"....did CBS, NBC, or ABC, nightly news ever fire anyone because they didn't bring in the ratings? "
Is this meant as a response to my post? First, Tucker the Liar was bringing in ratings. I doubt ratings had anything to do with his firing. Second, I wasn't criticizing Fox for canning Tucker the Liar. Third, is this a whataboutism or a th…
"....did CBS, NBC, or ABC, nightly news ever fire anyone because they didn't bring in the ratings? "
Is this meant as a response to my post? First, Tucker the Liar was bringing in ratings. I doubt ratings had anything to do with his firing. Second, I wasn't criticizing Fox for canning Tucker the Liar. Third, is this a whataboutism or a theotherguydoesittooism? Fourth, yes, as Ted Koppel said, journalism once was a calling, now it's a business. Perhaps I missed your point.
"Fox in the early days, and still today, bring news to their website and daytime production news that never hits the MSM news. "
But of course. That's one of the reasons why I regularly watched Fox. That's one of the reasons I still watch Fox. I hope you
"I believe they did a great job years ago bringing news that I, as a conservative, wanted to read about."
As someone who pursues the truth, did you seek other news sources to see if FOX was omitting important facts? Did you listen to Fox
My point was that Fox isn't the only one to put ratings first. Simply that and nothing more.
I haven't watched Tucker in years, or Hannity or Ingram. I did catch some youtube of Tucker interviewing Musk but that's about it. I don't care for any opinion shows anymore. I catch Brett Baier when I can and/or News Nation. I actually like Cumo. But I do check the Fox website each morning as well as the WSJ, NY Times, my local paper and 3 to 4 foreign newspapers. I seldom watch the evening news and depend mostly on what I read.
I did watch CNN during the early days of the Russian invasion, and I thought it reminisces of their early days. I thought Don Lemon did a great job reporting from Kyiv.
Did you listen to Fox VERY carefully to see if the anchors were down playing or being dismissive of important facts? If watching news usually confirms your perspectives, you're probably not watching responsible journalism.
Possibly your outlook blinded you to much of Fox's bias, just like my outlook may well blind me to some liberal bias. I might add, however, that I also look for liberal bias.
"....how can you not like young sexy babes in cocktail dresses?"
UNCLE! Tim, ya got me there. Yes, Fox chicks have the nicest legs and racks. The Candy Crowleys of the media world wouldn't be allowed on Fox airtime. It's hard to be critical when your blood is rushing downstream.
I fact checked this as it seems way out of the ordinary and it appears Minnesota has created a Discrimination and Bias reporting website. The question here from Rep. Niska is very direct and the response to me is shocking.
I talked to my attorney about this, and he checked on it. Yes, the wording is being expanded for transgenders and some text removed. What this means in law is difficult to decipher. Again, crickets by the MN newspapers and press.
Tim, As I said above, I watch or read Fox as well as other right-wing media in part because they cover stories that you don't get elsewhere. Additionally, I've said that Fox has had some good journalism.
My caveat is that when I hear a story that makes liberals or Democrats look ridiculous with no justification whatsoever, alarm bells go off. That's when I fact-check the story, as you apparently have done with the first story above. (Yes Tim, alarm bells go off when I hear stories making Republicans or conservatives look ridiculous without justification.) That bill does look alarming with little justification. There are ways to combat anti-Asian bigotry without resorting to such a law, as I understand it. I reserve final judgment, however, until I see the bill. I can't say for sure if it was accurately portrayed in that piece, although you apparently fact checked it.
In the second story you cite above, there is justification. I've known many gay males and females who get upset when people talk about pedophilia and homosexuality in almost the breath, which happens frequently. They are very different: one is simply alternative sexuality and the other is rotten to the core. The proponent was not justifying pedophilia or trying to relax laws against child molesting or statutory sex offenses.
I know of some language that would appease reasonable people on both sides of this divide. That language would quell most of the controversy, and isolate the ideologues.
"....did CBS, NBC, or ABC, nightly news ever fire anyone because they didn't bring in the ratings? "
Is this meant as a response to my post? First, Tucker the Liar was bringing in ratings. I doubt ratings had anything to do with his firing. Second, I wasn't criticizing Fox for canning Tucker the Liar. Third, is this a whataboutism or a theotherguydoesittooism? Fourth, yes, as Ted Koppel said, journalism once was a calling, now it's a business. Perhaps I missed your point.
"Fox in the early days, and still today, bring news to their website and daytime production news that never hits the MSM news. "
But of course. That's one of the reasons why I regularly watched Fox. That's one of the reasons I still watch Fox. I hope you
"I believe they did a great job years ago bringing news that I, as a conservative, wanted to read about."
As someone who pursues the truth, did you seek other news sources to see if FOX was omitting important facts? Did you listen to Fox
My point was that Fox isn't the only one to put ratings first. Simply that and nothing more.
I haven't watched Tucker in years, or Hannity or Ingram. I did catch some youtube of Tucker interviewing Musk but that's about it. I don't care for any opinion shows anymore. I catch Brett Baier when I can and/or News Nation. I actually like Cumo. But I do check the Fox website each morning as well as the WSJ, NY Times, my local paper and 3 to 4 foreign newspapers. I seldom watch the evening news and depend mostly on what I read.
I did watch CNN during the early days of the Russian invasion, and I thought it reminisces of their early days. I thought Don Lemon did a great job reporting from Kyiv.
Did you listen to Fox VERY carefully to see if the anchors were down playing or being dismissive of important facts? If watching news usually confirms your perspectives, you're probably not watching responsible journalism.
Possibly your outlook blinded you to much of Fox's bias, just like my outlook may well blind me to some liberal bias. I might add, however, that I also look for liberal bias.
"....how can you not like young sexy babes in cocktail dresses?"
UNCLE! Tim, ya got me there. Yes, Fox chicks have the nicest legs and racks. The Candy Crowleys of the media world wouldn't be allowed on Fox airtime. It's hard to be critical when your blood is rushing downstream.
Here's an example Bob what I read on Fox that would never be in my local Star Tribune and I would have never heard this.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/arguing-covid-came-china-land-minnesota-government-bias-registry-new-bill
I fact checked this as it seems way out of the ordinary and it appears Minnesota has created a Discrimination and Bias reporting website. The question here from Rep. Niska is very direct and the response to me is shocking.
Here's another one.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/transgender-minnesota-lawmaker-introduces-bill-removing-anti-pedophile-language-states-human-rights-act
I talked to my attorney about this, and he checked on it. Yes, the wording is being expanded for transgenders and some text removed. What this means in law is difficult to decipher. Again, crickets by the MN newspapers and press.
Tim, As I said above, I watch or read Fox as well as other right-wing media in part because they cover stories that you don't get elsewhere. Additionally, I've said that Fox has had some good journalism.
My caveat is that when I hear a story that makes liberals or Democrats look ridiculous with no justification whatsoever, alarm bells go off. That's when I fact-check the story, as you apparently have done with the first story above. (Yes Tim, alarm bells go off when I hear stories making Republicans or conservatives look ridiculous without justification.) That bill does look alarming with little justification. There are ways to combat anti-Asian bigotry without resorting to such a law, as I understand it. I reserve final judgment, however, until I see the bill. I can't say for sure if it was accurately portrayed in that piece, although you apparently fact checked it.
In the second story you cite above, there is justification. I've known many gay males and females who get upset when people talk about pedophilia and homosexuality in almost the breath, which happens frequently. They are very different: one is simply alternative sexuality and the other is rotten to the core. The proponent was not justifying pedophilia or trying to relax laws against child molesting or statutory sex offenses.
I know of some language that would appease reasonable people on both sides of this divide. That language would quell most of the controversy, and isolate the ideologues.