Thread: More election night results

[quote name='Stinger' date='04 November 2009 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1257384311' post='52311']

CNN comes in a shocking 4th on election night...



PRIMETIME (8-11 PM/ET)



FOXNEWS: 4,043,000 viewers (1,130,000 in A25-54)



MSNBC: 974,000 viewers(308,000 in A25-54)



HEADLINE NEWS: 842,000 viewers(341,000 in A25-54)



CNN: 826,000 viewers (227,000 in A25-54)...



Drudge



FOX with over 4 times the nearest competitor. Of course anyone watching would have seen their balanced coverage while all the others refused to show Christie's acceptance speech as evidenced by my own channel surfing.

[/quote]





Your full of sh#t evidenced by a actual videos.



Christies Acceptance Speech on MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUxq2Kfr2zE



McDonnells Acceptance Speech on MSNC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnG7LsYU1L0



Let me lay some truth out for you. Chris Christie got more airtime on Fox than Corzine, and its not because Corzine doesn't want to go on, because he's been on. Fox programs were supporting both Republican Gubernatorial canidates throughout the entire campaign and gave them more positive stories and airtime. That's why 4 million Republicans watched Fox and 4 million Democrats watched CNN, MSNBC, BBC, PBS, ABC, and HLN.

[quote name='Moderates of America' date='04 November 2009 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1257387324' post='52342']

Let me lay some truth out for you. Chris Christie got more airtime on Fox than Corzine, and its not because Corzine doesn't want to go on, because he's been on. Fox programs were supporting both Republican Gubernatorial canidates throughout the entire campaign and gave them more positive stories and airtime. That's why 4 million Republicans watched Fox and 4 million Democrats watched CNN, MSNBC, BBC, PBS, ABC, and HLN.

[/quote]



Now who is full of shit? Pew Research shows that Fox has by FAR the more balanced audience... but whatever

[quote name='SideTraKd' date='04 November 2009 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1257389261' post='52371']

Now who is full of shit? Pew Research shows that Fox has by FAR the more balanced audience... but whatever

[/quote]



He's still full of shit, and your full of shit for not citing your shit.

[quote name='Moderates of America' date='04 November 2009 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1257389651' post='52381']

He's still full of shit, and your full of shit for not citing your shit.

[/quote]



And you're full of shit for saying that he's full of shit not citing my shit about his shitty shit.



http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf

[quote name='SideTraKd' date='04 November 2009 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1257389261' post='52371']

Now who is full of shit? Pew Research shows that Fox has by FAR the more balanced audience... but whatever

[/quote]



Here is the study:



The Best (least biased) and the Worst (most biased) news coverage?



BEST (FOXNEWS)

Positive Obama Stories 25%

Positive McCain Stories 22%

Negative Obama Stories 40%

Negative McCain Stories 40%



WORST (MSDNC)

Positive Obama Stories 73%

Positive McCain Stories 10%

Negative Obama Stories 14%

Negative McCain Stories 43%



TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)

Positive Obama Stories 36%

Positive McCain Stories 14%

Negative Obama Stories 29%

Negative McCain Stories 57%



Problems with the study are as followed:

1) Sometimes there are more negative stories to report about one candidate than about another. Fox varied from the press overall by 40%, and MSNBC by 30%. You have to look at the whole study in context.



2) If an individual speakers avoids key negative or positive words, but still use other words that imply negativity, they might not register for purposes of the study. Cutting people off, using a sarcastic tone, etc. might not count. Even tweaking the story slightly negative might not count. The data surrounding the study is not great at all.



3) The study watched different shows on different days at different times. The news stories could have been totally different.

Actually, I was more referring to the audience itself rather than the coverage.



But I think you've done a pretty good job of breaking down the notion that Fox is the most biased.



The breakdown of audience across the board for Fox is fairly even compared to other networks.

Also, have you never heard of Tivo? It would be completely easy for them to watch all of the shows that came on at the same time.

[quote name='SideTraKd' date='04 November 2009 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1257390920' post='52391']

Actually, I was more referring to the audience itself rather than the coverage.



But I think you've done a pretty good job of breaking down the notion that Fox is the most biased.



The breakdown of audience across the board for Fox is fairly even compared to other networks.

[/quote]



How so? I broke down the Pew Research poll's results very effectively. The one that your citing. Fox is still biased.

[quote name='SideTraKd' date='04 November 2009 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1257391017' post='52393']

Also, have you never heard of Tivo? It would be completely easy for them to watch all of the shows that came on at the same time.

[/quote]



I suggest you read the study. The study says that they watched shows at different times and on different days.