Krauthammer RE-FOX

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
HOW FOX NEWS OPENED AMERICA
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
June 10, 2009
The following is excerpted from Charles Krauthammer's remarks upon receiving the 2009 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, named for The Post's late edit orial-page editor, yesterday in Washing ton.
AT a time when awards in the humanities are a near-monopoly of the left -- Nobel peace prizes awarded to those, from Yasir Arafat to Jimmy Carter, who give the most succor to the forces of terror and tyranny; Pulitzers given to whichever newspaper can expose the more damaging national-security secrets -- it is important for there to be an award to recognize and encourage journalism and, more generally, political thinking of a different kind.

In that respect, there should be a special award for Fox News. Fox has done a great service to the American polity -- single-handedly breaking up the intellectual and ideological monopoly that for decades exerted hegemony (to use a favorite lefty clich?) over the broadcast media.
I said some years ago that the genius of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was to have discovered a niche market in American broadcasting -- half the American people. The reason Fox News has thrived and grown is because it offers a vibrant and honest alternative to those who could not abide yet another day of the news delivered to them beneath layer after layer of often undisguised liberalism.
What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.
A few years ago, I was on a radio show with a well-known political reporter who lamented the loss of a pristine past in which the whole country could agree on what the facts were, even if they disagreed on how to interpret and act upon them. All that was gone now. The country had become so fractured we couldn't even agree on what reality was. What she meant was that the day in which the front page of The New York Times was given scriptural authority everywhere was gone, shattered by the rise of Fox News.
What left me slack-jawed was the fact that she, like the cohort of mainstream journalists she represented so perfectly, was so ideologically blinkered that she could not fathom the plain fact that the liberal media were presenting the news and the world through a particular lens. The idea that it was particular, and that there might be competing ones, perhaps even superior ones, was beyond her ken.
That's why Fox News is so resented. It altered the intellectual and ideological landscape of America. It gave not only voice but also legitimacy to a worldview that had been utterly excluded from the mainstream media.
I'm proud to be part of this televised apostasy. And particularly proud to be part of the single best news program on American television, the six-o'clock news -- first with Brit Hume, now with Bret Baier. How good is "Special Report"? So good that even if I weren't on it, my mother would watch it -- and she spent 50 years as a Democrat.
Now, there is something in my past I think I should clear up right now: I was once a speechwriter for Walter Mondale. How do I explain that? Easy. Being born one generation too late, working for Mondale was the closest I could get to being a Trotskyite -- which, as you all know, is the royal road to neoconservatism.
On a slightly more serious autobiographical note: When I left psychiatry to start writing, I did so not out of any regret for the seven years I had spent in medicine -- years that I treasure for deepening and broadening my sensibilities -- but because I felt history happening outside the examining-room door.
That history was being shaped by a war of ideas and I wanted to be in the arena. Not for its own sake. I enjoy intellectual combat, but I don't live for it. I wanted to be in the arena because some things matter, some things need to be said, some things need to be defended.
That is the why I'm here. But it does not tell you the how. The how is very simple. My award, my achievements, my entire career as a journalist are owed to one person. I share this prize with the one who not just encouraged and launched me in this endeavor, but who has sustained me all these many years -- my dear wife, Robyn. Thank you.
Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and Fox News analyst
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
HOW FOX NEWS OPENED AMERICA
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
June 10, 2009
The following is excerpted from Charles Krauthammer's


What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.


Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and Fox News analyst[/I]


Alternate reality :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: first true thing that ever came out of that cock suckers mouth
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD
Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am

Spotlight | Permalink

I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public?s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy ? discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq ? helped fuel support for the war.

While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans? opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.

As the researchers explained in their report, ?The extent of Americans? misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.?

Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were ?three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.?

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their ?primary news source? incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more ? 17% ? of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.

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

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn?t even come close to this total.

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

And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,993
214
63
Jefferson City, Missouri
Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD
Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am

Spotlight | Permalink

I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public?s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy ? discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq ? helped fuel support for the war.

While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans? opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.

As the researchers explained in their report, ?The extent of Americans? misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.?

Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were ?three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.?

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their ?primary news source? incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more ? 17% ? of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.

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

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn?t even come close to this total.

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

And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.

Democrats must have LIED to FOX NEWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc

:thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger :thefinger
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
that ever came out of that cock suckers mouth

Why does it always have to go to the depths of insults like this? Can there ever be intellectual discourse here without blasting somone with homosexual inuendo?
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Why does it always have to go to the depths of insults like this? Can there ever be intellectual discourse here without blasting somone with homosexual inuendo?

Is he ur friend? When he post here i won't call this cancer another name. By the way will u ever change ur signature or are u gonna go with the letters a four year old would use?
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Are you 14 or what? All you do is call names, and your grammar is pathetic. No, I am not going to change my signature, I will keep it up there because it bothers you, and untill you understand the dire straits this country is in because of people the Rockefeller.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Are you 14 or what? All you do is call names, and your grammar is pathetic. No, I am not going to change my signature, I will keep it up there because it bothers you, and untill you understand the dire straits this country is in because of people the Rockefeller.

Im not great with grammar but i fixed ur post a bit.

Are you 14 or what? All you do is call people names. Your grammar is pathetic. No, I am not going to change my signature. I will keep it up there because it bothers you. Until that is, you understand the dire straits this country is in because of people like the Rockefellers.

:mj07: :mj07:
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
how about this version

Are you 14 or what? All you do is call people names, and your grammar is pathetic. No, I am not going to change my signature. I will keep it up there because it bothers you. Until you understand the dire straits this country is in, because of people like the Rockefeller.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD
Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am

Spotlight | Permalink

I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public?s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy ? discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq ? helped fuel support for the war.

While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans? opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.

As the researchers explained in their report, ?The extent of Americans? misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.?

Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were ?three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.?

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their ?primary news source? incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more ? 17% ? of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.

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

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn?t even come close to this total.

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

And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.

you have to learn how to post a source/link,spongy....

that article`s from 2003?...a u of md study?.....

shocking!.....:lol:
 
Last edited:

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
Tell you what, wease. We'll just try a sample of one -

As a Fox viewer, do you believe:

A.) the U.S. has discovered stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began.

B.) the U.S. had ?clear evidence? that Saddam Hussein was ?working closely with al Queda?

C.)there was international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq

Which ones do you believe?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Can't answer for Weisie--

But simple fact of matter if you read Krauthammers article is they have bout 50% of viewers and the others the remaining 50%.

You got bout 51-49 split on pres voting
You got bout 50% now that pay taxes

--you beginning to get picture.

Little doubt people watch news/reporting they identify with.

To each their own--one generally hangs with and is reflection of ones base--wouldn't you say Bobby? :)
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
Can't answer for Weisie--

But simple fact of matter if you read Krauthammers article is they have bout 50% of viewers and the others the remaining 50%.

You got bout 51-49 split on pres voting
You got bout 50% now that pay taxes

--you beginning to get picture.

Little doubt people watch news/reporting they identify with.

To each their own--one generally hangs with and is reflection of ones base--wouldn't you say Bobby? :)

Are you saying the 50% that writes the checks for the taxes are the same as the 49% that didn't vote for our President?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Are you saying the 50% that writes the checks for the taxes are the same as the 49% that didn't vote for our President?

What I said was--

Little doubt people watch news/reporting they identify with.

To each their own--one generally hangs with and is reflection of ones base--wouldn't you say Bobby?
smile.gif


but to elaborate on your tax question--

Logic would tell this illiterate red neck hillbilly--

That when you have one side being taxed to benefit those that pay no taxes (Gumby's laws of equal opportunity)

The majority of those who taxes are being increased to compensate Da Base will probably look like this :( or :mad: when they see O on TV

Those that don't pay taxes and benefit off the backs of those that do will probabaly look like this :00hour and :kiss: their little hope/change signs.

--if you'd like some #'s to back up my logic--I'd be happy to post income levels of areas that voted in excess of 75% for Obama
--of course we know already know that answer ;)
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Quite simply, the main reason Fox News became "mainstream" and watched by "half" the people in the country, was because Murdoch paid cable systems $12 per viewer to get them to put it on their systems. Not because of the content, but because of the cold hard cash the Australian media mogul paid.

Couple that with his (and other conservative) media conglomerate(s) buying up radio stations - many in the same markets - effectively controlling and enlarging ratings, all thanks to conservative policies that were enacted in the Bush administration. This is exactly how Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly became so "strong" in the ratings.

The simplistic commentary made by Krauthammer - and often posted here - about the "strength" of Fox News and other conservative shows on radio does not address these more sensible reasons for the rapid increase in viewers and listeners.

Not to mention the hot babes they put in front of the camera... which I do approve of, FWIW.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top