Guest ko Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker...m_b_256724.html Fox News continues to lose credibility (and corporate sponsors) thanks to the over-the-top lies and overt racism of Glenn Beck. Today the good people at GEICO gave up on Glenn "I think Barack Obama is a racist" Beck. Wonder how long Fox is going to stand by their sad clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker...m_b_256724.htmlFox News continues to lose credibility (and corporate sponsors) thanks to the over-the-top lies and overt racism of Glenn Beck. Today the good people at GEICO gave up on Glenn "I think Barack Obama is a racist" Beck. Wonder how long Fox is going to stand by their sad clown. Keep dreaming, moron. O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta all dominate their time slots by huge margins. Beck draws over 5 million viewers daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Keep dreaming, moron. O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta all dominate their time slots by huge margins. Beck draws over 5 million viewers daily. Unfortunately, you're correct about O'Reilly and Hannity (don't actually know about Greta), but what is more unfortunate is how GEICO pulled their ads. It seems they just redistributed them to other retarded FOXNEWS programs. So it looks like FOX won't even be taking a blow on this one. I guess I was just looking for an excuse to use that link to Glenn Beck crying videos. Also, I'm not going to deny that FOX rules cable news in prime time. I'm not a talk-show host there. I accept facts and live by them. I don't spin. I will take a guess as to why this is, however. I think Fox has more viewers because liberals prefer a columnist to a talking head for opinion. I think Fox has more viewers because liberals tend to be younger than republicans and have social lives to attend to. We're not home every night at 8, even if we would like to be. Maybe it is because republicans are fatter and, therefore, lazier (unable to move from their couch/ able to watch O'Reilly). I don't have any proof of this last one, but if my repub friends are any indicator then this half-baked theory might have some legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Keep dreaming, moron. That's your response to a statement of verifiable fact? What an idiot. Geico isn't alone in pulling their ads from Beck's show. Here's the list so far: Men's Wearhouse State Farm Sargento Lawyers.com Procter & Gamble Progressive Insurance Geico SC Johnson ConAgra Roche Sanofi-Aventis magicJack That last one, magicJack, was at the request of Radio Shack, who's name was mentioned in magicJack's ad. O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta all dominate their time slots by huge margins. Beck draws over 5 million viewers daily. According to the Wall Street Journal's Marketwatch, it's 2 million viewers. Are you completely incapable of speaking without lying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Keep dreaming, moron. O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta all dominate their time slots by huge margins. Beck draws over 5 million viewers daily. Actually, tv ratings can be misleading. The reality behind "FOX" ratings it that a relatively small number of people watch FOX 24/7 and it shows in the overall ratings but it doesn't mean that in terms of actual numbers that fox has more viewers. FOX isn't gonna tell you that and anyone who has to constantly harp on their ratings is like the guy who tells you he's well endowed but is unwilling to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 Correction: Progressive, P&G, and S.C. Johnson did not purchase ad spots on Beck's show in the first place. However, it appears that some ads from Progressive and P&G have been run during Beck's show by mistake, and they have stated that they would take that up with Fox to keep it from happening again. I don't know whether this is the case with S.C. Johnson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Actually, tv ratings can be misleading. The reality behind "FOX" ratings it that a relatively small number of people watch FOX 24/7 and it shows in the overall ratings but it doesn't mean that in terms of actual numbers that fox has more viewers. FOX isn't gonna tell you that and anyone who has to constantly harp on their ratings is like the guy who tells you he's well endowed but is unwilling to prove it. I read this post 3 times and have no idea what it says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I will take a guess as to why this is, however. I think Fox has more viewers because liberals prefer a columnist to a talking head for opinion. You're assuming that columnists report the facts and don't editorialize. This is simply not the case. Look at the recurring poll numbers where better than 80% of journalists view themselves as liberal. Journalists are constantly surrounded by people who think like them, of course they see themselves as objective; I'll bet college professors also find themselves to be objective. As a political science major from years ago, trust me, objective, they are not. Read any of Bernie Goldberg's books about media bias, the man spent years at CBS news, he has insight into the business. I'm not suggesting that you will be convinced, but at least see the argument of the opposing viewpoint. If nothing else, it will allow you to make a stronger argument once you aware of what their argument is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I read this post 3 times and have no idea what it says. It means that FOX may not necessarily have more viewers than anyone else but the viewers they do have watch FOX for a much longer period of time durning the day then those who view other outlets. That increased length of viewing time by a relatively small group of people can actually affect the ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 I will take a guess as to why this is, however. I think Fox has more viewers because liberals prefer a columnist to a talking head for opinion. You're assuming that columnists report the facts and don't editorialize. This is simply not the case. Look at the recurring poll numbers where better than 80% of journalists view themselves as liberal. Journalists are constantly surrounded by people who think like them, of course they see themselves as objective; I'll bet college professors also find themselves to be objective. As a political science major from years ago, trust me, objective, they are not. Read any of Bernie Goldberg's books about media bias, the man spent years at CBS news, he has insight into the business. I'm not suggesting that you will be convinced, but at least see the argument of the opposing viewpoint. If nothing else, it will allow you to make a stronger argument once you aware of what their argument is. No, no. I was only suggesting that columnists are more informative and offer better opinions than news talkshow hosts. Example: Noble Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 No, no. I was only suggesting that columnists are more informative and offer better opinions than news talkshow hosts. Example: Noble Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman. Read Krugman's articles, and I disagree about "better opinions." And, they gave a Nobel Prize to Arafat, one positive attempt at meaningful negotiation, cannot negate years of terrorist activities. So the Nobel Prize thing, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 It means that FOX may not necessarily have more viewers than anyone else but the viewers they do have watch FOX for a much longer period of time durning the day then those who view other outlets. That increased length of viewing time by a relatively small group of people can actually affect the ratings. You have no idea what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Read Krugman's articles, and I disagree about "better opinions." And, they gave a Nobel Prize to Arafat, one positive attempt at meaningful negotiation, cannot negate years of terrorist activities. So the Nobel Prize thing, not so much. The Nobel Committee is stacked with far left loons. It shouldn't be any surprise that a hack like Krugman gets an award. The whole Nobel Prize organization loses it's credibility when they stoop to that level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 The Nobel Committee is stacked with far left loons. It shouldn't be any surprise that a hack like Krugman gets an award. The whole Nobel Prize organization loses it's credibility when they stoop to that level. What the F**K do you know about anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 What the F**K do you know about anything? He knows that Paul Krugman is a hack. Sorry he was never on Inside Edition, 2smart4u. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 The Nobel Committee is stacked with far left loons. It shouldn't be any surprise that a hack like Krugman gets an award. The whole Nobel Prize organization loses it's credibility when they stoop to that level. Who is on the committee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Who is on the committee? What?! You want facts? Un-American! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Who is on the committee? Psst .......Google it, stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Psst .......Google it, stupid. Clearly I could Google it, but I'm asking 2smart4u to back his claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ko Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Clearly I could Google it, but I'm asking 2smart4u to back his claims. STILL WAITING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 STILL WAITING. ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 STILL WAITING. Don't hold your breath. "Facts" come dribbling out of 2smart's like puke from the mouth of a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.