FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20236
Just like every fraternity has some guy who will screw the fat chicks, not only is he sometimes useful as a wingman but he is always good for a laugh.SuperHornet wrote:MSNBC suspended "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough for two days for contributing $500 each to two GOP candidates.
MSNBC actually employs an Elephant?!?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40277217/ns ... 0/40278378
TheDancinMonarch wrote:How much is "who cares" squared?
Not only were they local, they were nonpartisan candidates that were family and friends.UNHWildCats wrote:this is more retarded than Olbermans suspension. These werent even federal candidates... they were local elections. MSNBC has gone off the deep end with these ridiculous suspensions.
native wrote:Before this incident, my thinking was, "fvck MSNBC."
After this incident, my thinking is "fvck MSNBC."
They are probably doing this to bring attention to themselves and boost ratings.native wrote:Before this incident, my thinking was, "fvck MSNBC."
After this incident, my thinking is "fvck MSNBC."
FOX news has the same policy for its news anchors, but not for its commentators.Wedgebuster wrote:You would never see this from Fox news.
The wedge does not delve into such facts or details.CID1990 wrote:FOX news has the same policy for its news anchors, but not for its commentators.Wedgebuster wrote:You would never see this from Fox news.
Fox is a all "news". MSNBC is all commentary.native wrote:The wedge does not delve into such facts or details.CID1990 wrote:
FOX news has the same policy for its news anchors, but not for its commentators.
....and Mika has nice sweater puppieskalm wrote:Fox is a all "news". MSNBC is all commentary.native wrote:
The wedge does not delve into such facts or details.
I kinda like Morning Cup of Joe. Scarborough seems like a decent guy, and it has solid bump music.
Right... which brings to light a whole different observationCID1990 wrote:FOX news has the same policy for its news anchors, but not for its commentators.Wedgebuster wrote:You would never see this from Fox news.
Actually, the reason I know FOX's policy on this is because of an interview I saw with their president, and he made no bones about the fact that their commentators were exactly that: commentators who can make political contributions, as opposed to news anchors who cannot.Chizzang wrote:Right... which brings to light a whole different observationCID1990 wrote:
FOX news has the same policy for its news anchors, but not for its commentators.
FOX News disguises their commentary as "News" about as overtly as could be done
In fact one might say: Fox is in the business of making commentary into News
CID1990 wrote:Actually, the reason I know FOX's policy on this is because of an interview I saw with their president, and he made no bones about the fact that their commentators were exactly that: commentators who can make political contributions, as opposed to news anchors who cannot.Chizzang wrote:
Right... which brings to light a whole different observation
FOX News disguises their commentary as "News" about as overtly as could be done
In fact one might say: Fox is in the business of making commentary into News
If YOU are worried about how Cletus in Pig's A$$ Georgia watches Hannity and thinks it is God's Truth then that's your problem. I don't care about Moon Unit in Greenwich Village watching MSNBC and nodding HER head in agreement.
I don't watch any of the cable news networks other than Headline News, because I don't care for the commentary. However, I imagine that those 50 million viewers watch FOX because they either agree with what is being said, or they just disagree more with what people like Olberman are saying. If FOX is right of center, and the majority of the country is right of center, then the real response to complaints over their viewership would be a simple "DUH".Chizzang wrote:CID1990 wrote:
Actually, the reason I know FOX's policy on this is because of an interview I saw with their president, and he made no bones about the fact that their commentators were exactly that: commentators who can make political contributions, as opposed to news anchors who cannot.
If YOU are worried about how Cletus in Pig's A$$ Georgia watches Hannity and thinks it is God's Truth then that's your problem. I don't care about Moon Unit in Greenwich Village watching MSNBC and nodding HER head in agreement.
Oh I see...
Something like 50 million Americans watch FOX every day
Thank you for explaining who they all are - I appreciate that
~ I kinda figured that - but your confirmation is excellent
However: 9 of FOX NEWS daily shows are Opinion and three are News - I stand by my original statement - until they change their name to FOX Opinion
I have never seen FOX portray any of its commentary shows (Hannity, O'whatever his name is, etc) as news.Chizzang wrote:I stand by my statement:
FOX News is in the business of purporting commentary as News (Period)
At no point have I or am i suggesting MSNBC is any different - but - I have noticed it pains conservatives to admit that FOX news is Propaganda parading around as actual news...
and that's all it is (more accurately 75% of it's daily programming is)
And just as an FYI - I gave away my TV in March so I'm really not that up-to-speed on TV in general
I get what you're saying here, but I think you're underestimating the power of Fox a bit.CID1990 wrote: If FOX is right of center, and the majority of the country is right of center, then the real response to complaints over their viewership would be a simple "DUH".
I wonder why it matters to you over what FOX calls itself... (commentary or news)? Most of the FOX bashers would assert that the average FOX viewer is also whipping his 8 year old's a$$ with a switch at the local WalMart, so I wonder if whether FOX's moniker would really have an effect on viewership?
If YOU are worried about how Cletus in Pig's A$$ Georgia watches Hannity and thinks it is God's Truth then that's your problem.
kalm wrote:I get what you're saying here, but I think you're underestimating the power of Fox a bit.CID1990 wrote: If FOX is right of center, and the majority of the country is right of center, then the real response to complaints over their viewership would be a simple "DUH".
I wonder why it matters to you over what FOX calls itself... (commentary or news)? Most of the FOX bashers would assert that the average FOX viewer is also whipping his 8 year old's a$$ with a switch at the local WalMart, so I wonder if whether FOX's moniker would really have an effect on viewership?
If YOU are worried about how Cletus in Pig's A$$ Georgia watches Hannity and thinks it is God's Truth then that's your problem.
I was in a conversation a few weeks back with a some otherwise very smart people, a couple of whom were successful business owners. The topic of the president's trip to India came up and they parrotted the bajjillion dollars/ half the armed services in support talking points beautifully. And this was a week or so after it had happened and the myths had been debunked. These are fairly apolitical dudes who you would characterize as center right, watching the "news" outlet that best fits their beliefs.
Like it or not, people watch infotainment and do take it seriously because I think commentators like Hannity and Olbermann think or even know they are more than just entertainers and take themselves seriously.
I also think it's no coincidence that the infotainment networks chose to run their commentary programming in primetime and/or up against the network news. Why watch boring old news when you can get the "news" - with release - on Fox or MSNBC?
And I repeat:Chizzang wrote:kalm wrote:
I get what you're saying here, but I think you're underestimating the power of Fox a bit.
I was in a conversation a few weeks back with a some otherwise very smart people, a couple of whom were successful business owners. The topic of the president's trip to India came up and they parrotted the bajjillion dollars/ half the armed services in support talking points beautifully. And this was a week or so after it had happened and the myths had been debunked. These are fairly apolitical dudes who you would characterize as center right, watching the "news" outlet that best fits their beliefs.
Like it or not, people watch infotainment and do take it seriously because I think commentators like Hannity and Olbermann think or even know they are more than just entertainers and take themselves seriously.
I also think it's no coincidence that the infotainment networks chose to run their commentary programming in primetime and/or up against the network news. Why watch boring old news when you can get the "news" - with release - on Fox or MSNBC?
Bingo...
The talking heads take themselves VERY seriously
it's on a NEWS channel
It quacks like a duck
They use current events
They claim to be using vetted sources regardless of how ridiculous the information
I repeat:
FOX News is in the business of pawning Propaganda Commentary as Hard News - and - I don't care what the program manager says on page 17 of the wall street journal that 9 of their 11 shows might not really be News shows... that's just him answering a question from an actual reporter. Any RUBE could tell you what the business model is for FOX News after one day of watching it - Pretend like this is real news...
Masquerade Opinion as fact and don't blink
It's proven to be an excellent business model
That's where I think you're wrong...CID1990 wrote:
And I repeat:
I am not overly concerned about it. I do not consider either network as being some kind of a threat to the balance of impressionable nuts from either side.
