FoxNews posts results of poll.

[Whoozyerdaddy]

CNN got the same results
Apparently it wasn't just Fox viewers who liked the speech.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than three-quarters of Americans who watched President Bush's State of the Union address had a positive reaction to it, although the reaction was muted from that in past years, according to a poll released Tuesday.

Forty-one percent of 370 adults who watched the speech said they had a "very positive" reaction to it. Another 37 percent said their response was "somewhat positive." In 2006, however, the "very positive" number was 48 percent; in 2005, it was 60 percent.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone just after the speech. The sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. (Key poll results)

Of those responding, 32 percent identified themselves as Republican, 31 percent as Democrats and 36 percent as independent.

Sixty-seven percent of speech watchers said they believe Bush's policies will move the country in the right direction, the lowest total of his presidency. In 2006, the number was 68 percent; in 2005, it was 77 percent.

Meanwhile, 53 percent said they believe the speech will lead to more cooperation between Bush and the Democrats who control Congress. Forty-three percent said it will lead to more disagreements.

Among the speech viewers, 51 percent said they were very or somewhat confident that the United States will achieve its goals in Iraq. After Bush's 2004 speech, the number was 71 percent.

In his speech, Bush asked for patience with his deployment of 21,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq, which has drawn opposition from Democrats and some Republican senators. (Watch Bush address the war in Iraq )

Sixty-eight percent said the president's policies on health care will be very or somewhat effective -- an increase from 2006's 64 percent. Bush proposed establishing new tax breaks he said would extend health coverage to more Americans.

And 74 percent said they believed Bush's proposals on energy -- including an effort to cut U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent over a decade -- would be very or somewhat effective. That was a slight decrease from 75 percent in 2006. (Watch the president outline his energy proposals )

A poll released Monday showed 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, and 34 percent approve -- his lowest job rating on the eve of a State of the Union address.

Different than the Fox poll but with similar results. Hmm... So we can expand the news watching moron list to CNN now too. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs
So immediately after the State of the Union FoxNews had a text message poll asking "How did the President do?"
The results were consistent from 11:31 until 11:58 when the poll closed.
At 11:22 the result was 84 percent Excellent, 4 percent Average and 10 percent Poor.
At 11:58 when the poll closed it was 85 percent Excellent, 4 percent Average and 10 percent Poor.
Discounting for the moment how you can come up with anything but a 100 percent figure in a text message poll, Jon Stewart made a great observation:
"Those are Stalin type numbers"
:Q

I guess if anyone out there still trusts FoxNews they won't be surprised.
However, for the rest of us, the sane ones, we recognize Stalin type numbers and Stalin type 'newscasts" when we them.

Are you slow?
You are the same type of person who makes threads about a CNN poll that showed Bush will only get 2% of the popular vote in 04.

Anybody who takes a poll like this serious needs their head examined, including that douchebag jon stewert.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: techs

:Q

I guess if anyone out there still trusts FoxNews they won't be surprised.
However, for the rest of us, the sane ones, we recognize Stalin type numbers and Stalin type 'newscasts" when we them.

as in, whatever....


you are so effing hilarious, I wouldn't know what to do without your type around here...



oh yeah, have an intelligent conversation... that might...

when all else fails...insult! Right...cause you did not refute what the op posted.

What in the hell is there to refute?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The poll itself is indicative of how retarded people must be to watch Faux News. Personally, the only thing I'm surprised about is that Faux viewers are capable of text messaging.

How are being tech savvy and watching Fox News mutually exclusive?

I watch Fox News (and CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC), voted Republican several times during my life, and I can probably hack circles around you...

how u like 'dem apples?

Most shut in Nerds can.

where do you get the idea that I'm sort of "shut in nerd"? Nobody that knows me would ever describe me that way. In fact, I'm probably the polar opposite of that statement.... just an FYI... being a tech guru != "shut-in nerd"... again with all the name-calling, stereotyping, and generalizations. Typical ATP&N...

Anyone who uses a single source for news and information is a moron. Anyone who dismisses any source from their body of references, simply because they often disagree with the viewpoints or agenda, is an even bigger moron.

How often do you use Al Jezeera as a source?

Actually, every day.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey
And anyone who doesn't critically evaluate their sources is more of a moron than that. There's simply too much hard evidence that Faux's editiorial process is so skewed and devoid of truth that it isn't worth considering as anything more than a sensationalistic junk tabloid.

I assume that you would say the same about Dan Rather then?

Of course.

Now, you're completely out of excuses. :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you people effing retarded? This is a text message poll, hardly meant to be scientific.

Is it too much to ask any media company that even pretends to be a "news" organization to be responsible enough to maintain at least the slightest semblance of credibility in the material that actually makes it onto their air space? :roll:

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Anyone who uses a single source for news and information is a moron. Anyone who dismisses any source from their body of references, simply because they often disagree with the viewpoints or agenda, is an even bigger moron.

And anyone who doesn't critically evaluate their sources is more of a moron than that. There's simply too much hard evidence that Faux's editiorial process is so skewed and devoid of truth that it isn't worth considering as anything more than a sensationalistic junk tabloid.

I assume that you would say the same about Dan Rather then?

They evaluated their source. He lied to CBS.

The news can't completely prevent errors when they're lied to.

Or, is Fox News not credible because they reported the claims of WMD by the administration and were lied to?

Note, after the many-million dollar investigation on the Rather incident, they said they were still unable to confirm whether the documents were authentic.

The best info we have is that the secretary to the officer who purportedly wrote the memos said they are his views at the time.

The right is greatly exaggerating the rush CBS did simply because they don't like the truth about their guy being aired when it's bad for him politically.

Sadly, most of them just buy into the attacks and don't realize they're exaggerated.

It's just the usual right-wing hive mentality that screams "ENEMY!!" and swarms to attack like hornets whose hive is threatened. Facts are of little use to them.

A mysterious person gave the document to a guy who thought it was authentic but lied to CBS about how he got it to protect a source. The right turns that into all of CBS news out to lie. If it *were* a forgery, someone went to an awful lot of trouble to make it when it happens to be accurate about the info, as shown by the secretary and other documents, such that one leading theory is that the Karl Rove types planted it as a trick to make people talk about the 'fraud' instead of the damaging story.

Sadly, these lies work too well - just as with the lie that Gore said he invented the internet, or that Kerry was insulting the troops (accurately or not) with that joke he told.

The first probably cost Gore the election, and the second was a factor in Kerry choosing not to run in 2008.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey
And anyone who doesn't critically evaluate their sources is more of a moron than that. There's simply too much hard evidence that Faux's editiorial process is so skewed and devoid of truth that it isn't worth considering as anything more than a sensationalistic junk tabloid.

I assume that you would say the same about Dan Rather then?

Of course.

Now, you're completely out of excuses. :laugh:

No excuses here, at least you are honest. Now, where is your rant about CNN and their poll showing somewhat similar results to FNC?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sadly, these lies work too well - just as with the lie that Gore said he invented the internet, or that Kerry was insulting the troops (accurately or not) with that joke he told.

please explain what you meant by "accurately or not" in the above sentence.

 

[Lemon law]

I did a comparison reading on the CNN methodologies and the comparable Fox methods. And the polling methods are radically different----first, the CNN poll seems to use a five point Lickert scale and the Fox a three point.---Fox got a 85% top mark---the CNN only 41%---the cited 67% number in the CNN poll was the sum of top mark plus better than neutral. And in the 2006 comparable mark for CNN--GWB got a 54% per cent top mark---and in 2005 he got 60%. And somehow CNN was citing a 37% favorable rating for GWB pre-speech when other polls are pegging the mark at more like 28%.

And then the polling methods also differ---in the Fox poll they ask the respondents to text message in and will tend to get only the motivated. In the CNN poll they called 370 people the following morning. Meaning they may tend to miss those who went to----gasp---work.

Its often postulated as a fact that a President gets about a 5% bump in the polls after a major speech such a SOTU. And I have also seen it stated that GWB got no such bump up when he gave the surge speech a few weeks ago.

But does anyone have some more accurate polls to show how well the SOTU speech went over nationally?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Wow. Someone points out that another news network, one not accused of being to the right of Hitler, comes up with the same results in their own poll and all in a sudden everyone shuts up?

And their poll was somewhat scientific. Heh... Anyone wan to comment on that? Anyone want to take back the "Fox News viewers are morons" comment? Or are we just going to add CNN viewers to the list?

 

[techs]

FoxNews said of Gerald Ford, when he died, that "most people credit ex-President Ford with ending the Viet Nam war"
How can anyone say they are a legitimate news source?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs
FoxNews said of Gerald Ford, when he died, that "most people credit ex-President Ford with ending the Viet Nam war"
How can anyone say they are a legitimate news source?

What do you care? Dont watch it if you dont like it.

 

[Lemon law]

To Whoseyerdaddy,

While you were writing your post---I was writing mine---and hate to tell you---even a superficial analysis
shows very different results between the CNN and Fox polls.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The poll itself is indicative of how retarded people must be to watch Faux News. Personally, the only thing I'm surprised about is that Faux viewers are capable of text messaging.

How are being tech savvy and watching Fox News mutually exclusive?

I watch Fox News (and CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC), voted Republican several times during my life, and I can probably hack circles around you...

how u like 'dem apples?

Most shut in Nerds can.

where do you get the idea that I'm sort of "shut in nerd"? Nobody that knows me would ever describe me that way. In fact, I'm probably the polar opposite of that statement.... just an FYI... being a tech guru != "shut-in nerd"... again with all the name-calling, stereotyping, and generalizations. Typical ATP&N...

Where did I say you were a shut in Nerd, I just said most shut in nerds can hack circles around me.

Anyone who uses a single source for news and information is a moron. Anyone who dismisses any source from their body of references, simply because they often disagree with the viewpoints or agenda, is an even bigger moron.

How often do you use Al Jezeera as a source?

Actually, every day.[/quote]Might as well, their credibility is about the same as Fox's.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Anyone who uses a single source for news and information is a moron. Anyone who dismisses any source from their body of references, simply because they often disagree with the viewpoints or agenda, is an even bigger moron.

Worse yet, they want any other views banished. We all must conform to accept only their view point, and our means of communication are assaulted in this war. Only government approved airwaves must be transmitted, comrade!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The poll itself is indicative of how retarded people must be to watch Faux News. Personally, the only thing I'm surprised about is that Faux viewers are capable of text messaging.

How are being tech savvy and watching Fox News mutually exclusive?

I watch Fox News (and CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC), voted Republican several times during my life, and I can probably hack circles around you...

how u like 'dem apples?

Most shut in Nerds can.

where do you get the idea that I'm sort of "shut in nerd"? Nobody that knows me would ever describe me that way. In fact, I'm probably the polar opposite of that statement.... just an FYI... being a tech guru != "shut-in nerd"... again with all the name-calling, stereotyping, and generalizations. Typical ATP&N...

Where did I say you were a shut in Nerd, I just said most shut in nerds can hack circles around me.

my original post was directed at babydoc, so why did you respond in the first place?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Whoseyerdaddy,

While you were writing your post---I was writing mine---and hate to tell you---even a superficial analysis
shows very different results between the CNN and Fox polls.

Not really. Bearing in mind that the Fox poll wasn't scientific... 88% of the respondants gave it an average or excellent grade.

In the CNN poll 78% of respondants gave it a very favorable or somewhat favorable rating.

Not that far off considering the difference in methodology.

But that was beside the point. The OP was attempting to insult the Fox News audience with the poll. I was attempting to show that, once again, he's wrong. That the sentiments reflected in the Fox poll are not unique to their audience. That or CNN randomly selected a group of Fox News viewers for their poll... Heh..

 

[sandorski]

Got a chuckle out of that Daily Show bit, but who knows why it didn't change? Could be because most of those who voted had already done so at that time.

 

[Termagant]

How can 85% think seriously think the speech was excellent? It was depressing. The fact of the matter is the major topic of national interest is how we are making zero progress in a war.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ztadmin

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you people effing retarded? This is a text message poll, hardly meant to be scientific. People watching Fox News are obviously mostly Republican, so of course they are going to like what Bush says. Using this to say that Fox News is biased is absolutely nuts, the only thing that this poll proves is that the majority of people that watch Fox News are Republicans, well DUH!

I know you are not this desperate for a FNC bashing thread.

It doesn't really matter if the poll is meant to be scientific. It might be nice to think that most viewers are intelligent and thoughtful enough to consider the environment in which the poll was conducted, but I'm guessing a lot of viewers don't think about that. Fox must be counting on that, too, when they run an opt-in text message poll. If Fox thought their viewers would recognize the poll as being meaningless, they wouldn't spend the money to run it.

On the issue of bias, I'd say the people at Fox News like making money. Our country is pretty evenly divided - we have about an equal number of people on the left and on the right. Let's face it, people don't watch Fox just to get the facts. Generally speaking, they watch whichever network conveys the news in the tone that they want to hear it in. Fox knows its customer base, and so when it comes time to run a quick and dirty poll, why should they go out of their way to try to get input from liberals? They can run their meaningless poll, and their right-wing viewers will be satisfied by it.

Fox as a whole isn't trying to promote a right-wing agenda. Don't give Fox so much credit - they're trying to make as much money as possible, not advance policies that they think will be good for America. The corporation exists to make money, and Fox knows they can do so by targeting right-wing viewers. It's hard to call that a bias.

On the other hand, you can certainly say Fox's anchors are biased. But, they're just hired by the corporation because the corporation knows that's what will draw in the audience they're targeting.

Listen to this man.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ztadmin

Originally posted by: JD50
Are you people effing retarded? This is a text message poll, hardly meant to be scientific. People watching Fox News are obviously mostly Republican, so of course they are going to like what Bush says. Using this to say that Fox News is biased is absolutely nuts, the only thing that this poll proves is that the majority of people that watch Fox News are Republicans, well DUH!

I know you are not this desperate for a FNC bashing thread.

It doesn't really matter if the poll is meant to be scientific. It might be nice to think that most viewers are intelligent and thoughtful enough to consider the environment in which the poll was conducted, but I'm guessing a lot of viewers don't think about that. Fox must be counting on that, too, when they run an opt-in text message poll. If Fox thought their viewers would recognize the poll as being meaningless, they wouldn't spend the money to run it.

On the issue of bias, I'd say the people at Fox News like making money. Our country is pretty evenly divided - we have about an equal number of people on the left and on the right. Let's face it, people don't watch Fox just to get the facts. Generally speaking, they watch whichever network conveys the news in the tone that they want to hear it in. Fox knows its customer base, and so when it comes time to run a quick and dirty poll, why should they go out of their way to try to get input from liberals? They can run their meaningless poll, and their right-wing viewers will be satisfied by it.

Fox as a whole isn't trying to promote a right-wing agenda. Don't give Fox so much credit - they're trying to make as much money as possible, not advance policies that they think will be good for America. The corporation exists to make money, and Fox knows they can do so by targeting right-wing viewers. It's hard to call that a bias.

On the other hand, you can certainly say Fox's anchors are biased. But, they're just hired by the corporation because the corporation knows that's what will draw in the audience they're targeting.

Listen to this man.

pffft, fox's news anchors aren't biased. Give me ONE vidcap of a news anchor spouting right wing bias.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Termagant
How can 85% think seriously think the speech was excellent? It was depressing. The fact of the matter is the major topic of national interest is how we are making zero progress in a war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every college and University in this country has an English department---and Librarians.
With GWB, there may be some debate in regard to to the language used being English,
still any body of words is always categorized as either fiction or non-fiction.

And if you judge the state of the union speech in the fictional category, it may be possible to
judge it a fine fantasy.

 

[kage69]

Listen to this man

Nah I don't think so...

Fox as a whole isn't trying to promote a right-wing agenda. Don't give Fox so much credit - they're trying to make as much money as possible, not advance policies that they think will be good for America.

That right there is a fundamental lack of understanding about why FOX Noise is a unique entity in American media. FOX has a long history of using shills to promote policies that they approve off - to say otherwise makes me immediately suspect you hardly watch the channel at all and just want to play the "oh they're all the same!" game.
Doesn't wash with Fox.

 

[theeedude]

This may explain it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1772650/posts

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OK...I keep hearing about how biased FOX News is. Please show me a couple of examples of this. Please understand that I'm not talking about political commentary...I'm talking about bias in how the news is reported.