• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stiffed: No Emmy Nominations For Fox News – Again

Thanks for the reply.
Da nada!;)

As to the poll, generally I would say unless refuted, it should stand - but if you have concerns due to it being one-off in nature, I'm willing to set it aside (but I will say, from my personal experience & POV I believe it could be reasonably accurate - its rankings are very much in concert with my observations, and I do note MSNBC did very nearly as poorly as Fox, CNN was middling, while NPR & PBS were the most accurate; this roughly coincides with my observations).
Here you are noting the differences between these networks yet earlier they were all being lumped together in an effort to demonstrate they they had the numbers Fox didn't. Fox remained number one with Republicans and Independents.

While MSNBC is not the point of discussion, yes I agree they have tons of problems (deservedly so), and it looks like they are now (finally) trying to address them. But in their defense, I will say that I very much appreciate Chris Mathews (if you can get past his rabid Dem lean) for his insight into the mechanics of the 'street-level' political process - he reminds me of a more educated & eloquent version of the old-school Irish (Dem) precinct captains I grew-up with. And also Rachel Maddow occasionally has good research & insight as well. But that's about it, and Sharpton has got to be the worst thing on cable; and they kept him!
I once liked Mathews but that was a long while ago. That they hired Sharpton says it all.
And that's not to say I don't occasionally appreciate the insight of guys like Krauthammer at Fox either, though he's a slim minority for me, and I even find him unpalatable on some days.
Charles Krauthammer is a gift, one of the most insightful commentators on any medium today. I don't even know who comes in second. That Fox got Krauthammer says as much for Fox as it does for MSNBC getting Sharpton.
I think your point on trust is admirable, though I see Fox' trustworthiness in a much different light, as I've explained. Do we need more trust in news reporting (as in many other things)? You betcha'! I remember the epoch moments of my early childhood through the lens of Walter Cronkite. But I just don't see Fox as the way back to that time.
Kronkite (who I briefly met while he was sailing in the Bahamas) was reportedly a committed liberal/leftist but that would be more noticeable today perhaps than then. Most people say he was able to keep his political feelings to himself, at least until Vietnam.
 
the differences between these networks

How would you describe the difference between CBS, NBC, ABC , and CNN? All I can see is they're broadcast on different channels and have different local affiliates.

>>I once liked Mathews but that was a long while ago.

Matthews' problem is that he thinks people are much more interested in what he has to say than in hearing from his guests.

Maddow drives me nuts and I simply cannot watch her show. Otoh, I find her to be a useful member of a news panel. This seems like the Matthews situation again. When they control the show, it becomes an ego trio.

Crazy Larry O'Donnell is certainly opinionated, but I don't see how he's any different from people like Will and Krauthammer in that regard. If something important is happening in the Senate, I try to be sure to watch him, given his long and valuable experience in that chamber.

>>Kronkite … Most people say he was able to keep his political feelings to himself, at least until Vietnam.

I don't see anything "political" in his reporting of the war. That god damn war was the biggest freaking disaster I ever witnessed. He had a irresistible professional responsibility to make that clear when it became so.
 
I thank you for your reasoned response, and my apologies for letting it languish.

Well, there's some I agree with here, but I do disagree with your middle paragraph - this makes no sense to me, since if the minority time rebuttals were Leftist, how did that become a majority view, as you believe? And why did the same process not flip the media back when presented with minority-time Righty rebuttals. I just can't see how this process would produce the results you claim.

I do very much agree with you, in that today there's so many outlets, including niche outlets, that the Fairness Doctrine would not be as relevant to the cause of balanced opinion in the macro sense of the multitude of stations as a whole, but it still would serve purpose in stations individually of not letting the listeners & viewers 'being led down a (homogeneous) rabbit-hole'.

In spite of the protestations and denials of liberals, by it's very nature, population make up and history, the US is a center-right country.
Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states, People who identify as conservative outnumber those who call themselves liberal in 47 states, according to a new Gallup survey.​

From what I've observed, the fundamental core of liberalism and progressivism is turn ever more control over to the centralized government to pick winners and losers, unjustly usurping individual's freedom of choice and their self-determination, such as it exists, 'because the system isn't `fair`' - whatever that means, (I take it to mean that they don't believe that it's fair that one can in fact advance their fortunes by their own hard work).

No, the soft bigotry of low expectations is their mainstay, and we've seen how well this works in the minority communities which generation after generation become ever more socially ill-adapted and ever more dependent on government benefits that others have to provide for them.

It is this cancer of the spirit, of confidence, of pre-formulated, pre-packaged and unfounded excuses for failure. If you insist on higher performance, if you accept nothing less than this higher performance, the people will raise to meet and exceed that performance.

If you tell them that they can't accomplish this level of performance, for whatever reason, they never will, in fact, they won't even try. This ideology is defeatism, and little more.

So specific to your point, "how did that become a majority view, as you believe?", because it's always easier to blame someone else for your own failures. It's always easier to be dependent on government benefit programs. It's always easier to make those that have put in the labor, the sweat equity into their successes and suck off the modicum you need to survive and yet do nothing for yourself or to better your future prospects.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
THE MAN IN THE ARENA

So why should equal time be given to what amounts to a seductive cancer of the spirit? Only to have politicians exploit this to their advantage and to grow and expand their power base and the government's power base?

It's clearly seductive if you watch the biased mainstream media. This mentality is being taught to the net generations through their public school education and especially so in higher education.

And there in lies the rub, it's not that people start off with this cancer of the spirit, they are taught this cancer. Why permit such an acidic perspective more exposure? Especially when it can't even pay for it's own freight? Having been soundly rejected by the marketplace of ideas? (Even Air America (radio network) wasn't appealing enough in the marketplace to earn it's own keep).

Liberalism and progressive are out right failures, but seductive failures, that have repeatedly seduced some into believing that it actually has merit, that it's some sort of reasonable way forward, which is clearly is not.
 
In spite of the protestations and denials of liberals, by it's very nature, population make up and history, the US is a center-right country.

Wow, you really went off the deep end this time. Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states, and yet Mr. Obama, after exposing himself as an incompetent, terrorist-sympathizing socialist, was able to win twenty-six of them in his reelection bid. And does it matter if liberals are outnumbered in states like Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, Montana, and Alaska? Well it does in the Senate, unfortunately. Nineteen electoral votes, 3.5% of the total, but 12% of the Senate.

>>From what I've observed, the fundamental core of liberalism and progressivism is turn ever more control over to the centralized government

And yet you proudly quote TR, an early and very prominent progressive who described his domestic policy agenda as the Square Deal.

>>the minority communities which generation after generation become ever more socially ill-adapted and ever more dependent on government benefits that others have to provide for them.

If that's the case, then how have African-Americans made so much progress over the last fifty years? Black adults make up ten percent of the country's adult population and own 7% of US businesses. Underrepresented, but a lot better than it was when I was growing up. I'd say the problem is that those firms took in less than .5% of business receipts in 2007 (the data I looked at). Is that because they're too dependent on welfare handouts?

In my view, the reason blacks are overrepresented in the poverty statistics is that they typically live in poor communities (guess how they ended up there), neighborhoods that have LOUSY schools and (in urban areas) high crime rates and which offer very little opportunity to develop the kind of social skills that I know you want them to have. I know yer anything but a racist, but I think yer wrong to say that Great Society programs have hurt blacks. They just haven't helped them enough. I used to work in those areas, and I found the same level of ambition I see in my suburban white town. The problem is a lack of opportunity.

>>it's always easier to blame someone else for your own failures.

And are conservatives blaming the problems in the poor neighbourhoods in our cities on liberal policies because they haven't come up with an alternative? It seems like what you guys would want is volunteerism, things like mentoring programs. I've been begging for that for forty years. So let's go. Let's have a man like Rick Perry, who I've been warming up to, or John Kasich or Rand Paul challenge Republican voters to once and for all PUT AN END TO THIS UNGODLY MISERY. Is this the best America can do? When yer lying on yer deathbed, wouldn't you like to look back on yer life and be thankful that yer generation was the one in which this nation rose up and lived out the great, self-evident meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal. Don't we owe that to those who have fought and died to defend this great republic?

>>a seductive cancer of the spirit … politicians [who] exploit this to their advantage and to grow and expand their power base and the government's power base?

Ahh, so this is how it's done.

>>the biased mainstream media. This mentality is being taught to the net generations through their public school education and especially so in higher education.

My God, that's so pathetic.

>>Having been soundly rejected by the marketplace of ideas?

Because Air America couldn't turn a profit, you decide that liberalism has been rejected by Americans?

>>Liberalism and progressive are out right failures, but seductive failures, that have repeatedly seduced some into believing that it actually has merit, that it's some sort of reasonable way forward, which is clearly is not.

This is a clear rejection of TR, FDR, Jack Kennedy, and other great American leaders. Without that progressive drive to improve the living standards of working class Americans, I don't think the US would be much of anything to be proud of.

I suppose that sums up my "protestations and denials."
 
Maybe it is very simple, the Emmy award is for excellence in the field of ........ and while foxnews might be the favorite source of anti-obama, anti-liberal, pro-conservative talking points, I am not sure their shows ever reach the lofty notion of "excellence" and that is the reason why they have not gotten any emmy awards.

MSNBC got their awards for special shows, not for a regular Rachel Maddow show, so maybe foxnews should try and do something excellent worthy of an emmy and then maybe they too would get a nomination.
 
Maybe it is very simple, the Emmy award is for excellence in the field of ........ and while foxnews might be the favorite source of anti-obama, anti-liberal, pro-conservative talking points, I am not sure their shows ever reach the lofty notion of "excellence" and that is the reason why they have not gotten any emmy awards.

MSNBC got their awards for special shows, not for a regular Rachel Maddow show, so maybe foxnews should try and do something excellent worthy of an emmy and then maybe they too would get a nomination.
Maybe they don't give a ****, because they're eating everyone's lunch. In a couple of years it'll only be CNN and Fox anyone because the rest will probably go bankrupt from no one watching.
 
Wow, you really went off the deep end this time. Conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states, and yet Mr. Obama, after exposing himself as an incompetent, terrorist-sympathizing socialist, was able to win twenty-six of them in his reelection bid. And does it matter if liberals are outnumbered in states like Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, Montana, and Alaska? Well it does in the Senate, unfortunately. Nineteen electoral votes, 3.5% of the total, but 12% of the Senate.

>>From what I've observed, the fundamental core of liberalism and progressivism is turn ever more control over to the centralized government

And yet you proudly quote TR, an early and very prominent progressive who described his domestic policy agenda as the Square Deal.

>>the minority communities which generation after generation become ever more socially ill-adapted and ever more dependent on government benefits that others have to provide for them.

If that's the case, then how have African-Americans made so much progress over the last fifty years? Black adults make up ten percent of the country's adult population and own 7% of US businesses. Underrepresented, but a lot better than it was when I was growing up. I'd say the problem is that those firms took in less than .5% of business receipts in 2007 (the data I looked at). Is that because they're too dependent on welfare handouts?

In my view, the reason blacks are overrepresented in the poverty statistics is that they typically live in poor communities (guess how they ended up there), neighborhoods that have LOUSY schools and (in urban areas) high crime rates and which offer very little opportunity to develop the kind of social skills that I know you want them to have. I know yer anything but a racist, but I think yer wrong to say that Great Society programs have hurt blacks. They just haven't helped them enough. I used to work in those areas, and I found the same level of ambition I see in my suburban white town. The problem is a lack of opportunity.

>>it's always easier to blame someone else for your own failures.

And are conservatives blaming the problems in the poor neighbourhoods in our cities on liberal policies because they haven't come up with an alternative? It seems like what you guys would want is volunteerism, things like mentoring programs. I've been begging for that for forty years. So let's go. Let's have a man like Rick Perry, who I've been warming up to, or John Kasich or Rand Paul challenge Republican voters to once and for all PUT AN END TO THIS UNGODLY MISERY. Is this the best America can do? When yer lying on yer deathbed, wouldn't you like to look back on yer life and be thankful that yer generation was the one in which this nation rose up and lived out the great, self-evident meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal. Don't we owe that to those who have fought and died to defend this great republic?

>>a seductive cancer of the spirit … politicians [who] exploit this to their advantage and to grow and expand their power base and the government's power base?

Ahh, so this is how it's done.

>>the biased mainstream media. This mentality is being taught to the net generations through their public school education and especially so in higher education.

My God, that's so pathetic.

>>Having been soundly rejected by the marketplace of ideas?

Because Air America couldn't turn a profit, you decide that liberalism has been rejected by Americans?

>>Liberalism and progressive are out right failures, but seductive failures, that have repeatedly seduced some into believing that it actually has merit, that it's some sort of reasonable way forward, which is clearly is not.

This is a clear rejection of TR, FDR, Jack Kennedy, and other great American leaders. Without that progressive drive to improve the living standards of working class Americans, I don't think the US would be much of anything to be proud of.

I suppose that sums up my "protestations and denials."

The classic liberals that you compare yourself too wouldn't support the near socialistic policies of the present liberal extremists.

The country has had is lurch to the left, and now needs to return more to a more centrist policy and political position.

At work right now, so can't elaborate much more than that.
 
What exactly has Fox done that is worthy of earning an Emmy? Awards like that are to recognize something exceptional. The best argument for Fox seems to be that it is popular. That's like calling for Justin Bieber to win a Grammy.

Oh, and the bit about "most trusted"... that's a silly moniker. Not to go all Godwin here, but Goebbels was pretty trusted, too. (No, I am not comparing Fox to Nazis, I am illustrating that something being trusted does not mean that it deserves that trust.) I think a much more meaningful analysis of Fox would be whether or not it is the most accurate. Over and over again, Fox is proved not to be accurate at all.

Bieber has been nominated twice for grammys. It's about commercial and political correctness success with these things. As for overall news however, Fox can't touch the prime networks. Fox News is purely an agenda based broadcast anyway, so it doesn't really count as "news" in that sense.
 
Maybe they don't give a ****, because they're eating everyone's lunch. In a couple of years it'll only be CNN and Fox anyone because the rest will probably go bankrupt from no one watching.

Hey, if you don't produce quality shows, you do not get Emmy's.

Also, unlike foxnews, CNN sometimes make something resembling quality, that is why they have won Emmy's.
 
Hey, if you don't produce quality shows, you do not get Emmy's.

Also, unlike foxnews, CNN sometimes make something resembling quality, that is why they have won Emmy's.

If the rest of the MSM is so quality, how come no one watches them? Even liberals watch Fox. :lamo
 
If the rest of the MSM is so quality, how come no one watches them? Even liberals watch Fox. :lamo

Not every show is of that much quality but quality is not always watched as much as it deserves to be watched.
 
Maybe they don't give a ****, because they're eating everyone's lunch.

(Lou) Dobbs: "If you're a professional news organization, then where are your Emmys?"

Gold Bug: "Emmys? We ain't got no Emmys. We don't need no Emmys. I don't have to show you any stinkin' Emmys!"

If the rest of the MSM is so quality, how come no one watches them?

The viewership of the nightly news shows on the major broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS) is about 26 million. Fox's Special Report gets less than two million. So for every "Baier witness," there are more than thirteen watching a competitor. All Fox can do is boast about how it beats out CNN's Situation Room. (wolf, wolf)

PBS (my choice) is doing very well with its online efforts: "PBS NewsHour expands online audience with website makeover," Current, Mar 17, 2015

>>Even liberals watch Fox.

I'm one of them. I watch it to get a handle on the lies the Right is peddling.
 
(Lou) Dobbs: "If you're a professional news organization, then where are your Emmys?"

Gold Bug: "Emmys? We ain't got no Emmys. We don't need no Emmys. I don't have to show you any stinkin' Emmys!"



The viewership of the nightly news shows on the major broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS) is about 26 million. Fox's Special Report gets less than two million. So for every "Baier witness," there are more than thirteen watching a competitor. All Fox can do is boast about how it beats out CNN's Situation Room. (wolf, wolf)

PBS (my choice) is doing very well with its online efforts: "PBS NewsHour expands online audience with website makeover," Current, Mar 17, 2015

>>Even liberals watch Fox.

I'm one of them. I watch it to get a handle on the lies the Right is peddling.

You realize that not everyone has cable don't you? The three big networks are broadcast over all forms of communication.
 
You realize that not everyone has cable don't you? The three big networks are broadcast over all forms of communication.

Yes, I do realize that. Do you realize that Fox is News available in more than 95 million US households (77% of the 123 million total, and 82% of cable subscribers)? It gets an audience of less than two million. And it's expensive. It costs about a dollar a month. I'd say that means that the other 93 million "cable households" that are being forced to pay for it are subsidizing the right-wing hate media that they rank first in "do not trust at all." How does it feel to be a money-sucking leech?

Eleven million households have decided to leave cable TV behind, and one forecast predicts 17.2 million by 2017. You can't say they're not watching Fox News because it's not available — they just don't wanna watch it.

Of the 123 million households in America, 116 million have televisions. 116-95=21 million that don't have cable, but eleven million are choosing that, expected to be more than seventeen million in a couple of years. 21-11=10. That's 8.1% of the total, and likely continuing to drop. Of the ten million that don't have cable but might want it, how many do ya think would watch Fox News if they did? Special Report is watched by a little more than two percent of households with cable. At that rate, it would pick up about another 220K viewers if everyone had cable. That would make the score MSM 26, Fox 2.2. Not a whole lot better.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do realize that. Do you realize that Fox is News available in more than 95 million US households (77% of the 123 million total, and 82% of cable subscribers)? It gets an audience of less than two million. And it's expensive. It costs about a dollar a month. I'd say that means that the other 93 million "cable households" that are being forced to pay for it are subsidizing the right-wing hate media that they rank first in "do not trust at all." How does it feel to be a money-sucking leech?

Eleven million households have decided to leave cable TV behind, and one forecast predicts 17.2 million by 2017. You can't say they're not watching Fox News because it's not available — they just don't wanna watch it.

Of the 123 million households in America, 116 million have televisions. 116-95=21 million that don't have cable, but eleven million are choosing that, expected to be more than seventeen million in a couple of years. 21-11=10. That's 8.1% of the total, and likely continuing to drop. Of the ten million that don't have cable but might want it, how many do ya think would watch Fox News if they did? Special Report is watched by a little more than two percent of households with cable. At that rate, it would pick up about another 220K viewers if everyone had cable. That would make the score MSM 26, Fox 2.2. Not a whole lot better.

Pretty simple minded calculation, you do that on your own? And btw, I don't make any money off of cable. Furthermore you can't prove they don't want to watch it, because you can prove that Fox the reason or only reason for leaving cable. Your arguments are bull**** and full of holes and innuendo.
 
Ah, but Fox News isn't about journalism, they're about propaganda and promoting the extreme right.

The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences just announced their nominees for the 36th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards. Among those honored by the Academy are PBS with 47 nominations, CBS with 44, ABC with 17, NBC with 14, CNN with 10, and MSNBC with 2. The only major television news broadcaster that came away empty-handed was Fox News.

The easy explanation for this rejection is that Fox is not actually in the news business. They are a thinly disguised tabloid entertainment outlet with a mission to advance a right-wing agenda and demean Democrats and liberals. It is a network that is filled with fiction, drama, scandal, soap opera, soft-porn, and a prodigious amount of unintentional comedy. Earlier this year Fox News CEO Roger Ailes admitted that his business model is geared toward entertainment saying that he doesn’t regard CNN or MSNBC as rivals and that “We’re competing with TNT and USA and ESPN.”

However, the embarrassing failure to be recognized for even a single program is rooted in a much deeper problem for Fox. They are not simply failing to offer programming that is deserving of praise from their “peers,” they are purposefully producing stories that are false and serve only to malign their ideological adversaries.

A conveniently timed example of this is the Planned Parenthood story Fox is currently hyping. It involves a video that has already been repudiated by independent analysts as grossly distorted and unrepresentative of the facts. Nevertheless, Fox is repeatedly airing segments that go into some length disparaging Planned Parenthood without offering any time for rebuttal by the organization.

Stiffed: No Emmy Nominations For Fox News – Again | News Corpse

snip​

Soft Porn.

ROFLMAO - wow that's a first . . . news to me and I get stuck having to listen to it all the time. [tosses that one out]

No - there's really no deep undercover reporting. O'Reilly gets recognized sometimes but he's not a true journalist or a reporter - he's just a drama host. Hannity and a few others are just pure irritant with their obsessive compulsive topics. The other day a guest on Hannity apparently got pissed with him for having her on only to yet again ask the same crap about something no longer new news.

So while some might want it to be a conspiracy... it's because Fox News is only partially populated by interesting and in depth news coverage.

They'll talk about this, I'm sure - because for the last 10 years they themselves have been one of their favorite news subjects.
 
Pretty simple minded calculation, you do that on your own?

What's simple-minded about it? I figure you oughta know.

>>I don't make any money off of cable.

I didn't suggest that you do. My meaning was that yer cost for viewing that crap is subsidized at a buck a cable household by people who don't watch it, many of whom recognize it as right-wing propaganda.

>>Furthermore you can't prove they don't want to watch it, because you can prove that Fox the reason or only reason for leaving cable.

Again, I did not suggest that anyone "cuts the cable" to get rid of Fox, although its high price certainly contributes to those decisions. I raised the issue of households dumping cable because it was needed to address yer statement about "not everyone has cable." Some don't want it.

>>Your arguments are bull**** and full of holes and innuendo.

So full that you fail to point out even a single one. And my guess is you don't even know what innuendo means.
 
Maybe they don't give a ****, because they're eating everyone's lunch. In a couple of years it'll only be CNN and Fox anyone because the rest will probably go bankrupt from no one watching.
CNN is already moving away from straight news.
 
Back
Top Bottom