CNN chief Jeff Zucker lambastes Fox News as 'state-run TV,' 'pure propaganda machine'

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-zuc ... ine-2018-3

An undeniable fact.

Of course its propaganda. But state-run? That's a bit much.

CNN is just the polar opposite. It's bash Trump and the GOP 24/7 so what does that make it?

BOTH networks have turned into opinion based channels with a peppering of actual hard news between the bloviaing. They are both cancer and you are doing a disservice to yourself if you pay them any attention. There's nothing to learn by watching either channel.

I disagree with the accusation that CNN is biased either right or left. CNN is the same as it always was, a shallow news service purely after ratings. FOX News has become the mouthpiece for the Trump administration however and this is only fitting because FOX is the midwife for the Trump presidency.

The difference is that Pravda is State-Run
Fox-news is run by Dark Money.


Fox has it's heart and soul tied to the GOP donor stream.
MSNBC is trying to tie itself to the Democrat stream,


CNN is trying to maintain neutrality, but in this era of Donald Trump where he is actively choosing partisanship with Fox, it forces the other networks to analyze and respond to the constant negative forces that Donald throws.

When all that is in doubt is political ideology, then this works for Fox and Trump. However now that Fox has been seen to be a source of pacification to Trump, it becomes dangerous, as Fox news is hesitant to anger Trump with some hard hitting facts about his policies and actions. Things are starting to run amock for the GOP and Fox as they are in a feedback loop. They are amplifying things that may not matter for the people that consume the news and ignore items that might.

Does Pravda have all its women wear bandage dresses and film up their legs with the cooter cam?

TV Networks like CNN, ABC or CBS are based in big liberal metropolis. The nature of that work attracts younger professionals with a bit of a liberal mindset as well. I have no problem accepting that - by their own nature, they are not businesses that have a conservative perspective. Really - if a TV network was based in Oklahoma City, it would give news a different slant. Why can't people see through this and just discount the reporting a bit?

CNN is not neutral. But it is still a reliable source of news. Trump uses every opportunity to heckle them and they go into revenge mode with the plentiful material Trump provides.

Now Fox News is just cheap propaganda. Got nothing to do with news.

incitatus wrote:

TV Networks like CNN, ABC or CBS are based in big liberal metropolis. The nature of that work attracts younger professionals with a bit of a liberal mindset as well. I have no problem accepting that - by their own nature, they are not businesses that have a conservative perspective. Really - if a TV network was based in Oklahoma City, it would give news a different slant. Why can't people see through this and just discount the reporting a bit?

CNN is not neutral. But it is still a reliable source of news. Trump uses every opportunity to heckle them and they go into revenge mode with the plentiful material Trump provides.

Now Fox News is just cheap propaganda. Got nothing to do with news.

I think the bigger question is what is conservatism at this point--is it just Trumpism? In that case Fox News is conservative. If it's still strong defense, personal responsibility, free enterprise--classic conservatism, then it ain't Fox News--I'm not even sure where you'd find that now--WSJ? Classic conservatism is probably the most irrelevant group these days.

As I see, most here wonder "what's the difference between Pravda and CNN?". Well - CNN is a tool controlled by a business-political conglomerate in the USA - the one that also controls fractions inside both political parties and has a significant impact in making decisions in this country (and was running the country during Obama). Pravda - is run by the state openly. Hence - difference is not that significant, but Pravda is being more honest and open as to who they are funded by and work for.

salttee wrote:

CNN is the same as it always was, a shallow news service purely after ratings.

And who never has the balls to ask any politician a tough question, hold them to and answer or to ever speak truth to power.

casinterest wrote:

CNN is trying to maintain neutrality, but in this era of Donald Trump where he is actively choosing partisanship with Fox, it forces the other networks to analyze and respond to the constant negative forces that Donald throws.

When all that is in doubt is political ideology, then this works for Fox and Trump. However now that Fox has been seen to be a source of pacification to Trump, it becomes dangerous, as Fox news is hesitant to anger Trump with some hard hitting facts about his policies and actions. Things are starting to run amock for the GOP and Fox as they are in a feedback loop. They are amplifying things that may not matter for the people that consume the news and ignore items that might.

If CNN did actually start going properly hard against Trump and the Trump Administration, I suspect that history would judge them rather well for it (post impeachment etc). Sortof like how David Frost earned a very good reputation for going hard on Nixon regarding Watergate.

incitatus wrote:

TV Networks like CNN, ABC or CBS are based in big liberal metropolis. The nature of that work attracts younger professionals with a bit of a liberal mindset as well. I have no problem accepting that - by their own nature, they are not businesses that have a conservative perspective. Really - if a TV network was based in Oklahoma City, it would give news a different slant. Why can't people see through this and just discount the reporting a bit?

This is actually a very good point. Had never considered it that way.

Pravda spent most of its life trying to pass on lefty propaganda, so in a sense is much closer to CNN / MSNBC / NY Times / etc.

But the constant hatred of the left, and in particular the lefty media, against Fox News (aka, "the one that got away") never ceases to amaze me. It is the same sort of hatred they have against the internet / social media (and of which Mark "Robespierre" Zuckerberg is now on the receiving end of) - it just makes it that much harder to control the narrative, as they were used to for so long. Some FBI agents get caught with their hands in the cookie jar trying to subvert the results of an election in the U.S.? Not to worry, if we never talk about it, it's as if nothing ever happened.

zkojq wrote:

casinterest wrote:

CNN is trying to maintain neutrality, but in this era of Donald Trump where he is actively choosing partisanship with Fox, it forces the other networks to analyze and respond to the constant negative forces that Donald throws.

When all that is in doubt is political ideology, then this works for Fox and Trump. However now that Fox has been seen to be a source of pacification to Trump, it becomes dangerous, as Fox news is hesitant to anger Trump with some hard hitting facts about his policies and actions. Things are starting to run amock for the GOP and Fox as they are in a feedback loop. They are amplifying things that may not matter for the people that consume the news and ignore items that might.

If CNN did actually start going properly hard against Trump and the Trump Administration, I suspect that history would judge them rather well for it (post impeachment etc). Sortof like how David Frost earned a very good reputation for going hard on Nixon regarding Watergate.

CNN is going hard on Trump, however unlike the Fox news demographic, most folks that would watch CNN will watch other sites or channels to get their news.
I for instance use news aggregation sites and read a bunch of articles and draw my opinions from it all.
Fox news and the current Administration have created a closed loop of mind numbed followers that bite on the propaganda and the news provided since they demonize all else. Case in point being this week's Uber crash with the dead cyclist. Fox was concentrating on the "Non-Driver"'s criminal record and race, rather than on the what went wrong in the crash. Fox promotes a racist, sexist, bigoted view of the world, and that is not going to change soon, especially with the feedback loop from the white house.

CCGPV wrote:

Of course its propaganda. But state-run? That's a bit much.

CNN is just the polar opposite. It's bash Trump and the GOP 24/7 so what does that make it?

BOTH networks have turned into opinion based channels with a peppering of actual hard news between the bloviaing. They are both cancer and you are doing a disservice to yourself if you pay them any attention. There's nothing to learn by watching either channel.

CNN is not the same as Fox. Fox viewers continue to be the least informed audience and it’s because the majority of what they say is entirely false, whereas CNN has been found to be mostly reliable. Yes, CNN has had a few mishaps, but that doesn’t make it Fox. There’s a reason why Trump attacks CNN and it’s because they don’t lie for him.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

CNN right now is hammering home the story of the mistresses of Trump. However Fox news is vacantly silent about it. If it had been Bill or any Weinstein or any other puching bag for the conservative media they would be all over it. Rather Fox right now prefers to water it down and lie to their veiwers.

Right now the current headline on Fox is about a new legal team. Not the fact that he just sacked his NSA, or that he is threatening to Veto the spending bill that the GOP led congress just passed.

CitizenJustin wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Of course its propaganda. But state-run? That's a bit much.

CNN is just the polar opposite. It's bash Trump and the GOP 24/7 so what does that make it?

BOTH networks have turned into opinion based channels with a peppering of actual hard news between the bloviaing. They are both cancer and you are doing a disservice to yourself if you pay them any attention. There's nothing to learn by watching either channel.

CNN is not the same as Fox. Fox viewers continue to be the least informed audience and it’s because the majority of what they say is entirely false, whereas CNN has been found to be mostly reliable. Yes, CNN has had a few mishaps, but that doesn’t make it Fox. There’s a reason why Trump attacks CNN and it’s because they don’t lie for him.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

I get what you're saying but 30% of what is said on CNN is also false according to that site. Not a good thing. Also, who is evaluating those statements?

The best thing you can do is to not watch any cable news period. I've not watched one minute of CNN, FOX, or MSNBC for probably 2 years and I feel I'm better for it. Stick to established print journalism, multiple hard news sources online, limit virtually all opinion based articles on all mediums. Read press releases from the various agencies and not from the white house.

salttee wrote:

I disagree with the accusation that CNN is biased either right or left. CNN is the same as it always was, a shallow news service purely after ratings. FOX News has become the mouthpiece for the Trump administration however and this is only fitting because FOX is the midwife for the Trump presidency.

Talk about delusional. You do not think CNN is biased is because you share those same biases as does MSNBC. FOX does present a side more receptive to Trump but they slam him from time to time as well but you guys ALWAYS slam him and CNN will very rarely show any news coverage that doesn't fit their narrative. Now to be fair CNN didn't used to be that way. At one time I looked to CNN as kind of the neutral place to go for news when MSNBC and FOX were doing their usual thing. But CNN has devolved into a total left wing news organization.

Pyrex wrote:

hatred of the left, and in particular the lefty media, against Fox News

I am not a leftie, but the level of derangment and entertainment value to be seen on Russia Today (with all their western Lords How Hows and useful idiots who only after Crimea realized what sort of company they work for) and on Fox News (with their blond haired shemales who for unknown reason have not been told they are not 25 anymore) is on a comparable level. Both fun to watch on business trips.

One is a politically-motivated, propaganda machine only ever presenting "the message" and ignoring the truth or any pretence at being balanced. The other's Pravda.

salttee wrote:

I disagree with the accusation that CNN is biased either right or left.

Even way before Trump, their bias was off the chart. Compare how they covered two almost identical poll results about Bush and Obama. Here is a CNN transcript of Wolf Blitzer on 3/13/06 spanning only 3 hours when GWB's approval rating dipped to 36%.

WOLF BLITZER:

"It’s 4 p.m. here in Washington. So you’re getting the first look right now at our brand-new poll. The president’s job approval rating has taken a downward turn again, falling to only 36%.
[break]
This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
[break]
The president’s poll numbers are pretty bad, pretty awful right now, rock bottom as far as the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
[break]
The president’s Iraq problem and his new low point in the polls.
[break]
His approval and policies now are at new lows.
[break]
The president’s job approval number in this new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, rock bottom, the lowest it’s ever been.
[break]
It’s 5 p.m. here in Washington where President Bush takes a beating in our latest poll. His approval rating at a low ebb.
[break]
Our latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll just out in the past hour shows the president at an all-time low.
[break]
His job approval rating at a new low.
[break]
That’s rock bottom as far as our poll is concerned.
[break]
It’s 7 p.m. here in Washington. The war in Iraq comes home to roost for President Bush. Our latest poll numbers showing his approval rating at a new low.
[break]
Also: President Bush hits a new low in the polls.
[break]
Now back to our lead story: President Bush’s approval rating now at an all-time low.
[break]
As we noted, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows his job approval rating at a new low.
[break]
President Bush’s approval rating at a new low, 36%."


So after every commercial break and then some, he excitedly led with that. Compare that to 10/9/13 when Obama's approval rating drops to almost the same level (37%):

CNN:

" "


And it wasn't just CNN either. Even worse, the AP story which announced the poll had this for its headline:

“Poll: GOP Gets The Blame In Shutdown.”

CNN is still just sensationalist. They went nuts on hillaries stupid emails. It's clickbait.

Fox News is half news half nut job opinion hosts. And they omit news stories that make republicans/trump look bad. That's a biggie. Fox News viewers don't actually ever see half the days news, even with political spin.

I noticed recently they've had very spotty coverage on the nerve agent attack on the UK. Usually they'd love that, but because the president says Russia is good, they've been sweeping the story under the carpet.

Murdoch. He's not even an American. Australia, take him back.

And for the Fox news consumers who don't know what's center and what's left anymore: Huffington post has approximately the same amount of partisan bias as Fox news, but for the left. CNN is center-sensationalist. Reporting on Stormy Daniels non stop is because porn star scandals with presidents tend to grab attention.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com this is what liberal bias looks like. See the difference?

Difference is on the recipient side.
East Block people have a clear understanding of what "Pravda" is : i.e. the official truth to be met with some skepticism.

US people, going by relevant posters here, gobble their media down with zero skepticism consuming in scope of a defined to be true religious document. ( though that can go in both direction true, true, true or all fake news. but no introspection, does it all fit together, why do others see that differently? )
they don't look left or right or think about what could be true and what could be less true or maybe even more wrong than right.

afcjets wrote:

Compare that to 10/9/13 when Obama's approval rating drops to almost the same level (37%):

Just a friendly reminder that 2013 was when Obama was in the fifth year of his presidency. Not his second.

zkojq wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Compare that to 10/9/13 when Obama's approval rating drops to almost the same level (37%):

Just a friendly reminder that 2013 was when Obama was in the fifth year of his presidency. Not his second.

They had been president for almost the same amount of time and actually Bush had been president for longer. In March 2006 Bush had been president for 5 years and 2 months. In October 2013, Obama had been president for 4 years and 9 months.

afcjets wrote:

salttee wrote:

I disagree with the accusation that CNN is biased either right or left.

Even way before Trump, their bias was off the chart. Compare how they covered two almost identical poll results about Bush and Obama. Here is a CNN transcript of Wolf Blitzer on 3/13/06 spanning only 3 hours when GWB's approval rating dipped to 36%.

WOLF BLITZER:

"It’s 4 p.m. here in Washington. So you’re getting the first look right now at our brand-new poll. The president’s job approval rating has taken a downward turn again, falling to only 36%.
[break]
This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
[break]
The president’s poll numbers are pretty bad, pretty awful right now, rock bottom as far as the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
[break]
The president’s Iraq problem and his new low point in the polls.
[break]
His approval and policies now are at new lows.
[break]
The president’s job approval number in this new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, rock bottom, the lowest it’s ever been.
[break]
It’s 5 p.m. here in Washington where President Bush takes a beating in our latest poll. His approval rating at a low ebb.
[break]
Our latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll just out in the past hour shows the president at an all-time low.
[break]
His job approval rating at a new low.
[break]
That’s rock bottom as far as our poll is concerned.
[break]
It’s 7 p.m. here in Washington. The war in Iraq comes home to roost for President Bush. Our latest poll numbers showing his approval rating at a new low.
[break]
Also: President Bush hits a new low in the polls.
[break]
Now back to our lead story: President Bush’s approval rating now at an all-time low.
[break]
As we noted, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows his job approval rating at a new low.
[break]
President Bush’s approval rating at a new low, 36%."


So after every commercial break and then some, he excitedly led with that. Compare that to 10/9/13 when Obama's approval rating drops to almost the same level (37%):

CNN:

" "


And it wasn't just CNN either. Even worse, the AP story which announced the poll had this for its headline:

“Poll: GOP Gets The Blame In Shutdown.”

Whih Fox Fraud poll are you referencing?

Per Gallup, Obama's lowest Approval rating was 40%

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/bara ... roval.aspx

Trump currently is averaging below that

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pres ... trump.aspx

For reference, here is George W. Bush's approval. Look how badly he squandered his momentum from 2001/2002

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/pres ... -bush.aspx

casinterest wrote:

Whih Fox Fraud poll are you referencing?

Per Gallup, Obama's lowest Approval rating was 40%

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/bara ... roval.aspx

Associated Press. As I said they buried it under headlines Americans blaming Republicans for the shutdown. Here is the link, you have to scroll all the way to the paragraph 8 to find it.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-late ... indings-23

CCGPV wrote:

I get what you're saying but 30% of what is said on CNN is also false according to that site.

That is not what that says.

casinterest wrote:

CNN right now is hammering home the story of the mistresses of Trump. However Fox news is vacantly silent about it. If it had been Bill or any Weinstein or any other puching bag for the conservative media they would be all over it. Rather Fox right now prefers to water it down and lie to their veiwers.

Sean Hannity wasn't, and he is their most conservative host. His lead story last night was about how CNN is obsessed with Stormy Daniels and now the Playmate.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Whih Fox Fraud poll are you referencing?

Per Gallup, Obama's lowest Approval rating was 40%

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/bara ... roval.aspx

Associated Press. As I said they buried it under headlines Americans blaming Republicans for the shutdown. Here is the link, you have to scroll all the way to the paragraph 8 to find it.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-late ... indings-23

That wasn't a presidential approval poll. It was a shutdown poll.

Even Rasmussen never gave Obama less than 40% approval.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history

So don't blame CNN for not reporting a 37%

afcjets wrote:

Sean Hannity wasn't, and he is their most conservative host. His lead story last night was about how CNN is obsessed with Stormy Daniels and now the Playmate.

Sean "No Integrity" Hannity gives a pass to the President and has no integrity to interview those that are character witnesses on the President's lack of fidelity, honest, and integrity. Instead he goes by his Billionaire bosses bidding to slam the other network. Hannity slammed H.Clinton for continuing on with Bill Clinton after his transgressions. Why isn't he attacking Melania with the same vulger attacks? Hannity is just continuing Fox and the GOP's racist. and sexist attacks against the Democrats, while ignoring those from the GOP. Hannity and those that watch him have no clue about their lack of moral compasses and judgement.

afcjets wrote:

Sean Hannity wasn't, and he is their most conservative host. His lead story last night was about how CNN is obsessed with Stormy Daniels and now the Playmate.

According to Fox News - Sean Hannity is NOT NEWS. His show is OPINION and ENTERTAINMENT. The Fox News cable channel carries only 4 hours of NEWS programming each day. All the rest is opinion and entertainment.

Though I cannot conceive how someone who today is still devoting about 40 hours per year to Monica Lewinsky, who once devoted every show for over four months to her - can consider any obsessed over Daniels. Though consistency has never been something Hannity practices.

------------------

Pravda is a state-run organization supported by tax dollars/ government funds to carry the government message.

Fox News is just one part of a media-conglomerate that makes billions of dollars in profit for the Murdoch family. Fox News caters to the target audience - the largest cable news audience - telling them only what they (Fox) think the audience wants to hear - that the Republican Party is perfect with the answer to all problems. Fox News isn't the mouthpiece for the Trump administration. It criticizes him frequently.

I think Fox News editors have gotten tired of the two faced behavior of the President, saying one thing in public, and sounding like a thirteen year old bully on Twitter saying the opposite.

Fox Media does not provide consistent messages. Last fall Fox News was talking about the decline in attendance and empty seats at NFL games, that TV viewership was down. All because of the 'Black Live Matter' protests. Yet the sports programs on Fox News are talking about increased attendance, higher TV viewership of an exciting NFL season - especially the games carried on Fox TV.

Neither CNN nor Fox are in it for the political views. They are in business to make money, and will support what ever views they think their audience wants to hear. Turner said many years ago that he did not realize how strongly loyal conservatives were. How they didn't want to hear the whole story. Had he known that, CNN would be focused on a conservative viewpoint because it is more profitable IN THE UNITED STATES.

Murdoch founded and focused Fox News for that audience - not because he agrees politically - but because his business analysis was the conservatives were an underserved market with billions of dollars to spend. Advertisers also see the same potential in the Fox News audience.

CNN has the largest viewership because it devotes substantial assets and personnel to coverage in international markets. CNN has special centers and programming in several different countries.

Fox News on the other hand does not spend the money for international coverage that does not have a direct tie to the conservatives in the US. For two reasons - their US centric message doesn't go over well in other countries. And Murdoch has other media outlets which are in the most profitable other international markets. He doesn't want Fox News to compete with his other companies.

casinterest wrote:

That wasn't a presidential approval poll. It was a shutdown poll.

Like most polls, it was multi-faceted and contained more than one question. No matter how you spin it, the fact remains that only 37% of the 1227 respondents in the Associated Press poll approved of Obama's job performance.

afcjets wrote:

Sean Hannity wasn't, and he is their most conservative host. His lead story last night was about how CNN is obsessed with Stormy Daniels and now the Playmate.

casinterest wrote:

Sean "No Integrity" Hannity gives a pass to the President and has no integrity to interview those that are character witnesses on the President's lack of fidelity, honest, and integrity.

You sorta prove my point by saying he has no integrity. You said Fox is ignoring Stormy Daniels, yet their host with the least integrity in your opinion does, and he even shows clips of the most charged Q&As from Anderson Cooper's interview the night before from his other alleged mistress, who also has ties to the adult entertainment industry via Playboy. (I am not judging, just making the point that Fox is not intimidated by that)

I have seen all of the women who accused Trump covered on Fox. According to Media Research, here is how the major news outlets in the US covered President Clinton's accusers when those stories broke:

In 1994 Paula Jones accused President Clinton of sexual harassment and exposing himself when he was Governor of Arkansas and she was a secretary.
CBS - 0
NBC - 0
ABC - 16 seconds

In 1997 Kathleen Wiley is subpoenaed (unlike Trump's accusers, she did not want to come forward but was forced to by law). Her testimony is he sexually assaulted her in the oval office.
CBS - 1 minute 34 seconds
NBC - 1 minute 34 seconds
ABC - 0
CNN - 26 seconds

In 1998 Juanita Broderick comes forward and accuses President Clinton of full on raping her while he was Governor. She even says he bit her lip so hard during sex she was bleeding and even told her she better put some ice on it when he left.
ABC - 0
CBS - 0
NBC - 7+ mins

As for Stormy Daniels, who allegedly had a consensual affair with Donald Trump who was a private citizen at the time, which is different than a Governor or President raping someone, CNN spent 149 minutes covering her between 5p and midnight on 3/7, which was almost exactly half of their programming that night.

rfields5421 wrote:

According to Fox News - Sean Hannity is NOT NEWS. His show is OPINION and ENTERTAINMENT.

Exactly. The problem with CNN is they claim to be 100% news and unbiased.

rfields5421 wrote:

CNN has the largest viewership because it devotes substantial assets and personnel to coverage in international markets. CNN has special centers and programming in several different countries.

Lol, at first I thought you were talking about the US. In the US where they compete with Fox News and MSNBC, their ratings are embarrassing. Fox News and MSNBC are the top two cable channels, whereas CNN is often in the teens. According to Ad Week last summer, both Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon ranked behind Nick At Night and both re-runs of Friends and Full House.

afcjets wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

CNN has the largest viewership because it devotes substantial assets and personnel to coverage in international markets. CNN has special centers and programming in several different countries.

Lol, at first I thought you were talking about the US. In the US where they compete with Fox News and MSNBC, their ratings are embarrassing. Fox News and MSNBC are the top two cable channels, whereas CNN is often in the teens. According to Ad Week last summer, both Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon ranked behind Nick At Night and both re-runs of Friends and Full House.

Probably explainable by Fox’s target market being older and less affluent and thus having nothing else to do with their lives but sit around watching the boob tube. Notice that during commercial breaks, ads for reverse mortgages, catheters and walk-in bathtubs practically run on a loop.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

That wasn't a presidential approval poll. It was a shutdown poll.

Like most polls, it was multi-faceted and contained more than one question. No matter how you spin it, the fact remains that only 37% of the 1227 respondents in the Associated Press poll approved of Obama's job performance.

It was a question with leading issues about the goverment shutdown. As posted before. Other Presidential polls post that week did not show this level of Bias. So either stay consistent with your polling data, or quit complaining about something that didn't happen. And never should have.

afcjets wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Sean Hannity wasn't, and he is their most conservative host. His lead story last night was about how CNN is obsessed with Stormy Daniels and now the Playmate.

casinterest wrote:

Sean "No Integrity" Hannity gives a pass to the President and has no integrity to interview those that are character witnesses on the President's lack of fidelity, honest, and integrity.

You sorta prove my point by saying he has no integrity. You said Fox is ignoring Stormy Daniels, yet their host with the least integrity in your opinion does, and he even shows clips of the most charged Q&As from Anderson Cooper's interview the night before from his other alleged mistress, who also has ties to the adult entertainment industry via Playboy. (I am not judging, just making the point that Fox is not intimidated by that)

I have seen all of the women who accused Trump covered on Fox. According to Media Research, here is how the major news outlets in the US covered President Clinton's accusers when those stories broke:

In 1994 Paula Jones accused President Clinton of sexual harassment and exposing himself when he was Governor of Arkansas and she was a secretary.
CBS - 0
NBC - 0
ABC - 16 seconds

In 1997 Kathleen Wiley is subpoenaed (unlike Trump's accusers, she did not want to come forward but was forced to by law). Her testimony is he sexually assaulted her in the oval office.
CBS - 1 minute 34 seconds
NBC - 1 minute 34 seconds
ABC - 0
CNN - 26 seconds

In 1998 Juanita Broderick comes forward and accuses President Clinton of full on raping her while he was Governor. She even says he bit her lip so hard during sex she was bleeding and even told her she better put some ice on it when he left.
ABC - 0
CBS - 0
NBC - 7+ mins

As for Stormy Daniels, who allegedly had a consensual affair with Donald Trump who was a private citizen at the time, which is different than a Governor or President raping someone, CNN spent 149 minutes covering her between 5p and midnight on 3/7, which was almost exactly half of their programming that night

[/quote]

There were many more articles than that. Quit making up stats.
Trump has denied having an affair with more than one person, and is accused of using Election Funding, and coercion to cover it up. People that are truly fair and balanced would care a lot about that. But Fox and assoicates only care about racism, sexism and other items when it furthers the GOP agenda.

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

That wasn't a presidential approval poll. It was a shutdown poll.

Like most polls, it was multi-faceted and contained more than one question. No matter how you spin it, the fact remains that only 37% of the 1227 respondents in the Associated Press poll approved of Obama's job performance.

It was a question with leading issues about the goverment shutdown. As posted before. Other Presidential polls post that week did not show this level of Bias. So either stay consistent with your polling data, or quit complaining about something that didn't happen. And never should have.

And most of those same people who were polled blamed the government shutdown on Republicans. You also act as if other polls were way off, when there is only a 3 percentage point or approximately 10% difference. The Associated Press is considered unbiased, although is often accused of having a liberal bias. What didn't happen? What never should have happened?

casinterest wrote:

There were many more articles than that. Quit making up stats.

I didn't say articles, I said on air coverage. That is what ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are known for and why you see minutes and seconds (in the few cases where it was not zero when it came to covering then President Clinton's accusers). If they even had websites in 1994, very few people were online then. I also said when the stories broke. Of course they may have been forced to cover some of them as they gained momentum, especially when a legal battle spans 4.5 years which ultimately results in a sitting president losing his law lisence and reaching a settlement with one of the accusers for $850,000, as in the case with President Clinton and Paula Jones.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Like most polls, it was multi-faceted and contained more than one question. No matter how you spin it, the fact remains that only 37% of the 1227 respondents in the Associated Press poll approved of Obama's job performance.

It was a question with leading issues about the goverment shutdown. As posted before. Other Presidential polls post that week did not show this level of Bias. So either stay consistent with your polling data, or quit complaining about something that didn't happen. And never should have.

And most of those same people who were polled blamed the government shutdown on Republicans. You also act as if other polls were way off, when there are only a 3 percentage point or approximately 10% difference. The Associated Press is considered unbiased, although is often accused of having a liberal bias. What didn't happen? What never should have happened?

You are the one spinning it to mean more than it did. It didn't mean jack in terms of the "Lowest approval, as it wasn't part of a tracking poll. So quit trying to spin the Fox fluff.
40% was a low point for a while for Obama. Bush went well below it , and Trump can barely get to it.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

There were many more articles than that. Quit making up stats.

I didn't say articles, I said on air coverage. That is what ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are known for and why you see minutes and seconds. If they even had websites in 1994, very few people were online then. I also said when the stories broke. Of course they may have been forced to cover some of them as they gained momentum, especially when a legal battle spans 4.5 years which ultimately results in a sitting president losing his law lisence and reaching a settlement with one of the accusers for $850,000, as in the case with President Clinton and Paula Jones.

There was a ton more coverage. There were hearing and various news articles across the spectrum. Your posting has no source of hours for coverage, and your stats are nothing more than made up. Especially since the legal battle spanned many years, and I saw countless articles on it, Just because folks with such low honor, low integrity, and low credibility as Fox News weren't there to cover it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

casinterest wrote:

You are the one spinning it to mean more than it did. It didn't mean jack in terms of the "Lowest approval, as it wasn't part of a tracking poll. So quit trying to spin the Fox fluff.
40% was a low point for a while for Obama. Bush went well below it , and Trump can barely get to it.

Lol, I stated the very simple and common poll question verbatim. Once again, it was Associated Press, not Fox. But I guess to you Fox is just a catch all phrase to mean something you don't like. And even if we omit an Obama poll number you don't like, a score only 10% lower than Obama's would not be considered way below.

casinterest wrote:

There was a ton more coverage. There were hearing and various news articles across the spectrum. Your posting has no source of hours for coverage, and your stats are nothing more than made up. Especially since the legal battle spanned many years, and I saw countless articles on it, Just because folks with such low honor, low integrity, and low credibility as Fox News weren't there to cover it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What part of when the stories broke (which I have said three times now) do you not understand ??? What part do you not understand that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are television stations, so you keep insisting you saw countless articles in the 1990s has nothing to do with what was on their nightly newscasts (or throughout the day for CNN) the day those stories broke. Worse, you repeat exactly what I said about the legal battle spanning many years when I said eventually they were obviously forced to cover as if anyone is disputing that.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You are the one spinning it to mean more than it did. It didn't mean jack in terms of the "Lowest approval, as it wasn't part of a tracking poll. So quit trying to spin the Fox fluff.
40% was a low point for a while for Obama. Bush went well below it , and Trump can barely get to it.

Lol, I stated the very simple and common poll question verbatim. Once again, it was Associated Press, not Fox. But I guess to you Fox is just a catch all phrase to mean something you don't like. And even if we omit an Obama poll number you don't like, a score only 10% lower than Obama's would not be considered way below.

casinterest wrote:

There was a ton more coverage. There were hearing and various news articles across the spectrum. Your posting has no source of hours for coverage, and your stats are nothing more than made up. Especially since the legal battle spanned many years, and I saw countless articles on it, Just because folks with such low honor, low integrity, and low credibility as Fox News weren't there to cover it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What part of when the stories broke (which I have said three times now) do you not understand ??? What part do you not understand that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are television stations, so you saying you saw articles in the 1990s on it has nothing to do with what was on their nightly newscasts (or throughout the day for CNN) the day those stories broke. Worse, you repeat exactly what I said about the legal battle spanning many years when I said eventually they were obviously forced to cover as if anyone is disputing that.

Show me the AP tracking poll that highlights the lowest ever.
You can't whine like a hannity viewer unless you have full poll history from the AP to prove it was "the lowest point".

You still post no proof about coverage. Why do you need more than 1.5 minutes on 30 minute shows to "break" a story ?
These stories were covered for months and years with much more coverage.

Should the networks cover it like the coward Hanniity on his Uranium one Blockbuster story. That dumb weasel wasted 100's of hours on his radio, fox ,and the fox news website for a fraudulent story.

All these Hannity and Fox news fans apparently can't get by without being lied to for hours, and being sold Gold stocks, and viagra.


.

afcjets wrote:

I have seen all of the women who accused Trump covered on Fox. According to Media Research, here is how the major news outlets in the US covered President Clinton's accusers when those stories broke:

I'd be fascinated to know who funded Media Research to come up with these findings....

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

What part of when the stories broke (which I have said three times now) do you not understand ??? What part do you not understand that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are television stations, so you saying you saw articles in the 1990s on it has nothing to do with what was on their nightly newscasts (or throughout the day for CNN) the day those stories broke. Worse, you repeat exactly what I said about the legal battle spanning many years when I said eventually they were obviously forced to cover as if anyone is disputing that.

Show me the AP tracking poll that highlights the lowest ever.
You can't whine like a hannity viewer unless you have full poll history from the AP to prove it was "the lowest point".

I sent you the link to the AP poll, and never said whether or not it was the lowest. If you want to assume Obama's approval rating went even lower, ok...lol.

You are the only one who has mentioned lowest poll. I said when Obama's poll reached almost the same level as Bush on the day when Wolf Blitzer on CNN excitedly led with it after every single commercial break.

casinterest wrote:

You still post no proof about coverage. Why do you need more than 1.5 minutes on 30 minute shows to "break" a story ?
These stories were covered for months and years with much more coverage.

It doesn't take more than 1.5 minutes to cover allegations of a sitting President raping a subordinate when he was Governor, just as you don't need to talk about a consensual affair for several hours each night between a porn star and a then reality star. In 5 of the 10 examples I gave though, the coverage by the individual networks was 0.

Here is a link to the coverage. But since it was reported on the #1 news outlet in the US, you will say it's fake.

https://youtu.be/nDOwK4uxOHY?t=6m48s

casinterest wrote:

Should the networks cover it like the coward Hanniity on his Uranium one Blockbuster story. That dumb weasel wasted 100's of hours on his radio, fox ,and the fox news website for a fraudulent story.

Some people might think an active investigation by the US attorney general regarding a foreign superpower over our uranium supply is more newsworthy than Stormy Daniels, including liberal Newsweek magazine who covered the story with this headline: "Russia Routed Millions to Influence Clinton in Uranium Deal, Informant Tells Congress"...

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-routed-m ... ess-801686

The attorney General personally scoffed at the house judiciary republicans for pushing the uranium one thing. He told them an investigation has to be based on facts. I witnessed this on cspan and I actually approved of something sessions said for once.

People should try getting information from cspan instead of Hannity.

casinterest wrote:

Show me the AP tracking poll that highlights the lowest ever.

Here is the Associated Press tracking poll that highlights Obama's approval ratings 2012-2015 (see first line on chart on page 3)

The lowest is indeed 37%.

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK_P ... _Obama.pdf

afcjets wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

According to Fox News - Sean Hannity is NOT NEWS. His show is OPINION and ENTERTAINMENT.

Exactly. The problem with CNN is they claim to be 100% news and unbiased.

Do they?

Also, what does CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC have to do with comparing Fox to Pravda?

afcjets wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

According to Fox News - Sean Hannity is NOT NEWS. His show is OPINION and ENTERTAINMENT.

Exactly. The problem with CNN is they claim to be 100% news and unbiased.

rfields5421 wrote:

CNN has the largest viewership because it devotes substantial assets and personnel to coverage in international markets. CNN has special centers and programming in several different countries.

Lol, at first I thought you were talking about the US. In the US where they compete with Fox News and MSNBC, their ratings are embarrassing. Fox News and MSNBC are the top two cable channels, whereas CNN is often in the teens. According to Ad Week last summer, both Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon ranked behind Nick At Night and both re-runs of Friends and Full House.

Agree with you on Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon. Can’t watch them, they are so fake that it is disturbing.

seb146 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

According to Fox News - Sean Hannity is NOT NEWS. His show is OPINION and ENTERTAINMENT.

Exactly. The problem with CNN is they claim to be 100% news and unbiased.

Do they?

Also, what does CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC have to do with comparing Fox to Pravda?

Yes they do, and so do ABC, CBS, and NBC.

As demonstrated above those networks initial reluctance to cover Clinton's accusers, and CNN's obsession over a low Bush approval rating but completely ignoring an almost identical one for Obama are examples where they can be compared to Pravda (when a Democrat is in the WH)

The very first response to this Topic mentions CNN and I was only responding to what the TA said about them. (see posts 2, 3, 18)

afcjets wrote:

As demonstrated above those networks initial reluctance to cover Clinton's accusers, and CNN's obsession over a low Bush approval rating but completely ignoring an almost identical one for Obama are examples where they can be compared to Pravda (when a Democrat is in the WH)

The very first response to this Topic mentions CNN and I was only responding to what the TA said about them. (see posts 2, 3, 18)

Post #2 was a right winger raising the whataboutism defense for Fox by calling CNN biased.
Post 3 was me taking the bait and stating my opinion about CNN, which I have detested ever since the extreme right wing scumbag Ted Turner created it; if I had known that the rightwingers were going to use it to hijack the thread, I never would have made that post.

DDR wrote:

afcjets wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

According to Fox News - Sean Hannity is NOT NEWS. His show is OPINION and ENTERTAINMENT.

Exactly. The problem with CNN is they claim to be 100% news and unbiased.

rfields5421 wrote:

CNN has the largest viewership because it devotes substantial assets and personnel to coverage in international markets. CNN has special centers and programming in several different countries.

Lol, at first I thought you were talking about the US. In the US where they compete with Fox News and MSNBC, their ratings are embarrassing. Fox News and MSNBC are the top two cable channels, whereas CNN is often in the teens. According to Ad Week last summer, both Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon ranked behind Nick At Night and both re-runs of Friends and Full House.

Agree with you on Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon. Can’t watch them, they are so fake that it is disturbing.

Not a steady watcher of any of them on any network, I do not see the fake side of them, just another talk show to me. Don Lemon is surely not a favorite of the Conservatives. I know he speaks back when goaded, I admire him for that. I will say this also for Don Lemon, he does have people on from the Right side of the aisle, more so than some Fox shows it seems to me. My impression anyway.

I don't know why anybody watches these crappy shows.
The number of complete "news" stories I have watched on the total of these shows in the last 10 years I could count on my fingers.
I wouldn't recognize any of these "personalities" if they sat next to me.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

What part of when the stories broke (which I have said three times now) do you not understand ??? What part do you not understand that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are television stations, so you saying you saw articles in the 1990s on it has nothing to do with what was on their nightly newscasts (or throughout the day for CNN) the day those stories broke. Worse, you repeat exactly what I said about the legal battle spanning many years when I said eventually they were obviously forced to cover as if anyone is disputing that.

Show me the AP tracking poll that highlights the lowest ever.
You can't whine like a hannity viewer unless you have full poll history from the AP to prove it was "the lowest point".

I sent you the link to the AP poll, and never said whether or not it was the lowest. If you want to assume Obama's approval rating went even lower, ok...lol.

You are the only one who has mentioned lowest poll. I said when Obama's poll reached almost the same level as Bush on the day when Wolf Blitzer on CNN excitedly led with it after every single commercial break.

Let's see. Posting about a President who's approval crashed from 91% to 37% on it's way to even lower levels , or posting about a President's approval in the midst of a Government shutdown caused by Boehner and McConnell? I think the Government shutdown won the airtime that week except for the morons at Fox news.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You still post no proof about coverage. Why do you need more than 1.5 minutes on 30 minute shows to "break" a story ?
These stories were covered for months and years with much more coverage.

It doesn't take more than 1.5 minutes to cover allegations of a sitting President raping a subordinate when he was Governor, just as you don't need to talk about a consensual affair for several hours each night between a porn star and a then reality star. In 5 of the 10 examples I gave though, the coverage by the individual networks was 0.

Here is a link to the coverage. But since it was reported on the #1 news outlet in the US, you will say it's fake.

https://youtu.be/nDOwK4uxOHY?t=6m48s

There is not one factual statement in the above. Fox is not a news outlet. It is a liars club.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Some people might think an active investigation by the US attorney general regarding a foreign superpower over our uranium supply is more newsworthy than Stormy Daniels, including liberal Newsweek magazine who covered the story with this headline: "Russia Routed Millions to Influence Clinton in Uranium Deal, Informant Tells Congress"...

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-routed-m ... ess-801686

And that whole stupid newsarticle was disproved in front of Congress. But you don't understand that , because you watch the biggest set of liars in the country.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... ngdoing-by

They basically found a liar after Sean Hannity and the losers at Fox lied to the public for hours upon hours.

afcjets wrote:

Here is the Associated Press tracking poll that highlights Obama's approval ratings 2012-2015 (see first line on chart on page 3)

The lowest is indeed 37%.

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK_P ... _Obama.pdf

That is a july 2015 poll. Not a historical poll.

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Show me the AP tracking poll that highlights the lowest ever..

Here is the Associated Press tracking poll that highlights Obama's approval ratings 2012-2015 (see first line on chart on page 3)

The lowest is indeed 37%.

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK_P ... _Obama.pdf

That is a july 2015 poll. Not a historical poll.

"Overall, do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Approve:

07/09 - 07/13/15 ..... 43%
04/23 - 04/27/15 ..... 45%
01/29 - 02/02/15 ..... 47%
12/04 - 12/08/14 ..... 41%
10/16 - 10/20/14 ..... 42%
09/25 - 09/29/14 ..... 43%
07/24 - 07/28/14 ..... 40%
05/16 - 05/19/14 ..... 43%
03/20 - 03/24/14 ..... 41%
01/17 - 01/21/14 ..... 45%
12/05 - 12/09/13 ..... 42%
10/03 - 10/07/13 ..... 37%
04/11 - 04/15/13 ..... 50%
01/10 - 01/14/13 ..... 54%
12/29 - 12/03/12 ..... 57%

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Here is the Associated Press tracking poll that highlights Obama's approval ratings 2012-2015 (see first line on chart on page 3)

The lowest is indeed 37%.

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK_P ... _Obama.pdf

That is a july 2015 poll. Not a historical poll.

Are you for real?

"Overall, do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

Approve:

07/09 - 07/13/15 ..... 43%
04/23 - 04/27/15 ..... 45%
01/29 - 02/02/15 ..... 47%
12/04 - 12/08/14 ..... 41%
10/16 - 10/20/14 ..... 42%
09/25 - 09/29/14 ..... 43%
07/24 - 07/28/14 ..... 40%
05/16 - 05/19/14 ..... 43%
03/20 - 03/24/14 ..... 41%
01/17 - 01/21/14 ..... 45%
12/05 - 12/09/13 ..... 42%
10/03 - 10/07/13 ..... 37%
04/11 - 04/15/13 ..... 50%
01/10 - 01/14/13 ..... 54%
12/29 - 12/03/12 ..... 57%

So it proves out exactly.
One flipping poll out of multiple. And one that turned around. Probably had bias in the questions. It didn't exist in a vacuum, Congress and the Tea Party hit rock bottom at the same time and yes it was released on CNN when done by them in October.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -cnn-poll/

Most other polls including the ones I listed below only had it at 40-42% during this anomoly of a poll. However since you are a one site person, I am sure one poll is all you care about.

When Blitzer reported on Bush's approval hitting 37%, it was outside of a government shutdown.

casinterest wrote:

So it proves out exactly.
One flipping poll out of multiple. And one that turned around. Probably had bias in the questions. It didn't exist in a vacuum, Congress and the Tea Party hit rock bottom at the same time and yes it was released on CNN when done by them in October.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -cnn-poll/

Most other polls including the ones I listed below only had it at 40-42% during this anomoly of a poll. However since you are a one site person, I am sure one poll is all you care about.

No, it wasn't reported by CNN. The link you provide mentions another poll where Obama had a 37% approval rating, this time by CBS on 11/20/13, which was more than a month after the government shutdown, so it is clearly not an anomaly (other than it was his low). Also, this was buried on a blog on their website, I doubt Wolf Blitzer reported it every 10 minutes like he did for Bush, and I would be surprised if it was mentioned even one time by any CNN anchor.