RIP CNN, the loosers are loosing big time

[sun rise]

Oh, I really trust Fox "News" to report this objectively.

The right wing tribe hates the left. Stop the presses. This is utterly shocking news that should cause every American to quake in their boots with outrage, flip into unstoppable rage and start rioting to restore the one true universal and eternal leader - Emperor Trump.

 

[F1fan]

Oh, I dont trust Fox news, therefore it must be incorrect.

FOX News is incorrect (deliberately) therefore we can't trust it.

 

[F1fan]

It's fine with me. I like the world to see these things.

It's why I cheer as Democrats and their sympathetic supporters make things harder and worse on the common people so they can see the real truth about them.

Like healthcare access, better infrastructure, more fair and equal access to voting, etc. Terrible.

 

[QuestioningMind]

All pointless givin it's been already determined there was never any actual collusion. Influencers perhaps, but no collusion.

"Determined' by whom? A bunch of idiots who somehow forgot all of the blatant *** kissing the Orange Clown did with Comrade Putin over the past administration? Your GREAT LEADER decided that he supported Putin over all 12 of our security agencies. Sadly Trump supporters can't seem to remember anything past last week.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh, I really trust Fox "News" to report this objectively.

Yeah - I don't have a "horse in this race" as they say - but in reading the article, Fox's bias was pretty heavily distributed throughout. From saying that CNN's crash in October was "spooky" like Halloween right at the outset, to saying things like "Fox dominated" ratings, while CNN's ratings are described as "devastating." Couldn't just report the numbers - the actual objective facts - could they? Of course not. They had to make it about what sore winners they are.

I can't be arsed to give a crap about CNN - and maybe they are biased - I don't know. But I positively apply a negative lens when viewing Fox after reading this article. Basically... if I were an unbiased viewer who just read this article alone as their first interaction with either company, Fox looks like a complete jack-ash, poking fun at a failing business.

 

[Jose Fly]

There was a lot of collusion. Read the Mueller report. Don't confuse "conspiracy" with "collusion"

This is yet one more aspect of the right wing's alternate reality.

 

[tytlyf]

This is yet one more aspect of the right wing's alternate reality.

The problem is they allow far-right media to do all the thinking for them. You can show them the facts, but they'll dismiss the evidence/facts based on the source.
Far-right media has trained them to hate specific sources as well. They're told what to do and think. Without question.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is they allow far-right media to do all the thinking for them. You can show them the facts, but they'll dismiss the evidence/facts based on the source.
Far-right media has trained them to hate specific sources as well. They're told what to do and think. Without question.

Yep, had that happen last week right here at RF. A guy absolutely refused to even click the link to the Mueller report....wouldn't even look at it. I guess he just stuck with what other people told him was in the report, rather than look himself.

It's a different mindset for sure, and one that I have trouble understanding.

 

[esmith]

There was a lot of Russian collusion by the T***p campaign. You can't spin that like your media tries to do.
The "Big Lie" is there was no collusion. Read the Mueller report. I'll help you out.

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die
The Mueller report’s collusion section is much worse than you think
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

There was a lot of collusion. Read the Mueller report. Don't confuse "conspiracy" with "collusion"

"Determined' by whom? A bunch of idiots who somehow forgot all of the blatant @ss kissing the Orange Clown did with Comrade Putin over the past administration? Your GREAT LEADER decided that he supported Putin over all 12 of our security agencies. Sadly Trump supporters can't seem to remember anything past last week.

This is yet one more aspect of the right wing's alternate reality.

The problem is they allow far-right media to do all the thinking for them. You can show them the facts, but they'll dismiss the evidence/facts based on the source.
Far-right media has trained them to hate specific sources as well. They're told what to do and think. Without question.

Yep, had that happen last week right here at RF. A guy absolutely refused to even click the link to the Mueller report....wouldn't even look at it. I guess he just stuck with what other people told him was in the report, rather than look himself.

It's a different mindset for sure, and one that I have trouble understanding.

Try reading the Durman report and obviously more to come.
Durham's latest indictment: More lines drawn to Clinton's campaign
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/dur...her-steele-trump-russia-dossier-arrested.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

......or "losers", as we say in English.

I was about to ask what the free-ers were freeing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, had that happen last week right here at RF. A guy absolutely refused to even click the link to the Mueller report....wouldn't even look at it. I guess he just stuck with what other people told him was in the report, rather than look himself.

It's a different mindset for sure, and one that I have trouble understanding.

I am a rarity in the world of forums. I do like to click on evidence from both sides. If it is a questionable source it is highly unlikely to convince me, but that is how I realized a long time ago that I was wrong about AGW, probably on the order of ten years now. I still do not understand how people can debate and refuse to look at the evidence that the other side is presenting if it is from a reliable source?

 

[Jose Fly]

Try reading the Durman report and obviously more to come.
Durham's latest indictment: More lines drawn to Clinton's campaign
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/dur...her-steele-trump-russia-dossier-arrested.html

Have you read the Mueller report? Do you remember the email released by Donald Trump Jr. where someone tells him the Russians want to meet to provide dirt on Hillary and he replies "If it's what you say, I love it"? (and then they met) Do you remember Trump campaign CEO Paul Manafort sending internal polling data to a Russian intelligence operative?

That's collusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am a rarity in the world of forums. I do like to click on evidence from both sides. If it is a questionable source it is highly unlikely to convince me, but that is how I realized a long time ago that I was wrong about AGW, probably on the order of ten years now. I still do not understand how people can debate and refuse to look at the evidence that the other side is presenting if it is from a reliable source?

That's funny, because I had a similar experience a few years ago. On a camping trip, one of my local friends who's quite conservative started going off about AGW, and I immediately warned him that I was our office's climate change coordinator and as such had spent a fair bit of time studying the subject. So he backed off a bit and as we started talking more, I asked him if he'd ever read a published paper about AGW. Nope. Had he read any of the IPCC reports? Nope. Had he read anything from any climatologist? Nope.

He admitted that he got all his info on AGW from Fox News and right wing talk radio. So I just said that until he takes the time to look at the science for himself, he's just letting other people do his thinking for him and isn't really at all qualified to discuss the subject. He actually agreed!

I don't know if he ever changed his mind, but the last thing I said to him on the subject was "If it's important to you, don't let other people tell you what's in a report. Just go read it for yourself."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Like healthcare access, better infrastructure, more fair and equal access to voting, etc. Terrible.

Yea I see it all around me. Lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's funny, because I had a similar experience a few years ago. On a camping trip, one of my local friends who's quite conservative started going off about AGW, and I immediately warned him that I was our office's climate change coordinator and as such had spent a fair bit of time studying the subject. So he backed off a bit and as we started talking more, I asked him if he'd ever read a published paper about AGW. Nope. Had he read any of the IPCC reports? Nope. Had he read anything from any climatologist? Nope.

He admitted that he got all his info on AGW from Fox News and right wing talk radio. So I just said that until he takes the time to look at the science for himself, he's just letting other people do his thinking for him and isn't really at all qualified to discuss the subject. He actually agreed!

I don't know if he ever changed his mind, but the last thing I said to him on the subject was "If it's important to you, don't let other people tell you what's in a report. Just go read it for yourself."

i know that it is ironic but you would never guess who was one of the main figures that convinced me that opposition to AGW was simply science denialism. It was Lord Christopher Monckton. I had been looking into both sides and kept finding that it was quite typical by those on the anti side to distort the science that supported it. This is not a good sign. I was watching a lecture of Monckton's and I could see distortion after distortion. It raised a question that AGW deniers could not seem to answer. If their side is correct then why can't they mount proper evidence supported arguments for it? I had been debating creationists long enough to see that AGW deniers used exactly the same tactics.

 

[Shaul]

Look at all the deflection attempts to talk about Fox News instead of CNN. “My dog’s better than your dog” arguments are cheap. The simple fact is CNN has been losing ratings for years and jettisoned any credibility long ago. CNN is a dumpster fire emitting toxic fumes that sicken those that breath it.

 

[Jose Fly]

i know that it is ironic but you would never guess who was one of the main figures that convinced me that opposition to AGW was simply science denialism. It was Lord Christopher Monckton. I had been looking into both sides and kept finding that it was quite typical by those on the anti side to distort the science that supported it. This is not a good sign. I was watching a lecture of Monckton's and I could see distortion after distortion. It raised a question that AGW deniers could not seem to answer. If their side is correct then why can't they mount proper evidence supported arguments for it? I had been debating creationists long enough to see that AGW deniers used exactly the same tactics.

That's cool! I noticed the same similarities. At it's heart, denialism is denialism, no matter what the subject.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Makes sense.
But what about the viewer count?
It is correct, agree?

Viewer count shows us nothing more than popularity. It says nothing about credibility, accuracy, integrity, or anything else at all.

 

[AlexanderG]

There is hope in the USA.
for almost 6 years all you heard from CNN was Russia, Russia, Russia.
You know, that lie made up by the Democrat leaders and sold by the Liberal media outlets as solmn truth that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 ellections.
Remember, the lie sold by Hillary and how an inocent man was witch hunted for 4 years of his presidency.

Well, what the Dem leaders and the fake media did not realise is that the American people can be lied to for so long, and eventually the truth will reveal itself.
The Dem leaders and their fake news propagandists could only keep the lie up for so long.

Eventually even the far leftist Democratic investigation against Trump under the leadership of Mueler proved that Hillary, Shiff, and the other liars was so false, that they could only accuse Trump of... "could not disprove that Trump obstructed the investigation"!!!

Oh, and how the Fake media drove that idea!
Since when are someone guilty because there are no evidence of Guilt or inocence?
And now the Durham probe!
And not a word from CNN!
Anyhow, CNN is now in a predicament.
They are forced to further the Biden administration as the best thing since Chocolate, yet it is worse than excrement.
And the American people knows it!
And they realised that CNN does not report on Biden's failures, the Dem leader's lies, Hunter's corruption, to name but a few.
Well, this consistant failure of CNN not to report the truth, but to keep on pushing the lie is their downfall!
Just look at where CNN is going, and this without the help of Trump.
Nope, it is because the Americans realised that the propaganda they were fed was never the truth.
They found out everything they were told, was...yes...FAKE!
CNN ratings crash in October without any regular program averaging 1 million viewers

RIP CNN

Let me see if I can parse out your actual argument:

Premise1. All cable news channels are losing viewership over time.
Premise2. Fox News is losing viewership at a slower rate than other cable news channels, during a Democratic presidency.
Conclusion. Therefore Americans believe Fox News reporting is more accurate than other cable news channels.

I don't think the conclusion follows from the premises. Particularly:

1. Demographically, cable news is watched by older people. Older people tend to be more conservative. Generational replacement means that with each year that goes by, the proportion of people watching cable news will be more conservative.
2. Americans tend to be less interested in consuming political news when their preferred party is in power.
3. Fox News is more devoted to the strategy of evoking rage and terror in their viewers more than the other cable news channels, which are slightly more devoted to informing the public about objective events. Rage and terror cause higher engagement, so Fox will probably curtail their viewership losses more effectively this way.

Either way, none of this has anything to do with the accuracy (or perceived accuracy) of anyone's reporting. So I don't understand your perceived vindication, i.e. your feeling that any of this justifies the truth of your political beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Viewer count shows us nothing more than popularity. It says nothing about credibility, accuracy, integrity, or anything else at all.

Integrity wise CNN probably knew that supporting Biden would be bad for their ratings. Trump is such a train wreck that he makes for "good news". HIs incredible corruption, incompetence, and idiocy made people want to watch the news. Biden is boring in comparison.