fox News should have been a bit embarrassed to headline a story that ended with the Nevada Democratic Party canceling Fox’s sponsorship of a pre-caucus debate.

Then again, Fox is not a typical news organization. There are first-rate journalists at Fox, committed to accuracy, objectivity and fairness. However, as a network, Fox’s prime commitment is to the triumph of conservative politics, not to a well-informed public. From hiring hosts to selecting stories to framing questions for discussion, Fox demonstrates its dedication to advancing the ideological interests of the right.

As former Fox reporter/anchor Jon Du Pre put it in the documentary ”Outfoxed,” ”We weren’t necessarily, as it was told to us, a newsgathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view … we were there to reinforce a constituency.”

Conservatives retort that other media project a liberal bias, while Fox presents a needed counterweight. The liberal bias of network news is debatable; that Fox regularly reports false and inaccurate stories designed to drum up support for their candidates and causes is beyond serious dispute.

Can you imagine other networks allowing, let alone encouraging, their anchors to utter statements like ”John Kerry has Kim Jong Il on his side ... North Korea loves John Kerry” as part of a newscast?

Conservatives counter, citing CBS’s report on President Bush’s National Guard service, based on documents that were likely forgeries. However, the test of institutional bias is not whether mistakes are made, but rather how the organization responds to those errors. CBS launched an investigation, led by a former Republican Attorney General, while dismissing one of America’s most respected journalists and four others.

What evidence, forged or otherwise, did Fox rely on in asserting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) attended a Muslim madrassah? If CNN could go to the school and give the lie to the report, why couldn’t Fox? What outside panel was empowered to investigate how Fox could have aired such an outrageously inaccurate report? Who was fired for the inflammatory falsehoods?

A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, ”Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions” about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. ”found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.” Only 40 percent of those who relied on print media harbored this illusion, debunked thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission.

Instead of providing ”fair and balanced” reporting, Fox has created an audience ignorant of the facts, but fully supportive of management’s ideology.

An audience that decides for itself, based on ”fair and balanced” coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.
None of this argues for a boycott of Fox. While harboring no illusions, Democrats should try to communicate on Fox and through every other channel. I appear as a guest and will continue to, in the unlikely event they invite me again. However, if Fox wants the legitimacy afforded by official sponsorship of Democratic debates, it needs to become a relatively objective news organization, not a dispenser of partisan cant.
http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/houn...007-03-20.html

[Mikhail-u]

fig15.png

Вот, полюбуйтесь, как "сбалансировано" обсуждение политики на ТВ.

Перестаньте постать небылицы геббельсовцев. Вы же хоть и сквозь зубу, но признали, что левых журналистов - более 80%. Какие такие "правые передачи"?