Authored by: cgrotke on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 01:15 PM GMT+4

Cable news - all of it - suffers from sensationalizing and repetition.
Still, people do find it entertaining to watch. Occasionally there is
some useful information.

More people watch broadcast news. Here are the ratings for April 13
week:

NBC: 8,430,000 / ABC: 7,960,000 / CBS: 5,940,000

Ratings are important for advertising dollars and bragging rights, and
FOX does a good job of staying ahead of its competitors.

What's amazing to me is how small all these numbers are. Even NBC,
at the top, only has roughly the equivalent of the population of NY city
watching them each night. FOX shows would rate even lower.

Authored by: tiny on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 01:19 PM GMT+4

Here's a link for comparsion:

Http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/28/cable-news-tv-ratings-for-monday-april-27/17616

Glenn Beck drives me nuts.

Wow, FOX kicks butt, are they that good or are they really that more avaialble than the other cable crowd?

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 01:39 PM GMT+4

The popularity of O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck must be due to their
ability to entertain, much as Rush Limbaugh does on radio, or for that
matter, Father John Coughlin or Pappy O'Daniels in the old days. This
doesn't mean that these people have anything worthwhile to
contribute, just that they are good entertainers. I view cable TV as
most 24-hour entertainment, not a good source of in-depth news or
analysis, the way a show like "The NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer is. But
unlike PBS's NewsHour, which is only on for an hour each weeknight,
cable TV has to be on all the time, so they have to fill the space with
a lot of filler and junk. 24/7 cable has one advantageous feature and
that is, it's ready to roll when news breaks. The web has sort of taken
away some of that thunder in the past ten years however.

If you find yourself (God forbid) watching Fox or CNN or MSNBC and
wonder if someone is pulling the wool over your eyes (such a when
Glenn Beck falsely states that man-made global warming isn't
happening--hey he's trying to entertain!), go here for a reality check:
http://mediamatters.org/index

Authored by: cgrotke on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 01:50 PM GMT+4

The Newshour gets just over a million each night, btw.

It is an interesting question. Why do we watch what we watch? I've
certainly seen the shopping channels but have never and will never order
from them.

I like stopping in on channels of all sorts - I'll watch Univision even
though I don't know spanish - they often have better movies on.

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 02:03 PM GMT+4

The one factor (pardon the pun) about the O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck et al shows is that they are owned and funded by Murdoch. The shows probably aren't sold at full price, Murdoch is known for taking a hit financially to push certain political views. I'm sure it's some sort of cozy deal like Limbaugh has worked out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/limbaughs-dirty-little-se_b_185965.html

And the small cable stations across the country have tighter and tighter budgets so are willing to sign on to these shows, and that's all that's available locally so of course the ratings (number of views) are high, there's often not much else available in certain parts of the country unless you subscribe to bigger more expensive packages.

Authored by: H on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 02:33 PM GMT+4

Demographics are crucial to these numbers. My understanding is that FOX News gets an older audience. One that might serve them well in the present but one that will not be there down the road.

Come on, isn't fun to watch O'Reilly talk all over a guest. My hope is that they are at the end of the supply of chumps who take this beating.

Going to watch the President tonight?....not on FOX.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 03:09 PM GMT+4

I find this encouraging. If republicans continue to get their news, information, and opinion from Fox and Limbaugh, they'll remain ignorant, angry, colloquial, and politically ineffective.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: cgrotke on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 03:19 PM GMT+4

But couldn't it be that the ratings are good because all the leftist
socialists watch the channel to blog about how bad it is? What if they
stopped watching?

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 04:26 PM GMT+4

I don't know about that. I hope there are some non-rightwingers monitoring Fox news, but I can't watch for more than two or three minutes. Five, tops.
I would have to be paid and medicated.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 03:24 PM GMT+4

Hey when's your hero Hannity gonna do the 1 grand a second to be non-tortured?

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 03:44 PM GMT+4

When were these numbers put out and by whom, SJD?

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: tiny on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM GMT+4

Check the link I provided and follow that. His numbers are close to those and I believe they are from Neilsen. Welcome back.

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 06:38 PM GMT+4

Thanks. I never went anywhere, I'm just limiting my iBrattage to comments.

It'd be nice if the author would answer with the info he used to cite his preposition without crediting it.

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: Floyd on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 04:20 PM GMT+4

For comparison let's see the most recent prime time numbers for programs as determined by Nielsen Media Research. Other than 60 Minutes there is no "news" to be found in the top 20. CBS's long running news magazine soundly trounces all competitors in the "news" category.

Prime-time viewership numbers compiled by Nielsen Media Research for April 20-26. Listings include the week's ranking, with viewership for the week and season-to-date rankings in parentheses. An "X" in parentheses denotes a one-time-only presentation.

1. (2) "American Idol" (Tuesday), Fox, 23.96 million viewers.

2. (1) "American Idol" (Wednesday), Fox, 23.95 million viewers.

3. (3) "Dancing With The Stars," ABC, 20.53 million viewers.

4. (7) "Dancing With The Stars Results," ABC, 14.73 million viewers.

5. (4) "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," CBS, 14.64 million viewers.

6. (X) "Criminal Minds" special, CBS, 13.72 million viewers.

7. (9) "Desperate Housewives," ABC, 13.64 million viewers.

8. (15) "Grey's Anatomy" ABC, 13.51 million viewers.

9. (X) "NCIS" special, CBS, 12.65 million viewers.

10. (X) "The Mentalist" special, CBS, 12.46 million viewers.

11. (11) "Two and a Half Men," CBS, 11.48 million viewers.

12. (17) "Survivor: Tocantins," CBS, 11.3 million viewers.

13. (26) "Rules of Engagement," CBS, 10.59 million viewers.

14. (20) "Cold Case," CBS, 10.57 million viewers.

15. (9) "60 Minutes," CBS, 10.52 million viewers.

16. (20) "24," Fox, 10.34 million viewers.

17. (28) "Amazing Race 14," CBS, 10.27 million viewers.

18. (49) "Fringe," Fox, 9.9 million viewers.

19. (30) "Surviving Suburbia," ABC, 9.87 million viewers.

20. (12) "Criminal Minds," CBS, 9.84 million viewers.

Now let's look at what viewers are tuning into on cable.
No news there either. The top two are wrestling! That's right, viewers are prioritizing watching performer-actors hit each other with chairs. This is sort of a synthesis of the "reality TV" craze and good old fashioned blood sports. Fox News is a similar synthesis for angry white suburbanites seeking simple explanations for how things work and blaming those who are different from themselves for the perceived ills of society.

Fox is nowhere to be seen on this list.



Rankings for the top 15 programs on cable networks as compiled by Nielsen Media Research for the week of April 13-19. Day and start time (EST) are in parentheses:

1. "WWE Raw" (Monday, 10 p.m.), USA, 3.95 million homes, 5.66 million viewers.

2. "WWE Raw" (Monday, 9 p.m.), USA, 3.93 million homes, 5.98 million viewers.

3. "In Plain Sight" (Sunday, 10 p.m.), USA, 3.86 million homes, 5.11 million viewers.

4. "SpongeBob SquarePants" (Saturday, 9:30 a.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.79 million homes, 5.2 million viewers.

5. "SpongeBob SquarePants" (Friday, 8 p.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.7 million homes, 5.78 million viewers.

6. "Penguins of Madagascar" (Saturday, 10 a.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.49 million homes, 4.89 million viewers.

7. "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" (Sunday, 9 p.m.), USA, 3.48 million homes, 4.57 million viewers.

8. "SpongeBob SquarePants" (Sunday, 9:30 a.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.47 million homes, 4.89 million viewers.

9. "Hannah Montana" (Sunday, 7:30 p.m.), Disney, 3.41 million homes, 4.81 million viewers.

10. "NCIS" (Monday, 7 p.m.), USA, 3.4 million homes, 4.54 million viewers.

11. "Penguins of Madagascar" (Sunday, 10 a.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.28 million homes, 4.8 million viewers.

12. "SpongeBob SquarePants" (Sunday, 9 a.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.25 million homes, 4.49 million viewers.

13. "WWE Raw" (Monday, 8 p.m.), USA, 3.18 million homes, 4.72 million viewers.

14. "SpongeBob SquarePants" (Friday, 8:30 p.m.), Nickelodeon, 3.13 million homes, 4.87 million viewers.

15. "NCIS" (Thursday, 7 p.m.), USA, 3.04 million homes, 3.97 million viewers.

It is a sad statement about our society that FOX is getting ratings that are better than the other networks. It is evidence that partisan pandering and playing to certain prejudices goes over bigger than attempts at bringing various viewpoints into the mix.

Folks on the left/liberal/progressive end of things are less TV oriented and get more information from radio and reading. There are millions of blogs and news sites too.

Authored by: Floyd on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 04:25 PM GMT+4

And here are the Monday numbers for cable news according to Nielsen. SJD doesn't cite when his numbers were gathered or by what company. s

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for April 27, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,301,000 viewers
CNN – 641,000 viewers
MSNBC –426,000 viewers
CNBC – 213,000 viewers
HLN – 345,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,603,000 viewers
CNN—963,000 viewers
MSNBC –905,000 viewers
CNBC – 141,000 viewers
HLN – 761,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day
FNC –353,000 viewers
CNN –222,000 viewers
MSNBC –137,000 viewers
CNBC –70,000 viewers
HLN- 145,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 681,000 viewers
CNN –330,000 viewers
MSNBC –311,000 viewers
CNBC – 67,000 viewers
HLN – 276,000 viewers

35-64 Total Day
FNC –590,000 viewers
CNN –293,000 viewers
MSNBC –210,000 viewers
CNBC –110,000 viewers
HLN- 170,000 viewers

35-64 Prime Time
FNC –1,100,000 viewers
CNN – 456,000 viewers
MSNBC –478,000 viewers
CNBC –72,000 viewers
HLN –397,000 viewers

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends –986,000 viewers (335,000) (583,000)
American Morning- 477,000 viewers (169,000) (213,000)
Morning Joe-362,000 viewers (119,000) (196,000)
Squawk Box-177,000 viewers (57,000) (111,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 300,000 viewers (145,000) (162,000)

5PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck – 2,168,000 viewers (534,000) (892,000)
Situation Room—972,000 viewers (227,000) (379,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews —639,000 viewers (174,000) (262,000)
Fast Money—285,000 viewers (125,000) (136,000)
Prime News—367,000 viewers (129,000) (167,000)

6PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Special Report w/Bret Baier – 1,970,000 viewers (469,000) (848,000)
Situation Room—780,000 viewers (231,000) (359,000)
Ed Show —581,000 viewers (170,000) (266,000)
Mad Money—225,000 viewers (86,000) (105,000)
Prime News—376,000 viewers (123,000) (152,000)

7PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/Shepard Smith– 1,813,000 viewers (423,000) (737,000)
Lou Dobbs –787,000 viewers (264,000) (358,000)
Hardball w/Chris Matthews—695,000 viewers (227,000) (327,000)
Kudlow Report —161,000 viewers (66,000) (91,000)
Issues– 572,000 viewers (243,000) (301,000)

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
O’Reilly Factor —3,257,000 viewers (829,000) (1,375,000)
Campbell Brown—675,000 viewers (264,000) (344,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —1,091,000 viewers (338,000) (617,000)
CNBC Reports – a scratch w/112,000 viewers (a scratch w/ 36,000) (a scratch w/ 50,000)
Nancy Grace –1,072,000 viewers (402,000) (582,000)

9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity– 2,290,000 viewers (543,000) (908,000)
Larry King Live—1,155,000 viewers (334,000) (490,000)
Rachel Maddow Show —984,000 viewers (337,000) (497,000)
Ultimate Fighting—168,000 viewers (73,000) (75,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight- 534,000 viewers (183,000) (250,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On the Record w/Greta—2,244,000 viewers (659,000) (998,000)
Anderson Cooper—1,057,000 viewers (393,000) (532,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —640,000 viewers (259,000) (318,000)
On the Money – 142,000 viewers, (92,000) (90,000)
Nancy Grace –724,000 viewers (258,000) (383,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
O’Reilly Factor —1,614,000 viewers (543,000) (831,000)
Anderson Cooper—705,000 viewers (306,000) (385,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –439,000 viewers (159,000) (224,000)
Mad Money– 131,000 viewers (57,000) (102,000)
Showbiz Tonight– 367,000 viewers (165,000) (192,000)



Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of October, 2008)

CNN/HLN: 98.63 million HHs

CNBC: 97.13 million HHs

FNC: 94.82 million HHs

MSNBC: 93.00 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2009 The Nielsen Company.

Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 05:05 PM GMT+4

Try this for a source you can relate too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/fox-news-claims-top-11-ca_n_192514.html

But what's interesting is BO has singled out FOX as his media wipping post, as shown in the link below, but it's not working, it might even be helping, according to the numbers.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yd6USUkU8z

---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 06:52 PM GMT+4

Of the top 35 channel programs listed, I've seen 5 over the last 10 years. So therefore, I must not be alive.

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: Todd on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 05:37 PM GMT+4

And popularity proves?

From the overwhelming popular support of Mao, Stalin, Mussolini & Hitler during their initial ascents to power, to the overwhelming popular support of lots of liberal politicians I'm sure you love you hate. Popularity proves nothing.

"Baaaaaa"!

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 06:01 PM GMT+4

Considering that one of the highest rated cable shows seems to consistently be Sponge Bob Square Pants I'd say consider the source (viewing public). When Sponge Bob outranks Fox as a cable show who cares where Fox stands compared to the other news shows....

Let's see....SpongeBob....Fox....hmmmm seems to make sense to me.

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 06:44 PM GMT+4

Yes, and all these numbers prove (if true) is that a majority of television watchers watch it for entertainment. Which means nothing.

Popularity does not equal truthfulness.

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:34 PM GMT+4

An example of why FOX is working, versus NBC & MSNBC. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=795_1221053252&p=1

---
Drive Liberals Crazy; be responsible, prosper, and choose life

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:45 AM GMT+4

Yeah that was really something SJD
Now we know why SpongeBob Square Pants gets higher ratings than this guy...and SpongeBob never sexually harassed any of his employees either!

Authored by: cbridge on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 06:03 AM GMT+4

I had no idea the number of people watching this stuff was so low!
Thanks - very encouraging to see just how over-hyped the whole cable
news thing is.

Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:43 AM GMT+4

My feeling exactly. 3-1/2 million viewers is hardly something to brag about in a country of 300 billion.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM GMT+4

"My feeling exactly. 3-1/2 million viewers is hardly something to brag
about in a country of 300 billion."


Whoa! I think you mean 300 MILLION. If this country had 300 billion
people, we'd be in SERIOUS trouble!

Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 03:37 PM GMT+4

I laugh in the face of orders of magnitude! HA!

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: SJD on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 04:47 PM GMT+4

Yea... but it seems a lot of of folks, even TelePrompter BO, always try to demonize FOX, even on this site people fear using the real name, rather they inject "Faux" as some sort of sophisticated substitute. Numbers or no numbers it appears to be effective.

---
Drive Liberals Crazy; be responsible, prosper, and choose life

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 04:55 PM GMT+4

Yeah but not as effective as SpongeBob Square Pants
and yet
O'Reilly kinda looks like SpongeBob Square Pants, you'd think it's help his numbers

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 04:58 PM GMT+4

Oh and the Faux isn't an attempt at sophistication
it's a statement about the quality of the programs
as in False News just in case you don't parle vous

SPONGEBOB RULES!

Authored by: SJD on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:13 PM GMT+4

Your twisting the meaning of the numbers since FOX has a broadcast and 2 cable network channels. Their broadcast network is running neck and neck with the big boys ABC CBS NBC.. ie: American Idol, House, Bones, 24, Hells Kitchen, etc.. but their cable only news is #1, totally different rating category and viewership numbers. They also have a separate business network competing with CNBC, Bloomberg etc..

I just don't see where it has to be always crapped on when it's only one of, -how many other channels?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/116314-BC_Weekly_Ratings_Charts.php

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/file/2929-Ratings0403.pdf

---
Drive Liberals Crazy; be responsible, prosper, and choose life

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:36 PM GMT+4

SJD asks re: Fox News....oh sorry that would be Faux News
"just don't see where it has to be always crapped on"

Garbage in Garbage Out?
Because it's "crap"?
Because You Are What You Program?

This is just too easy.......

SPONGEBOB RULES!

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 07:11 PM GMT+4

Faux Nouvelles?

Faux Presse?

Faux Journaux?

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 07:22 PM GMT+4

To give you a serious answer to a what might have been a serious question, Fox gets crapped on because they have attatched the word "News" to their name - cynically preying on our expectation that something called "Fox News" would be a journalistic news network.

Fox "News" is a blend of entertainment, or "infotainment," propaganda, and therapy for conservatives.

This is a little old, but I think it still makes the grade: http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html

So if Fox programming is your idea of good entertainment, I say enjoy it. Just don't let yourself be tricked into thinking it's "news."

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 05:39 PM GMT+4

***they inject "Faux" as some sort of sophisticated substitute***
:-D Thanks, I needed that today.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Christian Avard on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 08:24 PM GMT+4

Authored by: SJD on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:02 PM GMT+4

What can I say, you've made the point that folks will go way out of their way to slap down a low viewership insignificant, uniformed (proven above) cable network. Fear of things different is an interesting phenomenon.

---
Drive Liberals Crazy; be responsible, prosper, and choose life

Authored by: Christian Avard on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 10:19 PM GMT+4

That statement is totally irrelevant.

Try and disprove the two studies that show Fox viewers are the most
uninformed. These were done by two reputable, non-partisan, and
professional journalistic organizations. You're dismissing the messenger.
That does you nothing. Go after their methodologies and explain how
their findings are weak and/or invalid. Then you might actually have a
good argument to stand on.

Authored by: Floyd on Thursday, April 30 2009 @ 11:08 PM GMT+4

Fear of change (ie "things different") is actually one of the main attributes of conservatives based on actual studies (see below) as well as personal observations. FAUX News appeals to them partly because it reflects their sense of order and a need for black and white depictions of events and people.

Enjoy these links, some of which may further explain the FAUX viewership:

Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h/

50 year study says conservatives are 'followers'

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

Colbert Study: Conservatives Don't Know He's Joking

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/colbert-study-conservativ_n_191899.html

Differences in brain activity of conservatives & liberals

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/09/differences_in_brain_activity.php

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

and some consolation to conservatives:

http://www.livescience.com/health/080507-liberal-conservative.html

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 08:51 AM GMT+4

Are you a conservative if you want to go radical right wing as the
current GOP seems to have headed in the past eight years? I found
George Bush Jr. to be more radical in his (and Cheney's) moves, not
conservative.

I think of conservatives as those who want to uphold the traditions of
the United States laid down by Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Marshall
and others---rather than rip the nation into splinters---be it a radically
separate Vermont Republic or a Rootin' Tootin' Texas succession. I
think of conservatives as those wanting to uphold the economic
progressive reforms of Teddy Roosevelt and his Cousin, FDR. I view
conservatives as those who don't want to alter the tax structure to
help only the top 2% of wealthy Americans, but keep corporate taxes
higher, as they were in the fifties, when the middle class had a better
stake in the economy. I view conservatives as those who don't want
to rip science and evolution from our schools, but want to conserve
the teaching of evolution and logical analysis. I view conservatives as
environmentally aware, wanting to conserve clean air, water, and
keep the planet from spinning radically out of whack with runaway
radical global warming.

Some things are worth conserving. Others should be considered and
tossed out if they don't work. But you have radicals on both the right
and left and perhaps the true conservatives are those in the middle.

Authored by: Floyd on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 11:05 AM GMT+4

Buddy Sez: "I view conservatives as those who don't want
to rip science and evolution from our schools, but want to conserve
the teaching of evolution and logical analysis. I view conservatives as
environmentally aware, wanting to conserve clean air, water, and
keep the planet from spinning radically out of whack with runaway
radical global warming."

I think I just saw one of these "conservatives" riding a unicorn over a rainbow! It was wonderful and enchanting, even if he was the very last "conservative" anyone is likely to ever see.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 11:16 AM GMT+4

Floyd,

I think those "unicorns" you talk about are called Liberals. They read and
agree with Paul Krugman, and like John Maynard Keynes. It just SEEMS
like people like us are extinct. But you see, if you leave Brattleboro and
spend some time in other parts of the US, and in Europe, you may find a
lot of us.

Buddy

Authored by: Floyd on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 12:05 PM GMT+4

Buddy if you want to be ridden by a so called conservative, that's your business. ;-)

Some of us got tired of getting "the business" from so called conservatives long ago.

May Day is partly about getting those oppressive types off our backs.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 12:15 PM GMT+4

You don't seem to understand. Who said I was an anti-science, anti-
federal stimulus conservative? Not I.

I'm just intellectually toying with your absolutist, stereotypical view of
what a "conservative" is. It's just all too easy, Floyd.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 12:20 PM GMT+4

BTW, call me Oldskool,

But I thought "May Day" was all about fertility and pagan celebration,
the sun coming back, that sort of thing. What modern, new-fangled
concept were YOU referring to? :{D

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 12:26 PM GMT+4

The term "conservative" is relative, alright. I give my mother-in-law a hard time for being such a staunch conservative. In this country, though, she'd be labeled a socialist.

In the U.S., though, I can't think of many places where conservatism would be confused with conservationism. Anymore, anyway.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 12:31 PM GMT+4

It was Bill McKibben who compared being a 'conservative' to being
interested in 'conserving nature'. I should have credited him.

I do hope McKibben didn't get hooted at by the Brattleboronians for that
statement---heavens!

Authored by: paulgardner on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 07:29 AM GMT+4

I've seen this study mentioned before and it's an important one. The link above is to a story about the study. Here's a link to the study itself:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?lb=brusc&pnt=102&nid=&id=

Authored by: paulgardner on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 07:37 AM GMT+4

Here's a Nielsen number - actually a couple of numbers - that I'd like to see: households without a TV; households with TV off.
If you looked at homes with no TV I suspect you find a bifurcated populace: one group that can't afford a TV, but would like to own one and one that can but chose not to. The latter is the group is the one I'd be interested in: how many American households chose not to be part of TV nation.
Our household is and I'm curious how many others are too (I smell another iBratt poll - probably already done? Guess I should go look since they're all listed).
Also be nice to know how many own a TV but don't get cable, or only own a TV to watch DVDs.

Authored by: Floyd on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 11:02 AM GMT+4

Excellent idea for a future poll.

"I don't have/watch TV because:"

This area has a pretty high number of folks who don't own or hook up their TVs to anything beyond a DVD player. Many don't want TV to be an element in their family household and have their children exposed to much or any of it.

By the way the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation is that children under 2 have no exposure to TV at all.

Other folks seem to not want to pay a cable company to get TeeVee.

I am going to get a digital converter box to see if I can get a PBS station on my TV. Then I would have one channel! If a la carte channels were avialble I might choose about 8 or 10, but have no interest in paying for dozens or hundreds I would never watch and have to flip past to get to one of the film channels or the History channel.

The movement to get BCTV broadcasting locally (so it could be picked up by an antenna rather than on cable) has apparently been forgotten.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 11:54 AM GMT+4

I have a computer and cable modem. :-D

Actually, TV is not a good idea for children under 5 (sorry Sesame
St.). It has been said to promote passivity in developing brains.
Better to give your child wooden blocks to play with (yes we unicorns
are old fashioned!), or better yet, give them the woods outdoors to
play in. When I was ten years old, I could amuse myself for hours
with a pocket knife, the woods and streams, and my imagination.
Books are easier to read when there's no TV as well.

Now for the caveat:
I think people who (like some of my siblings) go "no TV" are some of
the most pretentious boors I know. It's one thing to keep kids from
watching too much, or to keep yourself from becoming a couch potato
watching TV (or your computer) for too long. But when there's a Red
Sox game on, or NewsHour, or a good documentary like PBS'
"Frontline" or sometimes even some trashy stuff kept to a minimum,
there's nothing wrong with having a TV set to watch now and then.
This American puritanical "all or nothing/black and white" mentality
towards things like booze, TV, smoking, etc. is really annoying. The
French have it right: all things in moderation. They eat chocolate,
drink, smoke etc. but live to be fairly old as a population, because
they don't overdo it. They don't rush to extremes, banning things
either, for the most part. I like that.

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 01:12 PM GMT+4

...moderation is not possible for me. That's why I haven't had a TV or eaten meat for years - and why i don't judge other people, most of whom have more moral fiber than I do, for watching TV and eating meat.

We do let our kids use the Internet, and we (the adults) often see clips online from Colbert or Stewart. We just don't have to wade through all the crap to get to it.

I have gone through a number of Internet addictions that I would have given up my connection to quit - except that I can't do my job without being online, and neither can my husband, who works in the same room. So I've had to learn a certain amount of self-discipline, mostly in the form of project deadlines.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Todd on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 04:24 PM GMT+4

100 days of Fox's "Fair and Balanced" attacks:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e15_1241122483

Here is a video which is as they say "an amazing litany of Fox’s nonstop hatred and attacks targeting President Obama".

From day 1 through 100 - an open attack every day from Fox. Can you imagine what would have happened to a major network showing this much openly constant partisan disrespect and naked contempt for President Bush his first 100 days? To say nothing of what would have happened if it had been done after 9/11!

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 07:15 AM GMT+4

That was a great clip. Imagine how steamrolled this country would be (and practically is) were it not for at least one major news provider to offer differing perspectives than those served up by the MSM who are obviously in the tank for Mr. Obama and everything and anything he puts forth. The tea parties were in part an example of how frustrated Americans from both sides are with being steamrolled into Obama's vision of how America should be. The same Obama who bows to Muslim royalty.

The amount of effort you all went through here to discredit and denigrate Fox News and its viewers only goes to show how much this network and its tenacity for representing opposing views irritates the heck out of the lefties. Sort of like salt on slugs.

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 08:42 AM GMT+4

"The same Obama who bows to Muslim royalty."

Spoken like a true Fox news supporter. This sort of thing is really pretty disgusting, a great example of the mindset of Fox viewers and very un-American. It's divisive, inflammatory and in the true spirit of those equally disgusting sentiments shown at some of those "tea parties". I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're travelling in some pretty unsavory company.

Authored by: Todd on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 08:45 AM GMT+4

That's silly talk Alan, the whole idea that all, or even most, of the other media on the planet is "liberal", or at least politically biased, except Fox? Everybody else is in on some sinister hippie plan, or else they are simply not as smart as you are?

I see/hear/read both good, and clearly biased (on both sides) stories from lots of news organizations from all over the world. Anybody who believes, unquestioningly, everything from one source, is easy to manipulate.

Since the kind of well researched, studious, credible journalism which was far more prevalent 20 years ago is rare now: Its far more astute to always consciously look at multiple sources, and trying to focus first on the information from multiple sources before letting yourself focus on the source is a good way to decouple some of our own natural biases. Google's News Page for example is pretty even handed in sourcing: you'll see everything from the BBC, NPR, NBC, WSJ, Fox and etc listed.

Here is a cool website that shows what the top stories are world wide from all sources, and its easy to apply filters quickly.

http://newsmap.jp/#/b,m,n,t,w/es_ar,au,de_at,ca,fr,de,in,it,es_mx,nl_nl,nz,es,uk,us/view/

That link is set with the filters to show all sources worldwide but to not waste space with sports or entertainment. You can filter by nation, and many other things.

----------------

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." -- FDR

Authored by: SJD on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 11:38 AM GMT+4

"Salt on Slugs" .. now that would make a great bumper sticker... this made my day! thanks

---
Drive Liberals Crazy; be responsible, prosper, and choose life

Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, May 02 2009 @ 12:00 PM GMT+4

Yeah that's pretty funny, I'm laughing my head off here, Salt on Slugs
Causes a long slow painful death involving water to a helpless creature that can't even cry out in pain
Oh now I get it
It's like waterboarding with gags
You guys are a riot.....