Networks respond to false Fox News Channel ad

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
I don' t have to agree with Beck or believe what he says to understand that this guy is making very powerful statements and drawing disturbing conclusions that many will find compelling.

Which can also be said of Sept 11 Truthers and Obama Birthers.

I happen to have an interest in persuasive argument, not just the substance, but the form as well...

Then you should recognize when your Mr. Beck is offering fallacious forms of argument.

BTW, Forbes estimates that Beck is making $23 million a year, "a ballpark figure confirmed by knowledgeable sources." I wonder how much Fox must be making to pay him that kind of salary?

I'm unfamiliar with the "He's Rich, ergo He's Correct" validation; is that an ipse dixit variant?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Post redacted. We don't need to go own that path here.

 

[Budmantom]

The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

Huh. How can you be busy ignoring something? Logic Fail

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

Huh. How can you be busy ignoring something? Logic Fail

In other news Rush Limbaugh is contemplating donating money to George Obama, that's Barrack Hussein Obama's brother that lives in Kenya.

 

[DonaldC]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

Huh. How can you be busy ignoring something? Logic Fail

Are you really that dense.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

Huh. How can you be busy ignoring something? Logic Fail

In other news Rush Limbaugh is contemplating donating money to George Obama, that's Barrack Hussein Obama's brother that lives in Kenya.

Is that supposed to be a a joke? Not only are angry wingnuts NOT cool, they're NOT funny either. :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
The ad will be effective, no doubt. Fox can issue a one time apology for the ad and they're covered, but the ad will persist. If anything, any semblance of "protest" will simply lead to more publicity, and that's not a bad thing. People who already hate Fox will use this as a weapon to try and convince people they have no hope of convincing, and Fox supporters will rally and say the whole thing was just a misunderstanding. This is a dirty slimeball tactic which will work well in Fox News' favor. The only tactic that would work against this would be for the other networks to give up any moral high ground they want to lay claim to and do the exact same thing. In the end, it is we, the viewers, who suffer by getting third rate sensationalist bullshit propaganda instead of actual news. Maybe that's why Americans are so uninformed... In a land where ratings are the rule and scandal attracts more viewers than policy, this will continue to be the norm.

Well said.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Glen Beck is a con man, not a lunatic.

He knows the audience who eats up every word of this nonsense and he knows to keep ahead of the pack, and keep other media interested in him and providing free promotional push. He has to keep getting more and more outlandish and controversial. He is a "character", the Marilyn Manson of political tv personalities.

Just like the WWE he has a staff that comes up with all of this crap. He doesn't just go out there spouting and raving and they point a camera at him. It's an act, and as soon as the media at large stops treating these performers (Beck, Limbaugh, etc) like they're legitimate, the better off we'll all be. It's like the national agenda is being held hostage by circus clowns.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Glen Beck is a con man, not a lunatic.

He knows the audience who eats up every word of this nonsense and he knows to keep ahead of the pack, and keep other media interested in him and providing free promotional push. He has to keep getting more and more outlandish and controversial. He is a "character", the Marilyn Manson of political tv personalities.

Just like the WWE he has a staff that comes up with all of this crap. He doesn't just go out there spouting and raving and they point a camera at him. It's an act, and as soon as the media at large stops treating these performers (Beck, Limbaugh, etc) like they're legitimate, the better off we'll all be. It's like the national agenda is being held hostage by circus clowns.

Beck has referred to himself as a "rodeo clown," so I guess that makes sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[DealMonkey]

At the same time, though, he says he is an entertainer. ?I?m a rodeo clown,? he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, ?It takes great skill.?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

At the same time, though, he says he is an entertainer. ?I?m a rodeo clown,? he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, ?It takes great skill.?

Translation -- He's up to his eyeballs in bullshit, and he thinks it's funny.

Anyone who thinks his mean spirited, racist bullshit is entertaining or funny has serious problems with their own humanity. :thumbsdown:

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: DonaldC

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

Huh. How can you be busy ignoring something? Logic Fail

Are you really that dense.

Isn't it kind of an oxymoron? You could be busy doing something else while ignoring something. The whole idea of ignoring something is to make yourself not busy with it. Maybe I'm not dense enough.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Budmantom
The reason the other news networks didn't do a good job covering the tea parties is they were too busy ignoring the acorn scandal.

Huh. How can you be busy ignoring something? Logic Fail

In other news Rush Limbaugh is contemplating donating money to George Obama, that's Barrack Hussein Obama's brother that lives in Kenya.

Is that supposed to be a a joke? Not only are angry wingnuts NOT cool, they're NOT funny either. :roll:

No it's true, Rush Limbaugh is looking to help our historic president by giving help to Barrack Husssein Obama's brother, I'm sure our president will be grateful, leftist radicals will now see how great Limbaugh is.

It's patriotic, to be Obama's brother's keeper.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Why are all of the Fox competitors in such an uproar? Likely because the rating wars show them being decimated by FNN.

I flip through all of the news channels, a different one each 30 seconds, and I don't recall major coverage by anyone but Fox on two recent stories that blew up - the ACORN story and the 9/12 March On Washington.

The only one that covered the 9/12 March with at least a few stories was CNN, so they might have a case. Maybe the rest were out looking for "important" stories or couldn't budge off their ideological bent.

And yes, any furor the competitors raise is absolutely free publicity for Fox. Attacking the ad just gave the Fox ad about 100X more views (and likely loads more surfing viewers clicking onto Fox) than ignoring it would have.

Do you think that was Fox's strategy from the start? :laugh:

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, September 17, 2009

Cable News Daily Ratings for September 17, 2009

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends- 1,083,000 viewers (415,000) (668,000)
American Morning- 461,000 viewers (169,000) (287,000)
Morning Joe- 369,000 viewers (147,000) (220,000)
Squawk Box- 157,000 viewers (71,000) (102,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 336,000 viewers (213,000) (228,000)

5PM ? P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck? 3,065,000 viewers (734,000) (1,369,000)
Situation Room?753,000 viewers (205,000) (271,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews?650,000 viewers (156,000) (301,000)
Fast Money?210,000 viewers (55,000) (107,000)
Prime News?256,000 viewers (117,000) (144,000)

6PM ? P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report with Bret Baier? 2,775,000 viewers (724,000) (1,297,000)
Situation Room?554,000 viewers (145,000) (203,000)
Ed Show?689,000 viewers (191,000) (337,000)
Mad Money ?175,000 viewers (60,000) (99,000)
Prime News ? 361,000 viewers (157,000) (191,000)

7PM ? P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The Fox Report w/ Shep ?2,379,000 viewers (686,000) (1,148,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight?631,000 viewers (212,000) (260,000)
Hardball w/ C. Matthews?747,000 viewers (219,000) (350,000)
Kudlow Report ?124,000 viewers (56,000) (70,000)
Issues? 489,000 viewers (229,000) (278,000)

8PM ? P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O?Reilly Factor? 3,913,000 viewers (1,026,000) (1,716,000)
Campbell Brown ? 814,000 viewers (226,000) (298,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann ? 1,396,000 viewers (388,000) (680,000)
CNBC Reports? a scratch w/ 88,000 viewers (a scratch w/ 32,000) (a scratch w/ 45,000)
Nancy Grace ? 1,056,000 viewers (376,000) (528,000)

9 PM ? P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity ?3,166,000 viewers (871,000) (1,443,000)
Larry King Live ?1,337,000 viewers (309,000) (490,000)
Rachel Maddow Show ?1,229,000 viewers (336,000) (607,000)
Marijuana Inc ? 318,000 viewers (171,000) (155,000)
Issues- 721,000 viewers (229,000) (385,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren ?2,633,000 viewers (664,000) (1,173,000)
Anderson Cooper 360 ?1,011,000 viewers (266,000) (424,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann ? 744,000 viewers (269,000) (355,000)
Big Mac: Inside McDonalds ? 372,000 viewers (216,000) (213,000)
Nancy Grace ?697,000 viewers (287,000) (358,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O?Reilly Factor ?1,961,000 viewers (638,000) (1,039,000)
Anderson Cooper 360 ?552,000 viewers (179,000) (279,000)
Rachel Maddow Show ?535,000 viewers (169,000) (244,000)
Mad Money ? 142,000 viewers (85,000) (94,000)
Showbiz Tonight? 517,000 viewers (259,000) (305,000)

Claiming to be news that is fair and balanced while making things up to attack your competitors is ok, as long as your ratings are there.

This is the integrity of the partisan hacks here.

All they care about is rooting for their team. Honesty, integrity, and having an actual leg to stand on do not matter. It is all a game.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PJABBER

This was only the second segment of the Glen Beck Show that I ever watched. If the quality of the rest of his daily prime time lectures are as good, you are toast because you have no way to counter what he says.

And he says a lot in this 19 minute piece.

He says the ideological basis of the current Administration is derived from the radical Weathermen that were, and likely remain, bomb throwing revolutionaries. He provides clear linkages to intimates of the Obama Administration. He demonstrates the dual approaches (from within and without) for the destruction of the country are in play with organizations such as ACORN, SEIU and the Apollo Group. He shows how these groups are writing national policy on health care and the economic stimulus expenditures.

And he does so in a rational and illustrative way that I guarantee you sways people.

You can't be bothered to watch him do it in just 19 minutes, much less rebut his arguments.

Smart, real smart.

Annnnnnnd out comes the crazy! Intelligent and detailed discussion? That linkage he put together barely qualifies to be put on a sandwich board and run around town by a guy who hasn't showered in days.

If you honestly believe that what Beck did there is some sort of excellent and cogent argument, I don't even know how to help you because you seem to be unable to parse and evaluate rational thought. (or are just trolling)

The real reason Beck can't be engaged isn't because his arguments are so powerful, it's because there's no way to rationally discuss these issues with a crazy person. If I tell you that moon lasers are controlling my thoughts, exactly how do you propose to disprove this notion?

Seriously, I keep waiting for a detailed rebuttal instead of an ad hominem attack. I really am. You are not offering one. And neither is any other lefty poster here.

If I were on your side I would draw up the same chart that Beck does and then proceed to dismantle the connections he makes with verifiable counter arguments. That is the way it is done, folks.

Instead, you rely on personal insults that reinforce your lack of counter argument.

Are you ceding the argument to Beck and his ilk? Are you admitting the guy got it right?

Not everyone is a true blind believer like you are. And your lack of substance is bound to reflect a diminishing voice because guys like Beck are not going to just go away and leave you to your personal fantasy world.

Just like how you rebutted Fox news blatantly lieing?

Oh wait, you just trying justification, rationalization, and changing the topic.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

snip ... the integrity of the partisan hacks here.

All they care about is rooting for their team. Honesty, integrity, and having an actual leg to stand on do not matter. It is all a game.

This is true no matter what side you are on. Wake up fool.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

snip ... the integrity of the partisan hacks here.

All they care about is rooting for their team. Honesty, integrity, and having an actual leg to stand on do not matter. It is all a game.

This is true no matter what side you are on. Wake up fool.

That is why I'm not on a side.

If something is intelligent and well thought out, I listen. I post based on facts and evidence and always provide it.

Unless you are able to provide a single shred of actual evidence of a single post I have ever made here that was hackery, all you did was throw out an ad hominem.

The hacks in this thread didn't even attempt to defend Fox and their blatant lie.