1/6/09 12:37 PM

Mythbusting: The Fox News Audience

The hiring of Howard Wolfson as a political contributor to Fox News has resulted in the ritual outrage from blue blogs and Fox haters. When they aren't smearing Wolfson ("sell-out", "right-wing Zionist", etc) the alternate tactic is used: diminish Fox by lying about its influence and reach.

The preferred method for doing so is to marginalize the Fox audience. It's something you've read repeatedly: Fox viewers are "a devout congregation of true believers, incapable of critical thought". They are overwhelmingly Republican and "will not vote for Democrats".

What do all these hyperbolic squeals have in common? They all reference the same single "source", as does this one whipped up by the Daily Kos today, fulminating over Wolfson "whoring" himself:

Democrats can pretend that there are "independents" watching Fox News, but the data is clear -- it is the most reliably Republican outlet in the nation.
The magic bullet that all these Fox haters rely on, their rosetta stone of "clear data", comes from Mark Mellman, John Kerry flack, who was at the time pushing for the famed boycott of Democratic debates on Fox:
In our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent.
There are literally thousands of references to this "survey" in the Fox haters echo chamber, an astonishing number considering that as far as we can tell nobody has ever seen it. Every link we looked at eventually traced back to nothing more than Mellman's undocumented characterization in an opinion column.

What kind of polling relies on manipulating Nielsen data for its findings? Where has this "survey" been published? Is its methodology public? Have you ever seen a presidential poll from Media Vote? No matter. A four-year-old comment from a John Kerry operative is the definitive word on polling. It's "reality", according to Markos.

Now, what the blue blogs won't tell you. In 2007, Politico reported that an actual study (not mere fiddling with Nielsen diaries) from MediaMark found otherwise:
In fact, according to a study by Mediamark Research, only 38 percent of Fox News viewers self-identified as conservative. In terms of sheer numbers, that means the non-conservative audience for Fox tops CNN’s total viewership.
The Fox haters never mention this survey. Maybe it's too recent. Who wants findings from 2007 when you can have Mellman's unsupported claims from 2004?

To be fair, we don't have much detail about the MediaMark survey either. Luckily, there is an unimpeachable source that is universally recognized as legitimate. The Project for Excellence in Journalism issues its State of the Media report every year. In connection with the PEW Center they conduct scienctific surveys of news audiences using recognized methodology. Did their 2008 report find that the Fox audience is just a herd of "true believers" who are "overwhelmingly Republican"? Not exactly:
The largest share of its audience – 38% -- were Republicans, followed by Democrats (31%) and independents (22%).
Interesting. That 38% figure tracks exactly with the MediaMark study. And at 53%, more Democrats and Independents watch Fox than do Republicans.

In Q2, 2008 Fox News Channel averaged 1,585,000 viewers. CNN: 961,000, MSNBC: 685,000. So according to the PEW survey, how many of these are Democrats? Numbers don't lie:
  • FNC (31% Democratic): 491,350 Dem viewers
  • CNN (45% Democratic): 432,450 Dem viewers
  • MSNBC (48% Democratic): 328,800 Dem viewers
Yes, it's true. More Democrats watch Fox News Channel than either CNN or MSNBC. And the Kossacks, blue blogs, and Fox haters who try to tell you otherwise are lying.

Johnny, once again, excellent analysis. Thanks for the link about the percentages of Rs, Ds, and Is watching Fox.
July 8, 2008, 4:45:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

"More Democrats watch Fox News Channel than either CNN or MSNBC. "
(worth repeating again and again to the FNC haters out there)
July 8, 2008, 6:35:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Damian G.
This made me happy.
July 8, 2008, 6:55:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Johnny, I'm not statistician.... (now there's an understatement...) but one of the arguments you hear is that FNC is a Republican chorus because Republicans flock to it.  
However, in reading the Project for Excellence In Journalism information, isn't FNC's 38% Repubs to 31% Dems far more "balanced" an audience than CNN and MSNBC stats at 45% Dems to 22% Repubs and 48% Dems to 19% Repubs respectively?
July 8, 2008, 7:20:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
One would think that a person with an open mind would be applauding Fox News for hiring a Democrat. I guess that's why I applaud them.
July 8, 2008, 7:26:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> isn't FNC's 38% Repubs to 31% Dems far more "balanced" an audience than CNN and MSNBC
Yes it is. A salient point that you were first to notice. Congratulations, you are Commenter of the Day.
July 8, 2008, 7:29:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Commenter of the Day! AND the subject had MATH in it!
HOORAY! I can't wait to show my husband!
July 8, 2008, 7:35:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

[message deleted for rules violation: name calling]

Edited By Siteowner
July 8, 2008, 7:37:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

The world isn't flat!!??
July 8, 2008, 7:37:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Johnny, your wit is so wonderfully dry! :D
July 8, 2008, 8:04:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Excellent research johnny, this is why I love this site.
I'm jealous Cecelia, I've never won the prestigious COTD award! Congrats.
July 8, 2008, 8:27:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

isn't FNC's 38% Repubs to 31% Dems far more "balanced" an audience than CNN and MSNBC stats at 45% Dems to 22% Repubs and 48% Dems to 19% Repubs respectively?
Cecelia | 07.08.08 - 7:25 pm |  
FNC, all that and they're fair too!
July 8, 2008, 8:45:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

FF, all you have to do is to restate what Johnny just blogged... :D
July 8, 2008, 9:26:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Indeed, Ashley!
And Steve Doocy is a mensch!
July 8, 2008, 9:28:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Thanks for that word, Cece! I seldom have to look up definitions, but I had to wonder at that one. I see that it's frequently used by the NYT's Paul Krugman, haha.
July 8, 2008, 9:40:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply

The Left just can't STAND it that they no longer control the flow of public information and comment! Poor darlings, now they have to rely on only ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer, etc and 90% of every college and university in America!!!
How can they possibly resist FOX???

July 8, 2008, 11:18:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Chris Jones
Excellent post! It's important to make the public aware of these stats.
July 8, 2008, 11:44:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I just read some of the comments from the first two links, Wonkette and Huff n Puff.
There are not enough psychiatrists in the entire world to treat the paranoia, much less other things such as out of control rage and hatred, exhibited there.
July 9, 2008, 1:41:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Damian G.
Also, regarding the poll showing that FOX News viewers were supposedly less informed than other media consumers:
Wouldn't it make more sense to break that down by ideology?
In other words, perhaps FNC viewers' ignorance of certain facts was the result of prior biases, rather than propagandising on the part of FOX? Therefore, Republican FNC viewers would be more ignorant than Democratic and independent viewers, yes?
Just a thought.
July 9, 2008, 2:13:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Gutsy | 07.08.08 - 11:23 pm |
Don't forget the York Herald,the Harrisburg Patriot and the Montesorri Academy.Must be lonely on the fringe.
Good article from Politico,"Howard Dean's Dilemma. The writer sums up the conflict within the Democratic party over what to do about Fox as"..... far more of a tactical split between the purists and the realists, between those who loath conservatives above all else and those who like to win elections."
I wouldn't be too absolutist about the degree of unanimity, even among the blue blogs. At the hated Newshounds,there is considerable discussion about the proper way for the Democratic party, it's candidates and activists to approach Fox,not just among the posters,but among the staff.
As for generalizing from a blog comment on Kos or wherever to represent all,or even a majority of opinion,I think it is both unfair and inaccurate.Would it be fair or accurate if I took the ravings of Hussien Obabba ,of Newshounds fame,to represent the extent of Conservative thought on the web?
As for Democrats watching Fox, I'd have no reason to question them.There are conservative Democrats,just as there are (or were) Republican liberals.But in terms of absolute numbers,31% of 1.6 million isn't anything to write home about.
July 9, 2008, 7:17:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply

nvh, you are uniquely gifted at missing the point.
July 9, 2008, 8:33:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
Cecelia: Actually I thought that was a common trait with Leftiests.
July 9, 2008, 8:36:16 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Cecelia | 07.09.08 - 8:38 am |
Thanx,but I can't take credit for it.Must ahve been born this way.
So what is the point?
July 9, 2008, 8:37:52 AM EDT – Like – Reply

The point is that nothing you stated is germane to the issue that liberals have long accused FNC of being a Republican chorus. It's one of the reasons YOU are here...
That they've also managed to wake-up and understand that most registered Republicans (and registered Dems) are NOT political junkie/ideologues of the sort who follow politics online and comment on blog boards (us-- in other words) would be to their credit, if their own political zealotry hadn't led them to shoot themselves in the foot for so long. YOUR caution that WE not be absolutist in our thinking towards them...notwithstanding....
July 9, 2008, 8:58:51 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Cecelia | 07.09.08 - 9:03 am |
My 2nd and 3rd paragraph address that issue.
12 paragraphs or so of JD's post refer to polls and poll numbers,so I somehow thought that was relevent to the topic. I mentioned polls in paragraph 5.
4 paragraphs or so speak to selected blog posts.Again,I infered that had something to do with it.I commented on this in paragraph 4.
Now if you're finished implying I'm dumb,is there anything you'd like to discuss.
July 9, 2008, 9:23:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply

No, you merely repeated the obvious-- that some quarters of the Dem Party are now waking up to the facts about FNC, merely in order to turn the focus to some implied misperception on our part, by issuing a warning to folks here: Don't be too sure of Blue Blog unanimity...
Whether some Dems have NOW finally gotten it, is very much beside the point. What took them so long (to venture that some of them hate conservatives too much only reiterates the theory that FNC is a Republican bastion) and why are the erroneous "facts" about FNC still being parlayed over the internet.  
You didn't address the central point of Johnny's piece, you attempted to jump over it.
July 9, 2008, 9:42:39 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I'm sorry.I didn't realize that Fox's slant is even debatable.I even read here that Fox serves to balance the liberal MSM. Fox could not do that if they didn't have a R tilt.This is widely recognized and acknowledged.Even Chris Wallace seemed to acknowledge that Fox is different. From the Politico article:
"While many Democrats inside and out of Washington get hung up on Fox’s programming tilt, Dean and Reid were able to recognize the value of the network’s audience, both in terms of its size and composition."
This is what some Democrats have woken up to,that they need to find a way to utilize Fox in spite of it's tilt,not that Fox has no tilt.
But if you don't think that Fox has a "programming tilt",then nothing I can say will ever convince you.
July 9, 2008, 11:06:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply

nvh, Chris Wallace is making a statement that contradicts what was long Dem thinking--- that FNC is an ideological dead-in for Democrats. That FNC's audience is a sold-out group of politicos who have found a channel that merely parrots their ideology.
If that were the case then Dean and Reid would not be seeing the handwriting on the wall as far as their ability to appeal to a big audience that is able to HEAR their message...  
Fox offers to them what is essentially a balanced audience. It has attracted that audience because it offers balanced coverage-- anchor people who are aware that there is truly is a rational argument to be made against issues such as gun control or McCain-Feingold legislation, and who can actually articulate that argument, as well as being able to articulate the vastly more aired (in the MSN) liberal side of the argument too. And they have guests on from both sides to boot!
July 9, 2008, 11:20:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I'll jump into the fray.
I agree that Fox News does have a "programming tilt" to the right. However, they don't tilt as far to the right as CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News tilt to the left.
FNC is not perfect, but out of all of the news organizations mentioned above, if any of them have the right to claim the "Fair and Balanced" banner, it's FNC.
More democrats watch FNC than any other cable news channel!
July 9, 2008, 12:01:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply

And Steve Doocy is a mensch!
Cecelia | 07.08.08 - 9:33 pm |  
Cecelia - ain't that the truth!
July 9, 2008, 12:03:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I'm sorry.I didn't realize that Fox's slant is even debatable.
No Nvh, what is not debatable is that the audience will reflect the tilt of the network. If the tilt in coverage is as gross as NH (a blog where you seem to fit ideologically and where you spend a significant amount of time) has claimed, then a viewer ratio of 88% Republicans to 7% Democrats (a 81% difference) would not be surprising. The whole basis of the propagandists' argument is that the viewer ratio reflects the imbalance (or the tilt) of FoX News. No one is really debating that argument or that premise.
Now clear thinking person is arguing that any network is or can be perfectly balanced. Perfection is almost never found in nature; almost nothing is perfectly balanced . . . there is almost always some leaning one way or another.
Clearly, however, Fox has less tilt and more balance than the industry standard. This balance is demonstrated by comparing the composition of Fox's viewers with the other networks.
According to the authoritative statistics the difference between the percentage of Republicans and Democratic viewers is as follows: CNN 23; MSNBC 29; Fox 7.  
Indisputably, the composition of viewers demonstrates the comparative balance of the networks. Anyone who is professes concern about Fox's supposed tilt and does not profess greater concern for CNN's and MSNBC's obvious tilt is being grossly hypocritical.
July 9, 2008, 12:51:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

A long overdue J$ appearance at one of my favorite sites, Newsbusters.
July 9, 2008, 12:57:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Danny, you said everything that I would have said but much better.
I knew I was right when I nominated you for membership in The Infamous Gang of (now) Six.
I am so glad you didn't believe OTM, AKA Flucker, when he tried to claim authority over who makes it in. He simply served as brood mare and created us by naming us.
July 9, 2008, 1:01:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Ashley, I too loveNB. It was the first place I found when I discovered the net 2 yrs ago this month.
I couldn't find J$ there but will look again.
July 9, 2008, 1:07:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I found it. I wish they had put Johnny in the home page and/or headline.
Thanks for that link, Ashley, especially b/c I learned from it that Johnny was a former prosecuter. I guess I thought he was just a really sharp, kind and sweet young man who was born to blog.
Johnny, do you have a bio somewhere? I would be interested in reading it if you do.
July 9, 2008, 1:17:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I couldn't find J$ there but will look again.
Grammie | 07.09.08 - 1:12 pm |
It's under (I assume) his real name.  
July 9, 2008 - 12:43 time stamp.
July 9, 2008, 1:18:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> Johnny, do you have a bio somewhere? I would be interested in reading it if you do.
Trust me, you really wouldn't!
July 9, 2008, 1:25:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Thanks Grammie. (Last time, I was deleted so I'll keep it short.)
July 9, 2008, 1:51:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Ashley, that is the problem. Johnny's name is not mentioned on the front page. He and his site are identified only at the end of the entire thread on the jump (?) page. Here is the link:
July 9, 2008, 2:06:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Danny | 07.09.08 - 12:56 pm |
I think you are making a tremendous leap from the composition of an audience to the content of a news broadcast. An interesting statistic would be how many Obama supporters rely on Fox to be informed.  
But these are all minor points,as the total cable audience is dwarfed by the broadcast networks.And then one must factor in newspaper readers and NPR listeners, so even if Fox is getting a substantial slice of the Cable News market,that's still only a sliver of news consumers.
Another angle for deciding slant in News Reporting is where one draws the middle. Who thinks that Juan Williams is a 'liberal'? How about Pa.'s Arlen Specter?
July 9, 2008, 3:44:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Ok, how is this? To make everyone happy we will no longer call Fox "fair and ballanced". We will now say that Fox News is the Most Fair & ballanced. Does this please the Fox haters?
July 9, 2008, 3:52:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I think you are making a tremendous leap from the composition of an audience to the content of a news broadcast.  
This is an argument that you only have abandoned because you now see that the statistics are against you. If there were an 81 differential, you would be the first to use the composition argument to demonstrate that Fox is not fair and balenced.  
Most of the other stuff you said about the (diminishing) number who watch broadcast networks etc. is totally incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial (as Perry Mason like to say).
Why is not the composition of an audience an good indicator of the balance of the network? Yeah if each network were only drawing a hundred viewers, you could say that the populations are not large enough to draw conclusions. However, here we are talking about a population sizes of nearly a million to nearly 2.5 million. We should be able to draw conclusions from populations that big.
If a major part of the viewing population of a certain network were people who are in their twenties, you would say that they are doing something to appeal to people of that demographic.
If a population of a certain network (i.e., Fox) is about evenly distributed between Republicans and Democrats, you would naturally conclude that they are doing things to appeal to both groups.
However, if you see that a certain network's population (i.e. MSNBC) is composed of 48% democrats and only 19% Republicans, you would reasonably conclude that network is doing far more to appeal to democrats than Republicans; that is, the network is palpably tilted more towards Democrats than Republicans.
YOur consistently focusing on Fox News and not having stronger criticisms for MSNBC (or CNN, for that matter) seems and exercise of blatant hypocrisy on your part.
July 9, 2008, 4:45:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Did you notice in the comments section of Alan Colmes' blog that there appears one Average American Patriot and that HE! is admonishing someone to get a new schtick!!... :D
July 9, 2008, 5:14:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

BTW Grammie, you made a statement the other day that had never occurred to me and seems absolutely correct.
The trolls at OW probably were largely from the News Hounds site-- all special "fans" of Johnny's.
July 9, 2008, 5:18:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

"Why is not the composition of an audience an good indicator of the balance of the network?"
Why is it?
"This is an argument that you only have abandoned because you now see that the statistics are against you. If there were an 81 differential, you would be the first to use the composition argument to demonstrate that Fox is not fair and balenced."
If I have now "abandoned" this argument,I must have at some point made it,correct? Can you show me where that happened?
"81 differential, you would be the first to use"
Aside from the fact that I drive a 91 truck,how do you know that I would be the first to use something.Another assumption based on nothing but your opinion.
"Looking at party affiliation, CNN and MSNBC had nearly identical viewer demographics. Almost half of both of their audience members were Democrats – 48% for MSNBC and 45% for CNN. Independents made up about a quarter (26%) of viewers, while Republicans took up the smallest share – 22% for CNN, and only 19% for MSNBC.  
On Fox News, the trend was somewhat reversed. The largest share of its audience – 38% -- were Republicans, followed by Democrats (31%) and independents (22%)"
There are lots of ways to slice these numbers. It could be that the 22% of independents who watch Fox are Libertarian leaning (like you) and are actually further to the right than the Republicans in the sample.
It could be that the Democrats who watch Fox are conservative Reagan Democrats.Or some could be like me who watch Fox and friends with the sound off,captions on,and NPR on the radio purely for entertainment,waiting for them to do something dumb.Or college students,as I alluded to in an earlier post,who use BOR as a drinking game.Or some may just be "keeping an eye on the opposition.
It could be that Republicans do not watch CNN or MSNBC as readily because they do not want information that will contradict their world view.
I have just as much proof and logic for my suppositions as you do for your assumption that party affiliation somehow proves "Fair and Balanced".
If you are really interested in the charactaristics of Fox audience,then check out this Pew study.
Now you've several times refered to me as a hypocrite. Am I allowed to call you a ****-***** *** who watches to much TV. No,probably not.
(None of Carlins 7 dirty words were involved in the above post.)
July 9, 2008, 5:44:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Patsy is the fearful leader of the clown posse. He's over their right now posting under "royal king" having conversations with himself just like philby used to do. Peas in a pod.
July 9, 2008, 5:45:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Danny, NVH has already ingeniously...articulated his position as being that he can't discuss FNC with anyone who does not first accept that the channel tilts to the right.
Balanced audience stats or any other argument be damned..., NVH has already summed up just how honest and open-minded a discussion he is able to engage in.
July 9, 2008, 6:01:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I am much too lazy to research all the times that topic of the 81% differential came up here or in Newshounds . . . whether you protested significantly when Eric brought it up here for example. I do stand by what I said. That if the situation were reversed and that the 81 differential was proved to be correct you would be among the first to use that to criticize the balance of Fox News. I believe that so strongly that I would be willing to bet money on it. If that is not good enough . . . tough.
I especially am not willing to do the research when you made a statement about me that was palpably wrong and one that one that you could never substantiate, even though you are referring to something you think happened on this thread (therefore involving little research). I have never once referred to you as being a hypocrite. I have said that your (specific) behavior is hypocritical . . . but I did not call you a hypocrite. There is a big difference. At some point, I might even indicate that you said something stupid, without calling you a stupid person.
Hell, I daresay that Einstein (who wasn't stupid) occasionally said some stupid things.
I guess I could refer you to a study where a small minority of Fox News viewers described themselves as conservative, but I don't think it is really necessary to go there.
The bottom line is this: you can do all kinds of speculatons about what the terms Democrats and Republicans and Independents mean and how they might be watching something they really hate etc. etc.
You could do the same thing with rain. Maybe rain drops are ridden down to earth by thousands of invisible Leprechauns and maybe the rain would not fall if they did not pilot tham down to earth. Who is to say that is not the case? But, that is not the simplest explanation. Ockham, for whom Ockham's razor is named, tells us that the simplest explanation is probably the one that is true.
The simplest explanation for the balance of Fox viewers is that Fox is doing something that appeals both to Democrats and Republicans. The simplest explanation for the imbalance in viewers for MSNBC is that they appeal (or tilt) to Democrats but no so much to Republicans.
I mean NVH you can throw out all of the BS and speculation that you want but you really cannot avoid this statistical reality.
In the face of this reality: For you to focus your repeated criticisms concerning "tilt" towards Fox and for you not to be even more critical of MSNBC's obvious tilt is extremely hypocritical BEHAVIOR on your part. I stand by what I said and I'll say it again: your BEHAVIOR is grossly hypocritical.
Now whether the fact that you frequently engage in hypocritical behavior means that you are, in fact, a hypocrite . . . I dunno. And even if I thought that were the case . . . I wouldn't say.
July 9, 2008, 6:48:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I dunno. And even if I thought that were the case . . . I wouldn't say.
Danny | 07.09.08 - 6:53 pm | #  
But I will... NVH is a hypocrite who argues that no one can have any idea of the politics of those who were specifically polled as defining themselves as being members of the Democratic Party, but NVH had no difficulty assigning specific policy positions to conservatives here to the point of suggesting that we'd likely accuse his seriously disabled client of "sucking off the govt teat".
July 9, 2008, 7:02:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
I don't know how Al Sharpie looks in the mirror. He was the man who got Imus fired and he won't hardly say a word against Jackson. "Unfortunate" is all he would say.
July 9, 2008, 9:16:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Danny | 07.09.08 - 6:53 pm |
So you didn't look at the link I posted. OK.
"If there were an 81 differential,"
I'm sure this was a typo on your part, and I would be the last to criticize someones keyboarding skills.But the sentence made no sense,unless you were talking about a truck's drive train. Sorry you didn't get the joke.But on to the link.
Under "Fox Viewers More Critical",
" Fully 63% of Americans who count Fox as their main news source say news stories are often inaccurate – a view held by fewer than half of those who cite CNN (46%) or network news (41%) as their main source."
I'll let the curious read the relavent material,but the gist of it is that "...Fox News Channel audience gives starkly lower ratings to network news programs and national newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post."
"Republicans outnumber Democrats by two-to-one (43% to 21%) among the core Fox News Channel audience, while there are far more Democrats than Republicans among CNN's viewers (43% Democrat, 22% Republican) and network news viewers (41% Democrat, 24% Republican)."
"Further analysis of the data shows that being a Republican and a Fox viewer are related to negative opinions of the mainstream media."
Therefore,there are fewer Republicans watching CNN or MSNBC.
Why would I focus on MSNBC's (or at least KO's) left bias.Because it is acknowledged.Everybody knows it and (most) everyone acknowledges it.
Yesterday people tried to construe Democrats trying to find a way go on Fox to push their agenda as meaning that Democrats were now agreeing that Fox is "Fair and Balanced",when nothing in the links provided suggested that at all.
Then there was the impassioned argument that because,according to one poll,Fox's audience contains a closer match in Democrats to Republicans, this means that Fox News is not biased, when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.
It just would be so much easier if people would acknowledge what (nearly) everyone concedes,that Fox has a RW bias.
As for behavior,that can cut both ways.I find your behavior displays a stunning **** of ******* ********.
I'll give you an anagram if you like.
July 10, 2008, 7:35:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
I got your differential joke, nvh. Reminded me of a Joe Dirt quote-
How exactly does the posi-trac
rear end on a Plymouth work?
-It just does.
July 10, 2008, 10:26:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply

olby sucks
Two Can Play This Little Game: Photoshopped Pix of the Fox Folks
by melanie of newsliars
Pushing the hypocrisy needle off the chart, again!
July 10, 2008, 11:50:34 AM EDT – Like – Reply

But you didn't post a link.
"Silly,unimportant fun."
July 10, 2008, 12:02:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

[message deleted for rules violation: off topic]

Edited By Siteowner
July 10, 2008, 12:13:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

If you had taken the trouble to go to Google and type "define: differential," you would have found a number of definitions. One entry summarizes the different meanings that are found:
the differential gear in an automobile etc; a qualitative or quantitative difference between similar or comparable things; an infinitesimal change in a variable, or the result of differentiation; of, or relating to a difference; dependent on, or making a difference; distinctive; having .
If you were to ask me to define light and I were to say that it is electromagnetic radiation visible to the eye and you were to say, "no no you are wrong" and try to ridicule me because I did not define light as "the opposite of heavy" you would forgive me if I thought that your comment (and ridicule) was (to say the least) not very intelligent.
When I used the term "differential" . . . Obviously I was using this (proper) definition, "quantitative difference between similar or comparable things." I was not using your definition. Your comments that I was wrong; that I committed a typo blah blah blah . . . I find to be incredibly ignorant and/or stupid.
July 10, 2008, 12:52:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I hate to burst your bubble but the article you referenced has little or nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. The purpose of the article is to discuss people's attitude towards the media. We were discussing comparative balance in coverage of the news of the major cable news networks. It is a completely different subject. 
The article begins by telling us that people who get most of their news from the internet are more critical of the news media than the average of the total population. The article suggests that the reason for that anomaly is that internet users tend to be more educated and younger than average. That's interesting I guess, but I fail to see what that has to do with what we are talking about.
The article also states that people who get their news from Fox are (on the average) more critical of the news media than the average of the population. Is the author suggesting that Fox viewers and younger and more educated than average? I don't know and I don't care because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.
The author brings up a statistic related to the "core viewers" of Fox. However, I have no idea how "core viewers" is either theoretically or operationally defined (and I doubt that you do either), so there is no way we can discuss those numbers intelligently or even determine whether those numbers have any relation to what we are discussing.
When I was in school there was a saying, "if you can't dazzle the professor with brilliance, baffle him with BS.
You have neither exactly dazzled me with your brilliance or baffled me with your BS. Nearly everything in your post was, in fact, extraneous material or BS. Now that we have waded through and disposed of your BS we are left where we started. The viewing population of Fox is demonstrably far more balanced between Democrat and Republican than the viewing population of other cable networks. Things would be simpler if you would cut out your mental gymnastics (and BS) and simply embrace that fact.
For reasons that I have outlined, I find that many of your comments in your latest post are incredibly ignorant and stupid. Clearly you are also demonstrating amazing hypocrisy when you focus your criticism of lack of balance on Fox and you are not even more critical of MSNBC. 
You can correct those problems if you want or you can continue to demonstrate incredible and amazing ignorance, stupidity, and hypocrisy. It is up to you.
July 10, 2008, 12:55:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Let's be careful to focus on issues and not impugn other posters. Attack the arguments not each other.
July 10, 2008, 1:00:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

That's exactly what I did Johnny. I was careful not to attack him . . . only his arguments.
July 10, 2008, 1:13:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply