The most trusted TV news in the US
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarPublic Policy Polling has surveyed Americans on their most trusted television news source. They were asked for each source whether they trusted it or not. Below are the net (yes minus no) responses:
- Fox News +12%
- CNN -2%
- NBC News -9%
- CBS News -14%
- ABC News -15%
So Fox News is the only TV broadcaster that more Americans trust than distrust.
Now some may say this is only because Republicans men don’t trust the other media sources. But look at the ratings for firstly women
- Fox News +11%
- CNN +9%
- NBC News -1%
- CBS News -3%
- ABC News -7%
So women only trust Fox and CNN.
But most damning is the ratings of Independents
- Fox News -3%
- CNN -8%
- CBS News -29%
- NBC News -30%
- ABC News -32%
Fox News is close to even, CNN a bit behind, and the three main networks are absolutely distrusted by Independents.
White Americans are also clear in their views:
- Fox News +14%
- CNN -14%
- NBC News -22%
- CBS News -25%
- ABC News -25%
And in case people wonder Hispanics give Fox +13% and African-Americans are balanced with 38% trusting and untrusting equally.
The age group most alienated from the other broadcasters are aged 46 to 65. They say:
- Fox News +19%
- CNN -13%
- NBC News -17%
- CBS News -22%
- ABC News -24%
This shows what a blunder it was for the Obama Administration to declare war on Fox and try to freeze them out. Not only do more Americans trust Fox than any other network, many Americans only trust Fox, and what do you think they think of a Government that tries to freeze out the only new source they trust?
Some on the left will no doubt insult Americans and say they are all dumb. I think it shows that people prefer it when a network is honest about whether it has a conservative or liberal bent.
It is very rare for politicians to win battles with the media.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 am
The MSM worldwide have done themselves huge damage over climategate.
Fox ran with the story, of course.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 am
This shows who people trust, but it doesn’t mean they deserve that trust.
It may mean that the hard right are more likely to trust as long as the network sings their tune.
It is possible the middle and left are more skeptical – I think anyone should be skeptical of the media.
I like Fox for some things, but they can at least as crappy as any of the others, often blatant bullshit.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 am
O’Bumma made a big mistake bagging Fox.
He’s definitely a one term pres.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:14 am
The One has told us that Fox is not a news agency so move along.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 am
pete
Perception is everything buddy.
ordinary people aren’t imbeciles, they do think you know?
They don’t trust the others for a reason and they like FOX for a reason.
what do you think that is?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:22 am
“It is possible the middle and left are more skeptical ”
BAHAHAHA yeah thats it. even though the left blindly follows the religion of global warming
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:29 am
The numbers you’ve quoted are insufficient to found this conclusion. You may be right. It may even be likely that you’re right, but the data aren’t there.
I think it shows that people prefer it when a network is honest about whether it has a conservative or liberal bent.
Does Fox News still go with ‘fair and balanced’?
Onto the principal question – people should realise there is a difference between Fox News news shows (like Fox Report), and Fox News commentary shows (like The O’Reilly Factor, and Glenn Beck). I don’t watch it often, but I’ve never found any major reason to doubt the actual news on the Fox News Channel.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
I also noticed last week that TV1′s Simon “Shallow” Dallow introduced an item from “our American affiliate ABC News”.
Why has TVNZ aligned itself with the consistently least trustworthy US news source?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:31 am
Sorry, I shouldn’t have implied that Hannity and Beck and Palin would have blind followers that would believe anything they say.
As Graeme says, there is a difference between Fox News and Fox pulpits.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
Would that be the U.S. version of CNN or the International version of CNN (which we get)?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
no more than CNN ABC and NBC ehh Pete?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
It doesn’t surprise me DPF. As I’ve blogged before Fox News is my favourite news outlet. I think Bill O’Reilly is very good viewing for centre-right commentary on what is really happening particularly in America. I also recommend Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Chris has a balanced panel of two Conservatives and two more liberal people from National Public Radio. Watching Chris interview them, he tends to let them speak for themselves, he doesn’t interrupt, and he seems to have a good grasp of the issues. Anyway if you want a good idea of what is actually happening in the United States of America then Fox News is the channel to go to.
Watching our media on the other hand is an object lesson in liberal bias. Tim Wilson on TV one the other night was blatantly putting a spin on Pres Obama’s State of the union address. Wilson said positive things about the speech, which in my opinion was a hotch potch of many issues and opinions, covering a mindnumbing 70 minutes. That Obama is blatantly insincere should be obvious to all. Obama for example talked about a spirit of bipartisanship, when he has been the most partisan president for many years. All Wilson could say about the Republicans was that they were Obama’s “enemies” and that they “sneered” at him.
Watching Wilson one would be left wondering why Obama is suddenly so unpopular and why his health-care bill has not been passed? Fox News will tell you why. Our media seems unable to grasp or even consider issues from the centre-right. Nine years of socialism has meant that they are captured by the left-wing viewpoint and just cannot see anything else. From my mind Tim Wilson should be sacked and TV one should hire a real correspondent for the United States who can report on things factually rather than continually editorialise his left-wing views.
And as I’ve said before a Fox News equivalent for New Zealand would be fantastic and a welcome antidote to Tim Wilson, Russell Brown etc etc etc.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
That’s not my take out.
Fox News is now lowbrow Republican Network and the Republican lowbrow base gets all its news from Fox News. It mixes hardnews and personality driven opinion seamlessly.
What the polling tells you is that most Republicans are uncritical consumers of their Network’s pov. That’s not unsurprising given that tertiary educated suburban Americans are increasingly either Democrat or Independent.
The Independents are the largest growing political affiliation in the US and are mostly ex Republicans. They lean rightish.
Smart voters are critical of all new sources in the media as the media always has a ax to grind.
What Fox News proves (aside from good money making model in the age of information competition from the internet and broadcast network abandonment) is that uncritical political partisans are increasingly only ever confronting a pov that they already agree with.
It’s actually a double edged sword for the Republican elite (who are educated and more polyamourous when it comes to information). The day after Sen-elect Scott Brown’s victory, Beck opens up on the guy with both barrels primarily because he is pro choice as are most of the residents of his State.
DPF is right only to this extent – Fox is refreshing because despite its slogan its pov is made explicit – it makes no attempt at “fairness” or “balance” which really mostly means hiding a leftwing pov.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
Fox was obviously helped along by Obama’s non-endorsement.
The poll results reflect the need for news outlets to stick to reporting on events without fear or favour. Those that allow themselves to be enlisted as the marketing arm of government or on any one side of the left v right culture wars deserve what they get.
Underlying the poll result could be a disillisionment with the Obama-loving chattering classes. Latte anyone?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:39 am
Yes, well watch the Obama administation try to castrate Fox with a reintroduced Fairness Doctrine while at the same time bail out left wing newspapers that are going belly up because no-one wants to read them any more.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:41 am
It’s unfortunate that the survey only considered commercial broadcast networks. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen polling elsewhere that suggests that on average people think The Daily Show is more trustworthy than any of the major networks. And the fact that they didn’t include PBS makes the results less informative than they might have been.
As for Fox, sure it was silly for the administration to criticise them. However Fox often makes me feel embarrassed to be a conservative. Whether you think their take on politics is right or wrong, it’s self-evident that they do have a take on politics, and imo their conflation of news and opinion does little to advance deeper public understanding of complex issues.
Even though I consider myself a conservative, I would rather listen to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who despite being a Democrat shows a much greater willingness to critique Democrats than I see Fox critiquing Republicans.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:43 am
I’m surprised and not a little saddened that significant numbers of people trust any electronic news broadcaster – electronic news companies must as their first priority entertain.
Genuine news can only come second.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:48 am
Just admit it Pete, socialists NEVER accept poll findings if they don’t like the results.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 am
Percentage of Lefties who think that Public Policy Polling produced a rogue poll: +97%
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 am
“I would rather listen to Chris Matthews on MSNBC . . ”
I guess somebody has to.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:52 am
No, they don’t. 1.5 million people (maybe households?) watch the Fox Report each day. Around 8-9 million watch each of ABC news and NBC news, and a further 6 million watch CBS. Cable might be catching up, but the networks are still kicking ass.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:53 am
I didn’t say I didn’t accept this poll (nor am I a Socialist anyway). As with any poll you just have to look at how limited the poll questions are.
I watch Fox News more than any of the others in the poll. Some of the comment is interesting, but I am also well aware of the some of the blatant bullshit they push outside their news coverage – stuff that a lot of people want to believe.
I’ve no reason to believe it’s a rogue poll, but it’s just a poll. An indicator of views on a very narrow range of questions.
I don’t trust any news outlet completely. And I trust some of what any of them do. How do you poll that?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
” It is very rare for politicians to win battles with the media. ”
Well maybe, but it can be done. Politicians are notoriously gutless, so that might have a lot to do with it. But Sarah Palin has beaten the media. Articulate, aware and intelligent, she’s prospered as a Conservative politician while the Progressive media have done their utmost to destroy her personally.
Of course what the figures above show us is that the tables have been turned on the left. Their political successes have been down to their control of the media, and their media agents have never hesitated to lie and twist and distort for their Progressive masters. Now they are reaping what they have sowed.
The mainstream media is a lame duck, and if a politician has the ability (like Sarah Palin) they can be defeated.
What a shame there’s apparently no Sarah Palins in National. The slimy untrustworthy leftist sycophants in the NZ media would be easy meat for someone with some brains, some balls and the ability to articulate a clear political vision. Where is that person??
Without the defeat of the NZ media, it is much more difficult to restore this country from the stinking racist crime ridden totalitarian leftist mire it has become at the hands of the Progressives.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
” but I am also well aware of the some of the blatant bullshit they push outside their news coverage ”
Oh fuck off you tranparent posturing fake. The stench of your dishonesty is intolerable. Of course none of the other outlets featuring above, that lean so far left they’re a joke, have ever been subject to such criticism from you. Go away you sad sick posturing charlatan. (Not a socialist..?? Pffft.. what do you take people for??)
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 am
How exactly? By joining the Fox media?
she’s prospered as a Conservative politician
By helping McCain lose the Presidential election and then resigning as governor of Alaska she is sure climbing the political heights.
“Defeating the NZ media” is one of your lamest dreams RB. What do you do, ban all current media and replace it with The Redbaiter Network, fair and balanced?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
” Even though I consider myself a conservative, I would rather listen to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, ”
You’re no Conservative. Conservatives are intelligent. Nobody with a brain listens to Chris Matthews, a self confessed Marxist who while he pretends to objectivity, makes FOX’s opinion shows look positively neutral with his hate driven obsessive anti-Conservative propaganda. Get lost. You’re no Conservative. You’re a fake.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:08 am
Pete, please just go away with your obsessive delusional floundering. You’re so uninformed its a joke. That’s what happens you see when you follow the “news” sources you do. You know nothing that is true.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 am
I don’t watch any of the other outlets so have no reason to criticise them. There are a lot of things I never watch or read and don’t criticise. What’s your point?
Speaking for yourself again
Vote:Hilarious.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
” What the polling tells you is that most Republicans are uncritical consumers of their Network’s pov. ”
So are the Democrats then because FOX news also enjoys far greater trust among them.
“it makes no attempt at “fairness” or “balance” which really mostly means hiding a leftwing pov.”
More rubbish. There are far too many leftists on FOX. (and how can you say this when the othe rnetworks have no right wingers?/ Pffft… just hopeless.
How amusing it is to see all of the fake rightist rabbits come sneaking out of their far left burrows pretending to be offering objective comment.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:14 am
Americans might trust Fox, but that does not make it quality journalism.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:17 am
What would we do without your standard of objectivity RB.
You criticise media you are “too intelligent” to watch, and try to blast me for not criticising media I don’t watch.
What is the truth? Redbaiter rants?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 am
I don’t trust Fox completely.
Vote:WordNetDaily (wnd.com), on the other hand…
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 am
“Americans might trust Fox, but that does not make it quality journalism.”
Hhahaha.. and you, a screaming Progressive extremist, would be just the person to tell us where “quality journalism” is to be found wouldn’t you Effy??
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
Graeme:
Oh dear read my full post properly. Your post doesn’t make sense in the context of what I said which wasn’t focused on media share.
The polling question actually mixes two news channels with bulletins on the three old networks. I suspect that the two news channels are being judged on their entire content rather than any particular bulletin.
You assume that those watching Fox distinguish between hard news and opinion – I am not so sure. It really is a lifestyle channel of a sort.
My point is not about the audience size of each news bulletin but rather the uncritical nature of most viewers of Fox albeit that it’s overall audience share might be smaller.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
Pete the “aw-shucks-I’m-just-a-moderate-centre-leftie”:
Pete the extremist:
Pete George – the Peter Dunne of Kiwiblog.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 am
“The polling question actually mixes two news channels with bulletins on the three old networks. I suspect that the two news channels are being judged on their entire content rather than any particular bulletin. ”
A daft suspicion. The survey was based on trust. Its why the word “News” was specified in each question. How can trust be an issue as regards non-news shows?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:29 am
Red
I thought they had a secure ward in Tauranga perhaps it has the internet. Or are you off your meds.
Read presser provided in the link.
“49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree. Predictably there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network.”
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:30 am
Do you trust Fox and Fox content 100% RB?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 am
Red just makes things up
“CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility with them.”
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:33 am
Redbaiter, you’ll like this (if you haven’t already seen it)
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/02/ailes-vs-huffington-no-contest.html
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
Americans might trust Fox, but that does not make it quality journalism.
Obviously you consider yourself the only one intelligent enough to tell us what is.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:34 am
” Read presser provided in the link.”
Democrats trust FOX news more than any other Network.
(Y’know Chris, that meds thing is so tired and over-used and unoriginal it really makes you look so witless and aged.)
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
” Redbaiter, you’ll like this (if you haven’t already seen it)”
Thanks Angus. Watched it yesterday. Got a good laugh. See that fraud Amanpour getting hers too???
http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2010/01/21/christiane-amanpour-gets-shellacked-over-waterboarding
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
I like Fox because “progressives”, intellectuals and poseurs trying to prove their place on the liberal/left continuum must publicly knock it.It’s a compulsory mantra that must be repeated in order to show membership of that “elite”. The same ones who have to loudly declaim Thatcher and Reagan, apartheid and the Vietnam war, while ignoring Castro and Stalin, the Khmer Rouge and the disaster that is Central Africa.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Even though I consider myself a conservative, I would rather listen to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who despite being a Democrat shows a much greater willingness to critique Democrats than I see Fox critiquing Republicans.
Really? You listen to the most biased individual on US television? The only Democrats he has criticised were the ones running against Obama in the Primary!
“I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”
On November 6, 2008, he was a guest on the MSNBC television program Morning Joe, where he stated, “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new Presidency work.” Host Joe Scarborough asked if that was his job as a journalist. “Yeah, that’s my job. My job is to help this country,” Matthews said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews
Yeah, sounds really unbiased.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 am
@kowtow,
You like something purely because people you don’t like hate it?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
DPF:
Mmmm looking at the polling methodology it might be a bit dodgy.
Note the disclaimer:
“PPP conducted a national survey of 1,151 registered voters on January 18th and 19th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.”
Mmm the lack of weighting worries me.
While the Presser does not explicit say so (it leaves the implication that respondents were interviewed) looking at the polling questions themselves this appears to be an automated phone calling poll. As a methodology they are VERY suspect. I suspect the refusal rate was in excess of 60%.
[DPF: There was a non automated call poll in recent weeks also that had similiar results IIRC]
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:45 am
” Mmmm looking at the polling methodology it might be a bit dodgy.”
Hhahaha.. yeah sure. Other polls have confirmed these findings. (I referenced this poll and another over the weekend on Kiwiblog IIRC)
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
@Bevan
Not me, but people in say, the Columbia School of Journalism and the Pointer Institute.
It seems to me that people around here like fox news a damn lot. And that is fine. But it also seems that people assume that the function of news is to tell them what they want to hear and confirm their own worldview.
I beg to differ, and please note this is not an ideological point.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:47 am
Red:
If not the meds then you cannot read or are just stupid.
Follow the link read the polling report. Democrats do not trust Fox the most.
Just read and then apologise.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
” I like Fox because “progressives”, intellectuals and poseurs trying to prove their place on the liberal/left continuum must publicly knock it.”
Kowtow- You’re so right. All criticism of FOX is basically just rank left wing hypocrisy and bigotry.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
“Democrats trust FOX news more than any other Network.”
Huh??? What numbers are you looking at?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
So you wouldn’t criticise Fox for anything at all RB? You would except everything they say as 100% trustworthy and accurate?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
My point was about the size of the republican base. I estimate it to be substantially more than the viewership of Fox News, thus I considered your comment missed something important. The Republican base can’t get all its news from Fox News if most of them don’t watch it.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:58 am
@Pete George
Redbaiter believes Glenn Beck really cries on the air. Go figure.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:59 am
Fox news you can trust?
Glaciers Shrinking Three Times Faster Than in 70s
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Not me, but people in say, the Columbia School of Journalism and the Pointer Institute.
Really? You got a source for that?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
@Bevan
What do you mean?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I’d be interested in your opinion, David.
Which news outlet do you trust most and read regularly?
Also, do you make a distinction between the Fox News and Fox News Commentary?
[DPF: I watch both CNN and Fox News. Yes the news is desperate to the commentary in Fox. I probably trust Fox more than any other purely because they will carry stories that other networks do not, or at least before they do - such as ACORN. Another example is the publicity given to McCain's alleged affair and the near absence of coverage of Edwards very real affair and love child]
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
” Huh??? What numbers are you looking at?”
I was trying to say more Democrats trust FOX than any one other network. Given the percentage of those polled who favour FOX, I calculated that FOX must be favoured by the biggest group of Democrats. Perhaps this is incorrect and Mr. Diack is right. Nevertheless, more Democrats trust FOX than trust MSNBC which is a fairly telling point.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Petey, will you just fuck off back to your infallible WAPO.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The Left get outraged by Fox but I see Fox as no more bias than the likes of BBC. It has an acknowledged conservative bent with it’s panellists. I cannot see any rule against that – especially as itis openly acknowledged. But the standard has been set by the BBC and others that to be ‘unbiased’ you have to push every agenda except a US agenda. So you have shows desperately trying to show that they unbiased that they actually forget the US might have a point of view as well. Fox is just shameless about having panelists who see the news from a US POV and share that opinion. If nothing else it winds the Left up something chronic!
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
@Rebaiter
WAPO? What the fuck is that?
That insult should only offend an American. This is New Zealand, mate. Choose a country and stick to it.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“The Left get outraged by Fox but I see Fox as no more bias than the likes of BBC. ”
Its important to get the perspective right. FOX as cable has nothing like the reach of the BBC or the main broadcast networks. (as Mr. Edgeler points out above) That the left are so upset by it is even more ridiculous considering the fact that in reality it is a minnow in the vast media sea controlled by the Progressives. A small island in an ocean of leftist bullshit.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Redbaiter – according to the survey:
51% of democrats trust ABC news (+31% differential)
Vote:55% trust CBS news (+35%)
59% trust CNN (+41%)
30% trust Fox News (-22%)
62% trust NBC news (+45%)
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
“WAPO? What the fuck is that?”
The screaming left wing newspaper that Pete George is always referencing on Kiwiblog.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Seriously, it is fun reading kiwis regurgitate arguments made by americans about their own content. Its as if you have all downloaded it straight to the brain.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Potentially has somethign to do with Fox “news” telling its audience everyone else is lying. The blatent crap that is spread from the channel is ironically best shown in a comedy skit (the daily show).
If your audience wants a nice simple black and white story, and you give them that, then they are happy. Fox knows this, and does it very well.
THe other part of it is that the rest of the American stations are not much better, but yet they say they are. I guess the fact that Fox doesnt hide it goes to its credit in some bizare way.
The survey to be honest says quite allot about America.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Mr. Edgeler. MY MSNBC comment referred to the Mclaughlin poll referenced here
http://article.nationalreview.com/423279/trusting-fox/ramesh-ponnuru
(The article I referenced last week.)
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
” The survey to be honest says quite allot about America.”
Such as?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“I think it shows that people prefer it when a network is honest about whether it has a conservative or liberal bent.”
But they aren’t honest about it, because their slogan is “Fair and Balanced”. That shows they are deluded, or just liars.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Graeme
Would depend on how one defines “republican base” I’d say a subset of affiliated republicans. At 1.5m households that could be it although it strikes me as a bit on the small side even if ones goes very narrow.
If the base is narrowly defined one should not assume they get their info from elsewhere at all.
I concede that of regular republican voters they probably hookup with other news sources.
Perhaps one could say that more of the republican base get their news from Fox News than any other source.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@redbaiter
The Soviet model of propaganda was flawed, because the population knew they were being lied to.
The American one is more effective because they trust their news.
That is what the survey tells us about America
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
“That is what the survey tells us about America”
Its what it tells YOU Effy. About as capable of objective analysis regarding America and FOX news as Fidel Castro. Your assertions are manifest nonsense.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@Redbaiter
“Your assertions are manifest nonsense.”
Because…?
Can you complete a thought, or are you really this hare-brained?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:39 pm
” Redbaiter, tell me why please. ”
Hahah. No thanks Effy. I don’t have the time (or interest) to rebut every looney leftist who shows up on Kiwiblog with their outrageously partisan bullshit assertions. You think you’re right, then stick with it. Sorry. Got work to do.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Haha, see you later then
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
As opposed to “All the News That’s Fit to Print”
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I’d define Republican base as those people who usually vote, and always vote Republican when they do vote. It’s certainly a subset of those who usually vote republican. But I estimate this is more than 1.5m people. And more than 1.5m households.
I estimate this is more than all those who regularly watch the Fox News channel.
And I’d suggest that the steroetype of the member of the republican base – older, white male, etc. – is in fact more likely to watch network news.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
“The survey to be honest says quite allot about America.”
A condescending statement. Remember you are talking about the only superpower of the world, the country which save the rest of the world’s bacon during WWII. You could be graceful and grateful, at least.
The United States has always been a center-right country. Conservatives and moderates outnumber liberals three or four to one, so Fox’s top spot is a reflection of this ratio.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@Manolo
“the country which save the rest of the world’s bacon during WWII”
Should we be grateful to Russia too, then? What a strange way to defend an aspect of contemporary America.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Manolo
Vote:Serbia’s resistance to Nazi (and Croatia’s) occupation in WW2 led Hitler to delay his invasion of Russia. This led to fighting during the fierce winter, which ultimatley sealed Nazi Germany’s fate in the war.
Should we bow down to Serbia or the Russian winter?
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I wonder why they don’t poll on Red’s most trusted source, Crusader Rabbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_Rabbit
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Don’t worry Manolo – it’s a hint at what turns out to be the standard trope of the dwindling band of Chomsky/Pilger believers. That Americans (and most Westeners by implication) simply swallow what the corporate mass news media produce – aside from heroic figures like ephemera, Radar, and Matt Damon – who avidly await the next edition of The Nation, or Z, or who knows what else.
You can see the thinking (and I use that term very lightly) in the next crack:
Grateful to a grotesquely murderous, totalitarian regime for fighting against another grotesquely murderous, totalitarian regime – after they gleefully cooperated to start the whole conflagration, and following two years when they happily worked together to plunder Eastern Europe?
Um. No. Except in the sense that one can be grateful when Mafia figures kill each other.
But I’d be willing to bet ephemera still is grateful, like many of his ilk in the West.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@tom hunter
You missed the point completely.
That is, the irrelevancy of bringing up WW2 to defend fox news.
Re-read my post. it’s a rhetorical question whether or not to be grateful to Russia.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
(Oh, to which the answer is ‘No’, in case you are really are that stupid. I don’t watch Russian television news).
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Should have used the word “registered” rather than “affiliated” which might suggest a mere voting preference.
One would not either in a US context or NZ describe the “base” as those merely regularily voting for a particular party.
The base are the most partisan most tribal.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“I don’t have the time (or interest) to rebut every looney leftist who shows up on Kiwiblog with their outrageously partisan bullshit assertions.”
I love it when Redbaiter says he hasn’t got the time for something – which is frequently. He is obviously a liar because he spends all day in futile arguments on Kiwiblog! You have all the time in the world, Red. Get a job.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
I’ve always looked on “the base” as being those you can always rely on to give you their vote.
You take the base, and then try to build on it by adding support from those broadly in support of your party, those who are independants, and a few broadly in support of others. The base is what you build from to win an election – i.e. in New Zealand the bases of National and Labour are somewhere around 20% of voters – no matter how poorly you’re doing, how stupid or inept your current leadership and policies are – these people will vote for you come what may.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Vote:
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Gosh – I wonder what ephemera does consider relevant:
Ah ha! So it IS relevant to attack Fox news by comparing the current US media environment to that of a totalitarian police state defunct for two decades. Got it. What else was that you said….?
Fixed that for ya!
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
@tom hunter
I mentioned the Sovet Union within a different context.
Therefore your last post makes no sense. If you have a point to make, you should just make it.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
And it is obvious you need this context explained, it was the comparing two ‘propaganda’ environments. Crude term, sure. But whatever.
I wasn’t comparing WW2 to broadcast news. That’s just apples and oranges, and not worth continual explanation if you are too retarded to understand
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Truthiness.
The mere fact that you described the contemporary media of US society as being of a piece with that of an extinct totalitarian society (two ‘propaganda’ environments) is to twist the word “context” beyond all recognition. You created this context and then bitched about someone else taking advantage of it.
As I said earlier, there is nothing new here for a leftist like yourself. This is the line that Chomsky/Zinn/Pilger have run for 50 years – that there is little real difference between the US and the USSR, except that the US control of their population is a superior totalitarianism, aided and abetted by more effective media control.
Moreover, like those characters, you brought the people of each society into it and implied that US people are actually more stupid and/or more controlled than the Russian people were. So clearly you’re comparing the two societies, not just the media environment, let alone just ‘broadcast news’. So of course all of this is a direct slur against the entire society and nation that is the US. It always has been, and has always been understood as such.
Look – you tried that tired, old, Far-Left line as a way avoiding any real debate on point about Fox, by smearing US society at large with a laughingly moronic comparison. You got caught out and now you’re just slipping and sliding around ‘context’ and lashing out bits of ad hominem to try and avoid acknowledging the point you so badly wanted to make. Stop slithering around with implications, man-up, come right out and say it.
Manolo certainly understood your attack as such and made the point (using WWII as a specific contrasting example) that the US is a society worthy of more respect than is implied with your sneering little comment comparing it to the USSR. I took his point as being a general one – that the US has a cultural desire for freedom and liberty (especially the right to freely espouse different ideas) that has led them to fight against threats to those concepts.
Therefore, both your point and Manolos’ are entirely relevant to this debate about Fox (your one unintentionally I admit) – which is ultimately about the degree to which a society allows the freedom of individuals to be able to hear the widest range of views possible on any given subject – and the degree to which Fox News, much as you hate them – are part of that freedom.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
In the Soviet Union the government controlled the media.
In the US a few capitalists control the media. The government tries to manipulate it, with varying and changing degrees of success.
In both countries there are/were many willing pawns, and some who try to resist.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
@tom hunter
Why do you have me pegged as a ‘leftist’.
I am curious to know.
I disagree with stuff on this blog because I am a contrary sod, but I don’t think that is an agenda in itself.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Redbaiter is perfectly suited to Fox News. Extreme right neo-conservative. He can only argue against opposing viewpoints by shouting sustained personal attacks and repeating untruths over and over untill they become the truth.
More importantly, how can Fox News be rated so trustworthy while one of it’s star pundits, Glenn Beck, stands accused of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990. It is highly disturbing that Mr Beck has yet to refute these allegations. The man possesses a public pulpit – his own television show. Until he addresses this issue, I think people will continue to speculate as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
@Kieran_B
Yes, I have heard that rumour. It is pretty nasty, and probably a smear.
Hasn’t Beck issued a denial yet? His silence in the matter is quite troubling.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Americans trusting it makes it even less untrustworthy
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 am
“Glenn Beck, stands accused of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990″
How’s life on Neptune ?
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:09 am
Test
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:13 am
“How’s life on Neptune ?”
So right. They’re such bizarre people. Completely unaware of his own stark hypocrisy in accusing me of lying and then himself repeating the most vicious cowardly and deliberately untrue smear against Glenn Beck.
So stupid and so amoral, driven by such hate, its easy to see why they have the blood of 100 million deaths on their hands.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 6:43 am
Agree again Red, Beck may be a lot of things but that particular
Vote:rumoursmear is beyond the pale.February 3rd, 2010 at 7:16 am
It really is beyond the pale. But no-one here is accusing Beck of it, just wondering why he doesn’t deny such a vile allegation.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 7:26 am
Redhypo, are you “completely unaware” you are this blog’s leading “vicious cowardly and deliberately untrue smear” merchant by far? I doubt it, that’s your modus operandi, but I wonder of you are aware of all your hypocrisy.
Redhater?
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
Pete George, it is amusing how the irony has gone over their heads.
The Beck smear is *obviously* untrue. But Redbaiter just simply doesn’t get the point. Such a pitiful soul.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 10:41 am
Haha I knew Redbaiter wouldn’t be able to resist. Also, WHOOOOOSH as it goes over your head.
This meme stems from a satirical website created to see how Glenn Beck enjoyed it when his own style of rhetoric was used against him – outrageous statements that are loosely posed as questions in order to stay clear of libel/defamation lawsuits. Briefly stating that it is “probably not true” and then focusing on why the target of the claims has not denied them, implying that not giving a stupid matter attention means that the target has something to hide.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
You poor sap. I know where it stems from. That is why I described it as “a deliberate lie”. Go away coward. People without a moral base have no business judging Glen Beck or anyone.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 11:30 am
I like Fox, I watch a lot of it.
The Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly shows are informative and interesting, to me they best demonstrate the Fox slogan of ‘fair and balanced.
On the other hand the Glenn Beck show is a joke, the guy is clearly mad, while the Mike Huckabee segment is noting more than a boring religious sermon delivered by an equally boring religious man.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 11:46 am
LOL @Redbaiter. It is becoming far too easy to Pwn you.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
@ big bruv
I like the Glenn Beck show precisely because he is mad. You want to see what nutjob stuff comes out of his head next.
I do like O’Reilly, because n his strange way he has a bit of integrity -even when he is yelling at someone and veins are popping out of his forehead.
Sean Hannity I don’t rate, mainly because he always has a kinda stupid look on his face and asks really inane questions. Just because he likes Sarah Palin doesn’t mean he can’t ask a few good questions of her rather than just fawning.
I think the biggest problem I have with fox is the whole ‘Orchestra Pit’ theory which it seems to run on. That is, there could be two men standing on stage. One of them bores the audience to death about solving world hunger, while the other falls into the orchestra pit. Who do you remember the most? The guy who falls into the orchestra pit every evening could be any of the aforementioned fox hosts.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qgyby
“David Runciman explores the reasons why people often vote against their own self interest”
Very good piece which describes how the right, Fox news can be included, are able to tap into peoples anger better as they are seen not to talk down to people by telling stories rather coming across as intellectual liberal snobs. Also why HC lost by taking voters for granted, not showing sincerity even if faked.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
” On the other hand the Glenn Beck show is a joke, the guy is clearly mad, ”
Yep another of BB’s dumbfuck utterances that is yet another good example of why the left have so many countries so completely under their control. A fake opposition blindsided to the extent that they’re too damn thick and ignorant and brainwashed to understand the fact that they are enablers not opposition.
Poncing about here claiming to be a right winger. You’re just another fucking confused Progressive idiot salivating like a well kept poodle and doing the left’s work for them.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Redbaiter, you are a fucking closet Socialist. Clear off before I tell everyone about the money you received from the NZ Broadband Fund.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Man, this is getting sad:
“David Runciman
explores the reasons why people often vote against their own self interestreanimates false consciousness from the grave of Marxism”I’m not sure if Sun Tzu ever said that the best victories are those where your opponents do not know why they lost – but he should have.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
” Man, this is getting sad:”
What is sad too is the number of unaware people out there who still give credibility to sources that are a decade (at least) past their use by date. The BBC for fuck’s sake??? Are these people living in caves or what???
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
“On the other hand the Glenn Beck show is a joke, the guy is clearly mad,..”
I disagree with bruv. Beck is not mad at all. He is an extraordinary performer who almost single- handedly has unmasked Obama’s socialist agenda. His show is a must-see, in my opinion.
He might not be your cup of tea, but Beck is extremely effective. That’s why he’s hated so much by US liberals.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Professor Dennis Redbaiter is on the case.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Oh – I forgot Bullion’s earlier YouTube piece of “it’s all a front’ conspiracy theory mongering.
I think he and Pete George (who I see on another thread still gagging for the US Tea Party movement to fail), should take a look at this piece that I commented upon the other day:
It’s nice to know the characters here who are to the left of Dennis Kucinich.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
” Agree again Red, Beck may be a lot of things but that particular rumour smear is beyond the pale”
Sorry Cha. I missed that comment. I commend you on your magnanimity. So uncharacteristic of the left. Very refreshing.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Tom, the “tea party movement” is a lot of different ideas and organisations in the US. Some of the aims are valid, and a lot of it represents real issues in US politics. But the chances are it will all get taken over and used and abused by vested interests, that is what the link I provided suggests is already happening.
It’s not just the Dems that need to wake up, the Repubs are threatened as much if not more by the tea partyers. I think it’s far more likely Redbaiter and possibly you will be disappointed by the end result than me.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“Some of the aims are valid,”
Hhahah– an uninformed old Marxist robot and devotee of the WAPO and so many other clapped out commie propaganda outlets is here to instruct us through the prism of his keenly objective world view on what is “valid”.
Go away Pete. You’ve got nothing relevant to say about anything.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
While we’re sitting here having this pleasant conversation about foaming-mouthed, unhinged, hateful nutters on TV, I thought it might be appropriate to check up the status of Mr Olbermann on that cable giant MSNBC:
Ouch. Still, there are left-wingers a-plenty. Why have they got it in for Olby:
But he’s a Democrat!.
Still, I’m sure he can go back to sportscasting:
I wonder what’s left:
Oh well, he served his purpose during the Bush years – the Cindy Sheehan of TV news – and now he can be discarded down the memory hole of sweet reasonableness.
Still, I have to wonder whether that was the reason the left have never focused on his misogyny to the extent they have on Beck’s characteristics – the left could not be that blackheartedly cynical? Could they?
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Manolo
I stand by my comment, Beck is clearly nuts.
I have no issue with what he is seeking to do, I have no issue with his politics (apart from the Religious crap) but some of the claims he makes are poorly researched, or, he is selective in how he reports that research.
Just last week he presented a show that detailed the history of the “Liberal or Progressive” agenda, he rightly identified Woodrow Wilson as one of the most “progressive” Presidents the USA has ever had, now I am no fan of the “progressive agenda” in its modern form but at the time of Wilson the progressive agenda was fighting for more basic human rights than they are today, in some ways the original early 1900′s progressive agenda was something more pure and less corrupted than what the pinko bastards are pushing today.
Anyway, Beck proceeded to list a whole bunch of people who were also “progressives” at that time, of course Beck found the most radical and nasty people he could to demonstrate what a bad person Wilson was and how ‘dangerous’ he (Wilson) was to the freedom of the USA.
There is only one problem in that, Beck either did not know, or choose to ignore, one of the more famous supporters of the progressive agenda of the early 1900′s…one Winston, Churchill.
Beck is deserved of the same scorn we so readily dish out to the left wing apologists and media types.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
There is nothing relevant to say about anything to you Redbaiter, silent bows are all you accept without scorn. And you only bow to fellow nutters.
What is relevant is that this isn’t your blog to dictate to. I have never been stopped from saying nothing relevant here. Kiwiblog seems to still tolerate free speech, despite the efforts of Comrade Redbaiter.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
” Beck is deserved of the same scorn we so readily dish out to the left wing apologists and media types.”
“We”???
You fucking rambling idiot, they’re (the left you claim to despise) always here cheering you on. You’re one of them, and right here and now you’re dishing it out to right wingers, Beck in particular. “We” need enablers like you like a hole in the head.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Manolo
If you need any further proof that Beck (mostly) panders to the crazy types you only need to look at Redbaiter.
If the people of NZ or the USA were to follow Redbaiters lunacy we would be forever governed by the left, one can only hope that the yanks own little army of Redbaiters all fuck off and join the tea party, that will leave the more sane conservatives to take back their party from the loonies and religious bigots.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
“we would be forever governed by the left”
You are, and you always will be if you don’t wise up.
“that will leave the more sane conservatives to take back their party from the loonies and religious bigots.
Perhaps, Mr Frum, with your level of political confusion you should join the bourgeois secular-progressive party. Here’s the link: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Angus
“You are, and you always will be if you don’t wise up.”
Really?…what is that alternative?
If it is being governed by the bible then thanks, but no thanks.
One day you people will wake up, the sooner the republican party ditch the religious extremists the better, if they were to do that then they would pick up far more support from the independents than they lose from the far right.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm
” One day you people will wake up,”
We’re well awake. Whereas you’re a completely lost cause. Brain damaged fuckwit. Go play with your commie cheer squad.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
big bruv 2:53 pm
Now there’s a prophetic statement, if I ever heard one.
And I guess your definition of “religious extremists” is anyone who takes the Bible seriously?
Who’s really the bigot?
Until ‘you guys’ realise that much of the moral base in society is made up of Bible believing Christians, then you will further condemn us all to live under socialist dictatorships because, as Red said, you enable them to come into, and remain in political power.
You should learn to discern the difference between your ‘enemies’ and your ‘allies’ – or maybe you already have, and your allies don’t consist of those on the conservative right.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
@Kris K
Yes, yes, you are the ubermensch.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Kris, Red and others.
First of all, I have not enabled anybody to come into power, I did not vote for the fuckwits.
What you people refuse to realise is that your bible bashing ways turn off so many independents who might want to vote with the right but cannot see themselves getting in behind those who have a narrow view of the world based on the teachings of some long dead middle eastern con man.
I do not consider those who take the bible seriously to be religious extremists, I have defended religion many times on here and I will continue to defend your right to worship whoever and what ever you like, however, I do consider those Christians who demand, or seek to enforce by law, their morals on the rest of us as the very worst type of religious extremists.
Kris, given your comments about the conservative right I would suggest that it is you who is confused, Bishop Tamaki’s party might be the one more suited to you.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
big bruv 4:18 pm,
You don’t have to vote for them to enable them.
One minute you attack me/Christians for our “bible bashing ways” and that we “turn off so many independents who might want to vote with the right”, and then you say “I do not consider those who take the bible seriously to be religious extremists”. Which is it? Do you see how others might view your comments as contradictory? If you make broad, sweeping statements, then don’t expect people not to misconstrue your position.
And just for the record; I do not force my morality on anyone – I inform people, but the choice is ultimately their own. I do not believe you can legislate for morality, but you can certainly legislate so that IMMORALITY is encouraged – as was observed under Klark’s nine year ‘reign of terror’. It’s more a matter of getting rid of ‘bad’ law.
And if YOU had bothered to read any of my previous comments regarding ‘Bishop’ Brian and his cult/church then perhaps you would not have made the above statement.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Not contradictory Kris. I know people who take the bible seriously but they aren’t bible bashers or religious extremists. The problem is the latter get most of the publicity and news coverage.
‘Bishop’ Brian may be more akin to Redbaiter, cult church/cult politics, and they are both all knowing and most important – according their own opinions. Brian has some followers though.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
“What you people refuse to realise is that your bible bashing ways”
First up bb, I describe myself as an agnostic. Have you ever pondered for a second as to why you hold the very same wafer thin, sloganeering positions on the Christian religion as do every single one of those subliminally mind-fucked, doctrinaire left-wing drones who accumulate to this blog?
I think you need to do some reading, wise up on Progressive strategy – Robert Owen, Karl Marx, and in particular, Antonio Gramsci’s prison diaries provide an excellent example of the mindset into the insidious culture shift that’s been going on in the West for decades.
Also, here’s a good piece from Theodore Dalrymple (a non-believer himself), titled “What The New Atheists Don’t See”:
Vote:http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:23 pm
“What you people refuse to realise ”
What you refuse to realise is that your dumbfuck explanations are fuill of unsubstantiated assertions. You don’t want to vote right because there’s too many religious people involved then fine. Fuck off and vote for the left. Enabler.
Look at what you write on here (attacking Glen Beck, as others have said one of the most effective fighters against socialism to arise in modern times) and who comes out in support of you. If you had half a brain you’d question why you draw such support from the left.
Many on the right may be averse to religion but they don’t let it stand in the way of defeating the left. Its fuckwits like you who give them their foothold and that allow them to turn that foothold into a stranglehold.
Fuckwits like you- pretending to be rightists but who out of ignorance confusion and stupidity unknowingly enable the left and are therefore in actuality more dangerous to freedom than an actual leftist.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:25 pm
A good try Angus, but he’s a useless brainfucked bigot. He won’t change.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Red, he’s constantly bemoaning the fact that “Neville Key” and the so-called right wing Nats are so politically confused and ineffectual, I was hoping to help him figure out why !
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
BB – get a copy of Mark Levin’s excellent book – Liberty & Tyranny
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Pete
Vote:On the last day you will either laugh or weep.
Laugh because the bible bashers got it all wrong or weep because they didn’t.
I think I’ll be there so we might have a conversation, I know which one I want to have with you
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
” Red, he’s constantly bemoaning the fact that “Neville Key” and the so-called right wing Nats are so politically confused and ineffectual, I was hoping to help him figure out why ! ”
He should have grasped that point a long time ago. I have made the suggestion too but it goes right over his head.
“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” -Karl Marx.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
BB
Vote:I suspect you are mistaking style for information, Look past Beck’s style and listen to the information.
I do as not all of it is to my liking either, but he is engaging his audience.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Pete George 5:20 pm,
If you take the Bible seriously (and I mean all of it, but correctly applied – righly divided) then you are regarded as a ‘Fundamentalist Christian’, or in more common vernacular; a ‘Christian Extremist’. If you want to refer to me as a Christian extremist as just defined, then I’ll happily where the badge.
Much in the same way that a Muslim Extremist/terrorist is the same as a Muslim Fundamentalist – someone who takes the Koran, Hadith, and the example set by Mohammed seriously.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I see fundamentalist and extremist as different. Fundamentalists have strong opinions on their religion, extremists take illegal action based on their religion.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Pete George 7:18 pm,
So Pete, what’s the difference between a Muslim Fundamentalist blowing up an Israeli market, and a Muslim Extremist blowing up an Israeli market?
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
One is described as a fundamentalist, both are extremists.
A Christian fundamentalist might protest outside an abortion clinic, a Christian extremist might go into a church and shoot a doctor.
Fundamentalists claim to know all their bible says, but they ignore the bits that don’t suit them, extremists break legal and religious laws using their religion as an excuse.
But as with everything there are grey areas. A fundamentalist who promotes intolerance and exclusion against people of other religions is getting towards extreme, if the actively suppress the rights of others they don’t agree with they are probably over the line..
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I think you (DPF) have just manipulated the data to what you want.
It was a telephone survey. most likely landline, white and old. The statement at the end sums it up quite well
“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most
neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more
toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”
Just like blogs.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Pete George 7:41 pm,
Your and my definition of ‘Fundamentalist’ varies on this point – and I think you’re at odds with how the dictionary would describe one, as well.
Vote:What justification do you have for saying that they “ignore the bits that don’t suit them” ?
And you do realise that the Bible has certain requiremets/teachings which were for the Jews, but not necessarily for the New Testament church. For example, the Jews were commanded to circumcise their 8 day old boys, whereas this is not a requirement for the NT church.