Sarah Palin to become Fox News commentator

Post Reply New Topic

Haha... I concur.

Having Palin as a commentator is perfectly in keeping with Fox's standards of journalism.

Sarah Palin is to become a Fox News commentator, she will appear regularly on Fox News as a commentator and will have a program featuring "inspirational tales involving ordinary Americans"

Hear, hear; it's also about the only job where poor Sally Palin can be taken seriously any longer.

However, the big winner, as usual, was Fox News, which continued to dominate ratings. The network beat MSNBC and CNN combined with 2.071 million total viewers, and had nine of the top ten cable news shows. Fox also grew by 70% in the 25-54 demographic in primetime over last year.

News is supposed to be just that .. NEWS.. Not a opinion laced bashing contest over political ideologies.

Before you change my quotes again, I would like to remind you of this little ditty for all you deists.

I'm pretty sure O'Reilly, Hannity and Glenn Beck aren't classified as news. They're opinion sections, "op-ed". Beck in particular is quite emotional and often appeals to such in the audience.

It never fails to amaze me how "cool" it is to rag on Fox News, even though it offered the most even percentage of coverage to both candidates during the election. More even than other mainstream networks such as CNN and MSNBC.

CNN has commentators that use homosexual slurs like "teabagging" to label people they disagree with. Now THOSE are some high standards of journalism and reporting.

Yeah, nobody takes Fox News seriously ! People hardly watch it !



Oh wait. Looks like the majority of viewers prefer Fox News, and Palin will be doing very well for herself. For someone so frequently accused of being stupid, she has quite a keen business sense.

qft

I'm pretty sure O'Reilly, Hannity and Glenn Beck aren't classified as news. They're opinion sections, "op-ed". Beck in particular is quite emotional and often appeals to such in the audience.

Fox News, however, has actual NEWS sections, just like any other network.

Also, O'Reilly has a temper, but I don't see evidence of "bigotry".



Yes, so where do we find this "news" ? Certainly not at the competing networks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M

Anderson Cooper: "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging."

CNN Senior Political Analyst: "... NYAHAHAHAHAA ! !!"

This is... CNN.

People watch train wrecks too. Ya know that traffic that's caused by people staring at an accident? It's the same kinda thing.

Fair and balanced my ass, lol.

Fair and balanced my ass, lol.

Sorry. I'm going to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, Fox's Special Report was dramatically tougher on Obama, with only 36% favorable vs. 64% unfavorable evaluations during the same time period. But McCain didn't fare much better, garnering only 40% favorable comments vs. 60% negative ones. So the broadcast networks gave good marks to one candidate and bad marks to another, while Fox was tough on both--and most balanced overall.

It turns out that Fox's coverage of President Obama has been even more negative than its coverage of candidate Obama: From Inauguration Day to Oct. 10, only 27% of Special Report's comments on the president were favorable. That sounds like proof positive of Fox's negative intentions. But if Fox hasn't lost its anti-Obama edge, it has certainly lost its distinctiveness. During the same period only 35% of the evaluations on ABC, CBS, and NBC were positive. So from the administration's point of view, Fox's coverage has gone from being the worst of all to merely the worst among equals.

Moreover, distressing as it may seem to a president used to unusually friendly coverage, this negativity is surprisingly normal. CMPA's earlier studies found that the broadcast networks gave almost identically negative coverage to George W. Bush (37% positive), Bill Clinton (34% positive) and Ronald Reagan (37% positive) during their first seven months in office.

These numbers are too similar for mere coincidence; instead, they represent a historical pattern. Based on the experience of the past three decades, incoming presidents should expect to receive twice as much bad press as good press and plan accordingly. In the modern era of media politics, presidential honeymoons end with the transition to power. Once they try to put their agendas into practice, Republican and Democratic presidents alike are fair game for a media anxious to tell the other side of the story.

Obama differs from his predecessors mainly in the false hopes generated by sometimes fawning campaign coverage from jaded journalists who temporarily let themselves get carried away by his eloquence and the historic nature of his candidacy. When politics returned to normal, their coverage returned to form.

Of course Fox remains a special case among Obama's tormentors, with its stable of conservative talk show hosts singing the same discordant tune. But odds are that the next Republican president will get the same reception from Fox's liberal counterparts on MSNBC. A GOP president will also have to cope with the growing trend among entertainment-oriented cable channels to feature liberal commentators, such as Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and HBO's Bill Maher.

Across the cable landscape, reporting seems to be merging with commentary just as surely as news is merging with entertainment. In light of White House charges that Fox is "not really a news organization," it is ironic that among all the cable channels that feature political news and comment, Fox is the only one that runs an old-fashioned half hour of nightly news modeled on the broadcast networks.

To be sure, this president can expect more criticism from Fox than from CNN and MSNBC. But to single out Fox as the problem, because--unlike other television news--it has morphed from a news organization into an adversary? He should be so lucky.