Fox's Hannity Draws 1.05 Mil. in Debut

[Logan13]

You can hate Fox as much as you want, but they just keep on keeping on by staying #1. I bet that this really chaps some of your asses, doesn't it!
Fox's Hannity Draws 1.05 Mil. in Debut
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cab..._id=1003530545
JANUARY 10, 2007 -

The debut of Fox News Channel fixture Sean Hannity’s Sunday evening showcase drew a sizable audience in its 9 p.m. time slot, delivering 1.05 million viewers and 302,000 adults 25-54.

The one-hour premiere of Hannity’s America beat out the competition by a significant margin, more than doubling CNN’s audience––the first hour of a two-hour CNN Presents special drew 518,000 total viewers and 125,000 adults 25-54 in the 9 p.m. slot Sunday night––and eclipsing the viewership at MSNBC (454,000), Headline News (327,000) and CNBC (299,000).
Compared to FNC’s average audience in the time slot throughout Dec. 2006, Hannity’s America was up 65 percent in total viewers and another 66 percent in the core demo, according to Nielsen Media Research data. In a sense, Hannity beat himself Sunday night; in the first three weeks of December, FNC ran repeats of Hannity & Colmes in the 9 p.m. slot.

Hannity will continue co-hosting Hannity & Colmes, cable’s second highest-rated program. He’ll also remain at the mic for his daily ABC Radio Networks show.

While Hannity’s conservative leanings are tempered by his liberal co-star in his regular gig, as a solo artist he was allowed a freer hand. In what is expected to be a recurring feature of the Sunday show, Hannity named actor Sean Penn the “Enemy of the State” for the week of Jan. 8., slamming Penn for his views on the Bush administration.

The premiere also included a “hot seat” interview with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and a lighter segment with The View co-anchor Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

[Kärnfysikern]

is 1 million viewers considered high over there?

[Logan13]

is 1 million viewers considered high over there?

These are cable news numbers. Read on and compare it to the competition's numbers

[Kärnfysikern]

I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.

Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?

[Snrf]

The top show in England (I think its Eastenders or some similar soap bollocks) attracts 17 million sometimes. Thats like 30% of the population, sad

[Logan13]

I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.

Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?

Is it because you only have like 4 channels to watch, unless you have satellite over there?

[givemethejuice]

I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.

Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?

The worst ****ing show on t.v. American Idol is probably right at 10% of the population.

[Logan13]

The worst ****ing show on t.v. American Idol is probably right at 10% of the population.

I really hate Idol.

[Kärnfysikern]

Is it because you only have like 4 channels to watch, unless you have satellite over there?

Most people have 10 channels or so. They are included in all basic cable packages in all apartment complexes.
3 channels are aviable over regular antenna. 2 of them beeing state funded and commercial free. But you only need to buy a cheap box to get 40-50 channels over antenna so even those without acces to cable doesnt need satelite to get more.

[Logan13]

Most people have 10 channels or so. They are included in all basic cable packages in all apartment complexes.
3 channels are aviable over regular antenna. 2 of them beeing state funded and commercial free. But you only need to buy a cheap box to get 40-50 channels over antenna so even those without acces to cable doesnt need satelite to get more.

I have digital cable, my channels go from 2 - 811............

[Kärnfysikern]

I have digital cable, my channels go from 2 - 811............

I had like 150 channels for a while but turns out I was only watching 5-6 of them anyway. Its amazing how much shit that can be show on tv.

Hell tv was better when I was a kid living in a village where we only had the 3 basic channels.

[givemethejuice]

I really hate Idol.

I just hope that show is not watched by people around the world because it will just reinforce the stereotype that Americans are a bunch of dumbasses. Have you seen the dumb-****s they have on that show? I can not beleive their are that many idiotic people in this country that want to be on t.v. so they can show the world how dumb they are!

[BgMc31]

Idol started in England and there are copy cat versions of the show in several countries in Europe. I hate it too!!!

[Kärnfysikern]

I dont know. Its kind of fun seeing those morons getting insulted by the judges. I usualy watch the first episodes of the seasons(the swedish version of idol) when all the dorks are on. But after that its shit.

[RA]

I was just suprised because the big swedish tv shows have ratings around 1,5 million and we are only 9 millon swedes.

Is there any american show that can attrackt like 10% of the population to watch it? Superbowl?

Its a cable news show. Here everyone gets 100+ channels, so to get a million is not bad. Now shows like survivor etc.. get big numbers like your talking about.

[chief_willie]

Hannity is a joke and anyone who takes his journalism seriously is MR.

[Logan13]

Hannity is a joke and anyone who takes his journalism seriously is MR.

He is not a journalist, doesn't claim to be, he is a commentator. Journalist are only supposed to report the news, not give their personal views about it. Hannity/Combs is #2 cable news show, right behind O'Reilly Factor, that must really piss you off.............

[Teabagger]

Hannity is a joke and anyone who takes his journalism seriously is MR.

OK You must have nearly blown an anuresym when Air America dropped like a brick. And exactly is Hannity retarded oh ye of such wisdom, knowledge, forethought, and sight....hmmmmmmmm??? chief.

[chief_willie]

Logan and Teabag...here's your leaders....I can only imagine you two practice the same love for one another.


Viva Hugo!

[BgMc31]

46.7 million watched the AFC Championship game between Indy and NE. Usually 120+million watch the superbowl.

[BgMc31]

Let's be real Fox is very conservative, republican leaning. It was evidenced by their text message voting of the State of Union approval. 85% of their viewers approved of the State of the Union address. In reality only 45% of the public approved of the Presidents address. CNN and CNBC are very liberal leaning. Truth as we know it is based on perception. So just about any right leaning individual is going to consider how Fox reports news as truth and fact. But its from a republican perspective. Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective.

Am I way off base here?

[Logan13]

Let's be real Fox is very conservative, republican leaning. It was evidenced by their text message voting of the State of Union approval. 85% of their viewers approved of the State of the Union address. In reality only 45% of the public approved of the Presidents address. CNN and CNBC are very liberal leaning. Truth as we know it is based on perception. So just about any right leaning individual is going to consider how Fox reports news as truth and fact. But its from a republican perspective. Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective.

Am I way off base here?

Not at all. I posted the Nielsen ratings in another thread in here, it actually broke down the viewers for CNN, Fox, and MSNBC by political party. I was actually shocked to see that so many liberals watched Fox. I really like Fox's new slogan "There are problems in America, but America is not the problem!" I don't know if it is as much a fact that Fox leans right or that Fox presents both sides whereas the other two only present one side. Remember, there are more Conservatives in this country than liberals"

[chief_willie]

...Fox presents both sides whereas the other two only present one side.

now that's FUNNY.

[Logan13]

now that's FUNNY.

Are you still here?

[juicedOUTbrain]

Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective.

Not true at all...no matter how left they seem, they all parrot what comes out of the whitehouse with little questioning and very little real reporting...

Fox news is just one of the main problems destroying democracy in this country...A media outlet run by the former media strategist for reagan and bush sr, under the slogan "fair and balanced"...Democracy relies on responsible and independent media, and when polls show that watching the most watched new channel actually makes you less informed on the FACTS, we are in trouble, huh?

From a PIPA study:
"Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression."

"Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total."

"In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes would have done better in this survey, statistically speaking, if they received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate".

Source

Any comparing Foxs bias to CNN, MSNBC is ridiculous...Just because one channel leans SO HARD to the right, doesnt leave the rest left leaning, by default, IMHO...For example all the most "left leaning" sources you cite. Actually lean to the RIGHT in terms of the appearance of pundits, and guests...They are also owned by huge conglomerates that benefit off of war, and pro buisness policies...i wont deny that some of the anchors on these channels are liberal but "the other side" has an even bigger oppurtunity to defend themselves than democrats...

From Media Matters- In regards to ABC, CBS, NBC on Sunday Morning Talk shows
"The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent."

"In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many righttitled panels as left-tilted panels. "

Source

regarding MSNBC 3 out of 4 of the main pundits consider themselves conservatives....tucker, matthews, and scarborough...just because they agree with 68% of americans that bush is a moron and a disaster for the counrty doesnt mean they are liberal or left leaning...

From Media Matters on Chris Matthews

"Media Matters tallied all guests who appeared on Hardball during the first two months of 2006 and coded them based on party affiliation and ideology. (A list of the guests is here.) The data reflected in these charts show that the number of Republican/conservative guests has been significantly higher than the number of Democratic/progressive guests. In January, Republicans/conservatives led Democrats/progressives 55 to 38 -- a difference of 59 percent to 41 percent. By February, that advantage had increased: Republican/conservatives outnumbered Democrats/progressives 55 to 34, or 62 percent to 38 percent."

"Not only did the right dominate the left overall, but Republicans/conservatives also outnumbered Democrats/progressives in other key categories. During January and February, there were more Republican Party elected officials and Bush administration officials than those from the Democratic Party. In this category, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 22 to 18."

"In addition, conservative journalists and pundits outnumbered progressive journalists and pundits by a considerable margin. While most journalists/pundits were neutral reporters or consistently presented a centrist point of view, the data show that those who spoke from an ideological perspective were conservative far more often than progressive. Conservatives in this category outnumbered progressives 42 to 13 -- a ratio of more than 3-to-1."

Source

As for CNN and BBC- Both of the pesidents of these channels have admitted giving a Pro- War Bias before and after the lead-up to the conflict in Iraq

Quote:
Two leading media bosses have admitted what has been increasingly evident throughout the month-long war in Iraq: the American broadcast media systematically distorted the news of the war and functioned as an electronic arm of the Pentagon and the Bush administration.

In separate speeches April 24 in London and San Francisco, BBC Director General Greg Dyke and Ted Turner, founder of CNN, discussed the performance of the media during the war.

Both sought to lay the blame for the super-patriotic tone of the war coverage largely on the media empire of billionaire Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns Fox News, the biggest US cable news network, as well as Britain’s Sky News and nearly 200 daily newspapers worldwide. While there is no doubt that Murdoch was the most strident of the voices for war, the BBC, CNN and the rest of the broadcast and print media followed suit...

Source

And NPR, a station often condemned as having a liberal bias by conservatives...

From a Study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting)
"Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003"

"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR ’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance. George Bush led all sources for the month with 36 appearances, followed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (8) and Sen. Pat Roberts (6). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Secretary of State Colin Powell, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer all tied with five appearances each."

"FAIR classified each think tank by ideological orientation as either centrist, right of center or left of center. Representatives of think tanks to the right of center outnumbered those to the left of center by more than four to one: 62 appearances to 15. Centrist think tanks provided sources for 56 appearances.

The most often quoted think tank was the centrist Brookings Institution, quoted 31 times; it was also the most quoted think tank in 1993. It was followed by 19 appearances by the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies and 17 by the centrist Council on Foreign Relations. The most frequently cited left-of-center organization was the Urban Institute, with eight appearances."

Source

What do these studies show? To me it seems Fox (and others) have moved so far to the right that anyone who didnt follow suit, now look left leaning by default... The debate is being narrwed and i feel there is no mainstream source to show a true left wing view

A more appropriate comparison would be Fox News, and Air America, IMO...

sorry for the huge post...just felt the need to explain my POV...

[BgMc31]

Very enlightening Juiced!! I'm waiting on the response from Logan now. He tends to defend Fox's assertion that they are not right leaning but really 'fair and balanced'.

[BgMc31]

Very enlightening Juiced!! I'm waiting on the response from Logan now. He tends to defend Fox's assertion that they are not right leaning but really 'fair and balanced'.

[mcpeepants]

excellent post Juiced

[Logan13]

Very enlightening Juiced!! I'm waiting on the response from Logan now. He tends to defend Fox's assertion that they are not right leaning but really 'fair and balanced'.

Percentage of Party Members Watching Specific Cable News Channels Democrats/Republicans/Independents
CNN 28% / 19% / 22%
Fox News 21% / 35% / 22%
MSNBC 12% / 10%/ 12%

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "News Audiences Increasingly Politicized," June 6, 2004

[yourmom]

Fair and Balanced.

[moranitotongano]

I dont know. Its kind of fun seeing those morons getting insulted by the judges. I usualy watch the first episodes of the seasons(the swedish version of idol) when all the dorks are on. But after that its shit.

LOL I agree, it's so funny to see contestants cop an attitude because they think that they are so good when they suck big time!

[juicedOUTbrain]

Percentage of Party Members Watching Specific Cable News Channels Democrats/Republicans/Independents
CNN 28% / 19% / 22%
Fox News 21% / 35% / 22%
MSNBC 12% / 10%/ 12%

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "News Audiences Increasingly Politicized," June 6, 2004

How is this any indication of the political leaning of the channels themselves?...I watch fox all the time, so what...I watch it to laugh...

How is this study any indication that fox is fair or balanced? Or that any other source is biased against repubs?

bottom line, every single channel on television gives more air time to republicans than democrats, and according to the studies i posted earlier it doesnt matter what presidential party is in power...

[RA]

Let's be real Fox is very conservative, republican leaning. It was evidenced by their text message voting of the State of Union approval. 85% of their viewers approved of the State of the Union address. In reality only 45% of the public approved of the Presidents address. CNN and CNBC are very liberal leaning. Truth as we know it is based on perception. So just about any right leaning individual is going to consider how Fox reports news as truth and fact. But its from a republican perspective. Nothing wrong with that since a liberal/democrat has both CNN and CNBC to watch to get the truth from their perspective.

Am I way off base here?

Your right on but you left out other liberal leaning outlets. Headline News, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News. Fox is alone as far as not having a liberal lean.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Your right on but you left out other liberal leaning outlets. Headline News, CBS News, ABC News, and NBC News. Fox is alone as far as not having a liberal lean.

Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...

According to the other studies that i quoted in my post (and many others) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even NPR, and BBC all actually lean to the right in terms of guests apearances (although not as much as FOX), and a large percentage of the hosts also all consider themselves "old school" conservatives.

Just because people who are conservative, agree with 68% of americans that bushs presidency is a disaster, doesnt mean they lean left. And because the people at fox approve everything tha bush says and does, doenst mean they are the only right... Most old school conservatives these days are apposed to bushs neo- conservative agenda...most of you dont know what real left is.

Start basing your opinions on bias on the facts and studies that back them up, rather than using your own bias to form an opinion on bias...Show me a real study that any of those channels doesnt give a fair representation of the other side and ill receed my argument...
And trust me, if they could make one...one of these rich right wing groups would have conducted one...

i will not accept articles from conservative websites talking about the news liberal bias as a "study"...

[Logan13]

bottom line, every single channel on television gives more air time to republicans than democrats, and according to the studies i posted earlier it doesnt matter what presidential party is in power...

Um duh! They give Republicans more airtime because they spend most of it bashing them. Reading between the lines is not that hard.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Date: December 14, 2005
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

[Logan13]

Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...

According to the other studies that i quoted in my post (and many others) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even NPR, and BBC all actually lean to the right in terms of guests apearances (although not as much as FOX), and a large percentage of the hosts also all consider themselves "old school" conservatives.

Just because people who are conservative, agree with 68% of americans that bushs presidency is a disaster, doesnt mean they lean left. And because the people at fox approve everything tha bush says and does, doenst mean they are the only right... Most old school conservatives these days are apposed to bushs neo- conservative agenda...most of you dont know what real left is.

Start basing your opinions on bias on the facts and studies that back them up, rather than using your own bias to form an opinion on bias...Show me a real study that any of those channels doesnt give a fair representation of the other side and ill receed my argument...
And trust me, if they could make one...one of these rich right wing groups would have conducted one...

i will not accept articles from conservative websites talking about the news liberal bias as a "study"...

I do not need to present shit to you. For every "study" that you post, I can find one that will counter it. Now, receed your biased arguement based on this and the previous post........

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.
Journalists’ Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.” See Section.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

How the Public Views the Media. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” See Section
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp

Denials of Liberal Bias. Many journalists continue to deny the liberal bias that taints their profession. During the height of CBS’s forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasn’t his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him. “People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, ‘Because he won’t report it our way, we’re going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain,’” Rather told USA Today in September 2004. “They know that I’m fiercely independent and that’s what drives them up a wall.” See Section.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2.asp

Evidence of Bias in News Coverage. The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts offer a regular roundup of the latest instances of biased reporting, while our NewsBusters blog allows Web users to post their own reactions. Media Reality Check fax reports showcase important stories that the news media have distorted or ignored, and several times each year the MRC publishes Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the media’s bias on specific issues.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbas...Liberal%20Bias

[Logan13]

Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...

According to the other studies that i quoted in my post (and many others) ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and even NPR, and BBC all actually lean to the right in terms of guests apearances (although not as much as FOX), and a large percentage of the hosts also all consider themselves "old school" conservatives.

Just because people who are conservative, agree with 68% of americans that bushs presidency is a disaster, doesnt mean they lean left. And because the people at fox approve everything tha bush says and does, doenst mean they are the only right... Most old school conservatives these days are apposed to bushs neo- conservative agenda...most of you dont know what real left is.

Start basing your opinions on bias on the facts and studies that back them up, rather than using your own bias to form an opinion on bias...Show me a real study that any of those channels doesnt give a fair representation of the other side and ill receed my argument...
And trust me, if they could make one...one of these rich right wing groups would have conducted one...

i will not accept articles from conservative websites talking about the news liberal bias as a "study"...

Again, it is not my job to pull you from the trenches of naivity.
CBS's Goldberg Exposes Leftist Media Bias
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2001
WASHINGTON – "The little nut from the Christian group.” That’s how a staff editor at CBS News' Washington bureau described presidential candidate Gary Bauer in April 1999.
It was an inside conference call, but it was going out to CBS News bureaus all over the country. It was a planning session for weekend news coverage.

True, it wasn’t said on the air for public consumption. But the bureau chiefs participating in the discussion met it with dead silence. No one protested.

What that tells you is that this reflects an attitude prevalent in much of the major media. A shrug of the shoulders and "Doesn’t everybody think so?”

It is OK to slur fundamentalist Christians. But anyone making a similar disparaging comment about any of the "politically correct” minority groups would have been dismissed.

That is Bernard Goldberg’s point, laid out in 223 pages of his new book, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News” (Regnery).

This is not Rush Limbaugh complaining for the 100th time of "bias in the liberal media.”

This comes from the pen of a man who was a correspondent for CBS News, having worked inside the company for 28 years. Nor is the author part of the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy” imagined by Hillary Clinton. Since Bernie Goldberg first broke his silence and went public with an op-ed piece on media bias in the Wall Street Journal in February 1996, he had never voted for a single Republican.

There is an elitist culture at the major networks, he alleges, and that goes for the so-called "prestige press,” as well. The electronic media steal much of their material from the New York Times and the Washington Post, the ultimate icons of the "Eastern establishment press.”

Another former CBS News employee said to this writer that "anyone working at CBS News who is not a leftist knows how it must have felt to be a black kid in a white school in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, back in 1938.”

The almost universal slant at the major networks is not the result of a left-wing conspiracy, the former CBS newsman says. The people who work there come from similar backgrounds. Many of them attended some of the best Ivy League schools. And there’s contempt for "white trash” out there. As one who grew up in a lower-middle-class family in the South Bronx, Goldberg resents it.

There is an inherent hostility to Heartland America at the "big three” networks: ABC, NBC and CBS. They don’t pretend to have much affinity for folks living in Omaha or Kansas City.

That was reflected at a Washington media party several years ago where this reporter witnessed loud guffaws from the group at the mere mention of having once lived and worked in Salt Lake City.

They Even Fool Themselves

Goldberg, who spent his last years at CBS in the doghouse for his 1996 Wall Street Journal piece, says that if these correspondents were to take a lie detector test as to whether they slanted the news leftward, they would deny it and pass with flying colors.

Many of them don’t consider that they’re leaning in any political direction. They really think they are simply mainstream. There is no other side of the argument except what you hear from a few right-wing nut cases. In their world, mainstream conservatism doesn’t exist.

As one Washington news correspondent once said to me, "There is no left wing.” There’s just normal goodness, as opposed to the extremists.

Apparently, not everyone with the establishment media is in complete denial.

Andrew Heyward, now top man at CBS News, told Goldberg after the 1996 op-ed piece that of course, the networks tilt left, but that if Goldberg ever quoted him as saying that, he would deny it.

Such moments of candor do occur. But they are rare. One other such moment came when Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., in 1985 was urging conservatives around the country to buy CBS stock so they could be "Dan Rather’s boss,” and give the other side a chance to get a fair hearing on a major network.

An indignant supervisor at CBS at the time commented privately that "our politics” was none of Helms’ business.

"Our politics”? We veer left, but if you quote me, I’ll deny it? That seems to make hash of Dan Rather’s statement, quoted by Goldberg, that most network reporters don’t know whether they’re Republican or Democrat, and they "vote every which way.”

Rather was especially upset with Goldberg for telling his story in the Wall Street Journal because that paper’s editorial page takes a consistently conservative stand.

But Rather had written op-ed material for the New York Times, which he insisted was "middle of the road.” The Times, notes Goldberg, is consistently liberal. Nothing wrong with that, but Rather’s remark again recalls the prevailing wisdom in Washington media circles that "there is no left wing.”

Survey after survey has concluded that journalists are indeed very different from the people they cover. Goldberg cites Peter Brown, an editor of the Orlando Sentinel who asks, "How many members of the Los Angeles Times and St. Louis Post-Dispatch belong to the American Legion or the Kiwanis or go to prayer breakfasts?”

Ironically, the farther up the ladder you go to meet executives at the networks outside the news divisions, the more unlikely it is that you will find far-left-wing ideologues. That’s why Goldberg commented on the Sean Hannity radio talk show Monday that he couldn’t understand "why the money guys allow the news guys to squander an asset.”

That is a big problem, whether the news editors at "the big three” realize it or not. Each year, they are losing more and more viewers from their nightly news programs. Many are getting their news from talk radio and cable TV, including Fox News Channel, which has picked up a considerable audience just because it tries to balance out the conservative and liberal points of view.

Goldberg is coming under vicious attack for his apostasy. But if "Bias” starts a meaningful conversation on a problem that the news mavens refuse to explore, he will have performed a greater service to the public than in all his years as a CBS News insider.

[juicedOUTbrain]

1st off i have to make one thing clear, I am not democrat or republican...democrats take the same campaign contributions that republics do, and cater to the same corporate interests...

Now, you posted articles of how journalists vote, how the public "perceives" the news, and admissions that cbs insiders tilt left, and may even tilt there stories that way...all well and good, and i wont argue that...

But in media absence is as vital as presence...leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, without ever telling a lie...and ownership determines whats NOT to be shown.

...As i stated in the 1st post many journalists are liberal, but they also have no say on what guests will come on and which stories are off limits to them. The owners do...

The media is owned by powerful media conglomerates, the same people tied into the defence industry, and other large corporations...Do i have to dig up a study to show you how most of these big buinsness fat cats vote? So whats more important, the anchors, or the owners of the station? I think its clear the owners have much more influence over how the channel presents the news over a bottom of the barrel anchor, or even producer for that matter...

Liberal bias of the journalists effects nothing when ownership chooses guests and picks which stories are to be shown or not shown...

The last last point id like to make is the issue of nationalism bias...Nationalism runs through ALL mainstream media in the US, and has a huge effect on how people perceive policy, foreign and domestic...This nationalism bias is obvious, especially on the lead up to the Iraq war and after 9-11...Wether you agreed or not, the war had to be presented as just, and any questioning would be viewed as unamerican...any questioning of policy after 9-11 would be viewed in the same light...

Its this combination of big buisness ownership, nationalism, lack of context , and influencial watch dog groups that make the main stream media all center-right...you responded with opinions by bernard goldberg a long time enemy of cbs...and studies showing how the anchors swing...unless you want to try to tell me that the anchor has more swing in news presentation than the ownership, than that fact is completly irrelevant...

bottom line, NUMBERS DO NOT LIE, republicans have more airtime on every single channel on TV...no studies exist that show otherwise...Owners of the channels are largely republican...Every single anchor can be liberal but if the stories and guests are chosen by the mostly republican owners...what difference does it make...

If all anchors were obvious repubs it would be too obvious...But throw a few liberals around and people like you who only like to see the surface of things ignore the ownership and real power that pull the string...Remeber propaganda relies on the fact that the people that view dont realize it!...by throwing a few "liberal" anchors on TV it takes your eyes off the people who really pull the strings...a genious technique really


JOB

[RA]

Again, because fox leans so hard to the right, giving a cheerleading tone to the whole bush agenda, doesnt leave the other channels left leaning, by default..and noone who watches those channels are as blatently as mislead on the facts as those who rely fox news (according to the PIPA study)...

Yeah, Im sure they dont have an agenda. What I said is common knowledge even if you dont want to admit it.

[Kale]

Jesus Logan do you have a life ? You must be one of most well read dudes on the planet !!!