Fox News Channel double's CNN's TV ratings

better looking newscasters?

On Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday, there was some banter about the troops watching FoxNews because of various reasons... someone said to Sean:

"Two words: Laurie Dhue."

She's cute, but they have some even better, IMHO. Love to wake up to see E.D. Hill! I don't know how someone that hot (with 7 kids! 4 of her own) could be called E.D... Obviously there is no problem with erections around her.

i like linda vester's facial expressions the best. she is funny

Fox has the best looking newsgals, hands-down. I'm currently enjoying the "un-make-upped" Jennifer Eccleston.

She's *really* hot in a natural way. =)

Check here out here.

If that link doesn't work, just try this one and navigate to the galleries.

If anyone has better pics of her, feel free to post!

Maury

(I edited the first post to reflect MSNBC's ratings as well).

OK guys, SURELY the Fox News Channel isn't ahead in the ratings JUST because of Fox girls. heh heh Well, maybe that's part of it.

Seriously, that can't be why.......right?

OK, I didn't want this to turn into another NewsBabe(TM) thread, but I found this link of FoxBabes. (There ARE some Fox, uh, guys at the bottom...)

http://homepage.mac.com/dzinkin/ed-...istinction.html

My personal fave...


...although Jennifer Eccleston is...*wow*...:


And someone mentioned Linda Vester:


Lastly, E.D.:

Looks aren't everything, but they help. In all seriousness, though, I prefer Fox News' anchors over the other network's. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS...they're all too dry and boring IMHO.

The Fox group seems more personal, and that's what I like. More interesting, etc. It seems like it's geared toward a younger audience, and I like that, too (I'm 29).

My 2�,
Maury

BWHAHAHAHAHAH! Young!?! 29!?!

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHA!


Just pickin'. I'm an old man too.

29 is young, sure, when you think about discussing "news" with your parents (mine are 58 and 61) and those you (I) work with (most are 45 and higher).



Maury

It's not just that their newsbabes are hot, but their newsbabes are also patriotic and have personality, so people just connect if you know what I mean.

I think FOXNews's graphics happen to be better than any other network too. For example, check-out that purple glowy thing next to Laurie. Pretty sweet.



Plus it doesn't hurt that FOX also won the contracts to carry NFL, MLB, and NASCAR, while ABC, for example, carries iceskating, golf, and the NBA. Not that there is anything wrong with men iceskaters or watching a bunch of guys whack their little white balls around, but there's nothing more American for Americans than football, baseball, and stock car racing.

yeah, watch her talk, great facial expressions. i love it

Fox News will always tell the public what they want to hear... regardless.

If the American public as a whole wanted to know the world was ending... they would have someone talk about doomsday.

Proof is the fact that they never mention their errors and mistakes (which every network makes) on air... and they constantly relocate and hide them on their website.

But people like bias in their news. We've discussed this several times in the past year on at MacNN. People want to hear certain things... and the network that delivers... gets the ratings.

Sad thing is people believe way to much without checking the validity of the source. You need to watch 2 networks with opposite views if you want to say you "watched the news"... otherwise, you just watched someone talk about their opinion on daily events... a very different thing.

I wish the BBC would come to basic cable.... Good journalism really. And I think America would really benefit from an outsiders point of view. The media, and Fox News illustrates this, is way to bias along political lines. taking a political stance isn't necessary to report news. Sad thing is most people today don't even realize how much of the "news" is really just politics.

I get 1 hour of BBC on my local PBS station, plus our international channel has the BBC for a few hours every day. I only have basic cable.

There are also 3 NPR stations on the radio in my listening area, and they all carry BBC reporting during the day; and if all else fails, there's news.bbc.co.uk (be sure to click that you ARE inside the UK when asked).

I like BBC as well, but I don't think accessibility has anything to do with their lack of saturation (at least where I live). I'd love to have 24 hour BBC (do they broadcast 24 hours?).

Yessum. Kiran.

As someone that watches Fox News as my primary news source, I have to flat-out disagree. Some examples that come to mind are the error regarding which POW was rescued -- Shep Smith told it wrong and then made note he was in error. Brit Hume has read several items over the wire during this war and then came back to correct himself after more details emerged. Bret Baier, the Pentagon correspondent has also read from the wire only to have to come back and correct himslef and others after more details/information emerged. And I could go on and on.



I agree, but making blanket statement against Fox news because *you* feel they're more biased than the others is ridiculous.

Maury

Fox makes it clear they have an agenda. The others at least hid it, and descretely put their agenda in.

As far as corrections go, I can say I watched a good 40 hours in the past month of Fox News, I consider it a good alternative to CNN. Never did I hear a correction... and the corrections on their website keep moving around. Stories disappear into thin air.


And that's besides the fact that they only show/tell what the people want to hear. They make it clear that the US is the Knight in shining armor.... when in fact, while some towns have accepted our troops... many others have taken arms against them... but Fox sadly doesn't show us that. They simply call these civilians that take up arms "repubican guards", and add them to the military count.

It won't do any good, but I disagree totally. I guess I'm just a "brainwashed" Fox News Drone.

I watch it all the time and I wholeheartedly disagree -- but oh well: all people see and hear what they want.

Maury

correct diagnosis.

Here we go again on the "bias" issue.

Fox has a bias.
CNN has a bias.
NYT has a bias.
ABC has a bias.

EVERYONE has a bias.

The trick is getting your news from various sources and forming your own opinion.

Any network telling you they have NO bias, no angle on the story, pretending to have no opinion is LYING.

My problem with with Fox that is more than others is as follows:

Fails to correctly note mistakes, they seem to "hide" them.

Keep insisting they give only facts, and you decide... even though I see more agenda from them than any other network. And they miss entire stories, if it contradicts their agenda.


This is why I'm a fan of getting the BBC 24x7 here. I think America would REALLY benefit from an outsiders perspective. It would go against what 99% of Americans believe, and they would want it banned... but it would be good. It would help integrate America with the rest of the world... something that is seriously needed.

I've seen many a correction on Fox. They also begin most reports with the source of the report: 'Pentagon officials are stating...', 'This just in from Reuters...', or 'Fox embedded coorepondant Rick Levanthal is on the line...Rick, what are YOU seeing right now?'
Americans wouldn't want the BBC banned - I don't know why you state that so matter-of-factly. The BBC against 99% of what Americans believe? No way.
America is integrated with the rest of the world. American TV, theatre, cinema, art, food, technology, writing, etc. are present all across the globe.

You're wasting your "breath" spacefreak -- I've said that twice already. You'll be told you don't know what you're talking about.



Maury

Ask anyone in outside the US if this is true... couldn't be further from the truth.

That's the one thing France is right about.

News Alert:

SHEP SMITH 5.5
O'REILLY 5.2 [RATING]
HANNITY/COLMES 5.0
GRETA 4.1
LARRY KING 3.8
BRIT HUME 3.7
CNN 8 PM 3.2
AARON BROWN 3.2
MSNBC 8 PM 2.0
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1.6
MSNBC 10 PM 1.6

O'Reilly's in 2nd place! Whoa...

America: Canada for slow learners

I've been around the world. I know it's true.

How many countries do you think have a McDonald's?
How about Coca Cola?
Walk around eastern Europe and mention the word 'Bon Jovi'.
Do you think China 'Yahoo's'?
Fast food restaurants in Baghdad.
Go to India and see if anyone recognizes the word 'Microsoft'.
Oh yeah...David Hasselhoff rocks! (in Germany)

To claim that US culture is not integrated into the rest of the world is crap.

This man is so boring. I really try to watch CNN, but Brown just puts me to sleep. And with the war in Iraq, he's at the anchor desk for marathon sessions every evening (GMT-5 hours here).

Give Aaron Brown some coffee, or get someone a bit more lively.

Shep Smith, on the other hand, looks like he's having a ball.

shep smith is a machine

FoxNews is winning the ratings war becasue they are putting a bigger show than the other channels. It is all about sensations, name-calling and primitive nationalism. This is not a news channel this is an entertainment channel.
The other thing is their tendency of not analyzing anything: they just report (one side of the story of course) using simple phrase and vocabulary.
Once again, FoxNews is a joke.

villa

you know what they say opinions are like...

No as a matter of fact I don't know how the saying goes.

villa

maybe if you watched foxnews you would learn something then

i am just joking before you get pissed dude

If I was getting pissed that easily, I would not read these boards.
I actually watch FoxNews because I think they are entertaining, but I don't get much else from them

Villa

It's for the same reason more Brits get their news from tabloid newspapers than from any other source: sensationalizing makes things more interesting. No one is better at doing that than Rupert Murdoch.

Still, Americans consider CNN/U.S. a better source for news than Fox News. But since it isn't as interesting, they don't watch it as much as Fox. (And the networks still kill both of them in the ratings.)

i really don't think cnn is better, i only really switch between cnn and foxnews, i really don't care for the others, but the only thing that i think cnn is better at is those little pieces they do where its more of a documentary in like jordan, lebanon, whatever.

as for being better though, i don't really see it at all.

It's interesting what's developed with American TV. All of these shows get lower ratings than any network newscast, and many of them get lower ratings than a weekend college basketball game. It's moved to the point at which virtually every group of every persuasion has its own news program and preferred reality delivery vehicle.

(I didn't say this is good or bad.)

While you are correct, you may be surprised to see cable news ratings in comparison to broadcast news ratings. This is for the week of March 17-23:

NBC's "Nightly News" Brokaw: 8.0
ABC's "World News Tonight Jennings": 7.3
"CBS Evening News" Rather: 5.9
Iraq Coverage FNC: 5.6
Iraq Coverage FNC: 5.5
Iraq Coverage CNN: 5.1
Iraq Coverage FNC: 5.0
Iraq Coverage FNC: 4.9

O'Reilly mentioned it the other night - they have steadily been gaining ground. Last year in Janurary they passed CNN and now they are gaining on the network news.

Sources:
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/ratings/c...30323cable.html

http://www.canoe.ca/TelevisionRatings/us.html

Thank you for *PROVING* my point.... It's a one way street.

How many Americans can name the capitol of say Luxembourg, Turkey,
Iceland, Bolivia, Algeria?

Perhaps name a the leader (prime minister/president/king/whatever) of 6 non-western countries?

Fact is, nearly half of Americans don't know what country Amsterdam is in, where the Eiffel Tower is, where Japan is on a map, if Swaziland is a country or not.

America is very isolated. We push our products/ideas on the rest of the world... but know little to nothing on the rest of the world.

How many Americans can name 2 political parties in any allied country? Any of them. Go out and ask some people on the street some of these questions.


America knows very little about how the rest of the world works. Sad thing is, if you go to a poor South American country, and talk to someone... they will be able to answer many non-current events questions.

Ask a child educated in europe to point to a country on a map, and most likely, they will know where it is, and even tell you something about it.

There is a giant difference from Corporate branding worldwide, and being part of the global community.

There are North Koreans living in America... does that mean we have good relations with the country? Saddam and Bin Laden, Castro have had relatives live in the US... does that mean we have good relations with them?

Apple's and Oranges.

Why is this important? Why do Americans need to know all about the rest of the world?

(Don't imply anything other than what I am asking, for the time being)

I'd much rather Americans know their own federal and state capitals.

I'd rather Americans know who their own leaders are on the federal, state, and local levels.

I'd rather Americans know the names and locations of the 50 states.

American products could not be successfully marketed and sold overseas if we did not thoroughly understand the culture and needs of those in these foreign lands. Knowledge of their legal systems is also a prerequisite to international trade.

I'd much rather more Americans utilize their right to vote, and educate themselves on the various issues and platforms involved in a given election.

Go to a poor US ghetto and talk to someone...they too will be able to answer many non-current events questions.

I remember the 'boot' of Italy and Roman Empire basics from my 1st grade class. I even put tin-foil all over a six-million dollar man doll to make a helmet, body armor, a sword, and a shield for a class project. I was age 6 at the time.

If the US was not part of the global community, worldwide US corporate branding could not exist.

No, it means that they like living in our country. Doesn't that tell you something?

If America knew about the rest of the world, it's very safe to say 9/11, and other incidents would have been avoided.

The anger towards the US from that region is due to bad foreign policy, due to a lack of understanding, and an intent to act.... a bad combo.

Don't you think that's works both ways? I mean, if the Arab media and their education system wasn't ingraining their people (from baby to adult) with anti-American sentiment, maybe THEY would have a better understanding of how the world (and America) works.

I would go so far as to say that more people know more about how the world works in America than in Arab countries. As far as other countries having knowledge about the rest of the world, I don't see any reason why Americans are any "dumber" in international knowledge than any other (relatively) equally developed countries.

This is a good thread, but I think we need to see more "News Babe" pictures. Especially of the gal from BBC everyone's talked-up in other threads.



Maury

Getting back on topic (more or less). The one advantage CNN has over Fox is that CNN interviews more non-Americans and especially non-American military analysis. Very interesting to watch. (I'm not sure it is ultimately more informative - they don't say that much which is different)

The problem with both CNN and Fox is the same. As 24 hour news they focus on "latest news" to such an extent that the bigger picture gets lost. Further they are more apt to post "breaking news" and then not correct the ideas that arise from incorrect information.

For instance Fox reported that Iman who said the women and children shot in that checkpoint were forced to go. They also reported the AP story interviewing the women which contradicted that story. They never really followed up the Iman story with the AP story.

The problem with the 24 hour shows is that you have to put the pieces together yourself. That can leave the appearance of bias and superficiality. I don't think that fair. However clearly both would benefit from at least one hour focusing in on the bigger picture. CNN is a little better here due to having headline news which spends about 15 minutes doing something like that.

As for why people pick Fox over CNN, Fox tends to get the breaking news before CNN. Further their coverage is more interesting: both in analysis and the stuff they report. I don't think it is particularly "better" or "worse." CNN gets a few more points of view, but I don't think that is necessarily better when they are all saying the same thing.

Overall though neither compares to either CBS or ABC when those stations do analysis. It is deeper and they are willing to spend 20 minutes on one story while Fox and CNN think "in depth" means 4 minutes.

I'm not saying that the practice of teaching anti-ANYCOUNTRY sentament isn't wrong...

My point is that Americans as a whole don't know a thing about the rest of the world.... Yet we continue to back politicians who also know nothing... and have the power to do damage.

Bad diplomacy got us this far. Remember who gave Saddam a lot of his weapons, and cash (US)... Remember what we did in Afganistan the last time we were there (hurting the Solviets)... These are just two of the thousands of blunders made. And they were obvious mistakes when they happened. Both, among all the others were done despite worldwide protest.

If the US knew what it was doing, 9/11 would never have happened. The situation would never have existed.

The problem is that the US thinks it knows more than all about foreign issues... when in fact, it's the most backwards and isolated country in this regard.

Commerical marketing has nothing to do with this topic. Euro Disney didn't further the coalition and get France on board now did it? It's a stupid arguement to say Coca Cola is our ambasador to the world, and is proof of our integration with the world.


Slimy... I agree with you that people should know about their own country... But that's a given. That shouldn't even be questioned.

Problem is the US is a very isolated country in many respects. Look at our media. How many countries today have all the major media outlets based in their country? Answer: Only the US. Europe has widespread unification in this manner, so does Asia, South America, and even Africa.

So the average American, knows little (in most cases nearly nothing) about geography, foreign politics, different cultures, religions....

Yet we really behind, and protest politicians... as if the general public has an understanding of the consequences of these actions.

Hence you may notice in the past few months, my extremism, towards pro/anti-war. Depending on my mood, I can go either way.. just on whim..... just for kicks, just to make a point that it's rediculus how people rally in extremes.... It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. It's bad either way. And it goes far beyond American casualties. It can in a sense bring stability, and tear apart the region, even at the same time.

Americans needs to seriously learn up on their own country... and focus on the global community, which has become far more important in the past 50 years as the US moves to a more global economic philosophy.

We have a media that isolates us from the rest of the world, an educational system which doesn't teach some rather important information.

As we move towards a more global economy, it is more important for the average individual to know more about the world. No matter what occupation you choose, you will be dealing with foreign policy in some sense... It might be as simple as the best place to open a factory, to hosting foreign business partners... both of which require some knowledge... (sidenote: I know someone whose father had to entertain clients from I think it was Sri Lanka... obviously not knowing where it is... and enguaged in some rather embarassing conversation, which really didn't help the company.... in fact demanded an apology.)

who's that girl?

If the US knew what it was doing, 9/11 would never have happened. The situation would never have existed.

I don't think that is a fair comment. It assumes that somehow the current Israel - Arab situation has some obvious easy answer that American leaders (and everyone else) has missed.

It assumes that Arab fundamentalism is directly due to US actions. While US actions undoubtedly have aggravated it, the underlying religious movements have fairly complex bases.

I could go on. But that seems a hopelessly naive position.

To me what is surprising is not that 9/11 happened but that it didn't happen until 2001. I think the US has been very lucky.

I'm giving up here myself.

Rob, I enjoy debating you, but you're so damn stubborn in your insistance that Americans are the bad folks in the world, and that evil in all parts of the world is somehow the Americans' fault.

Additionally, you fail to even acknowledge the good the US has done in the world. i just don't see why, if you hate the US so much, you don't choose to live in a nation that shares your views. Many Americans have died so that you could have that freedom, and you' d probably be happier. Take advantage of that. If I hated my people and government so much, I would definitely seek a new home.

I'm sure we'll bump into each other in another thread.

BTW: What county in NJ do you live in? Me=Monmouth

Who brings up hatred? My point is that the US has made mistakes in the past, and is on the road to makeing some more. My point is that it should be stopped before we realize that 9/11 could have been a lot worse.

The US has done some good... but it's policy of tampering with what it doesn't know, or can't handle... is a big issue. That's what got us this far. Now there is a choice ahead... continue on this track, knowing what has happened so far... or rethink foreign policy.

Most likely

Middlesex.