Skip Nav
DIY
27 Easy Costume Ideas For You and Your Best Friend
Halloween
38 Paranormal Romance Books That Are Spookily Sexy
Relationships
The 1 Sleeping Tip That Will Make Your Relationship Better

87 Percent of Fox Watchers for McCain

87% of Fox Viewers for McCain: News Watchers Discriminate?

Though media may or may not be biased (depending on your perception of it) viewers it seems might be. In a recent Rasmussen poll, the cable network of choice was a big indicator of how a viewer plans to vote in November.

The network that was most closely tied to a candidate? Fox News, with 87 percent of viewers saying they're likely to vote for John McCain. (The results are similar to 2004 when 88 percent favored Bush.) Though Fox has an anecdotally popular niche among conservatives, they're not the only ones with pals; other networks lined up as well. Over at CNN, 65 percent said they'll vote for Obama compared to 26 percent for McCain, and at MSNBC it's 63 percent to 30 percent for McCain, with the major networks showing similar results.

The results do bring up an interesting question about coverage — to see what it is,

.

Do networks cover stories in a way to cater to one population or another — or do people seek out coverage they feel closely allies with their own beliefs? Or as one blogger at NewsBusters asks, "Chicken and egg question: which came first, Obama supporters or pro-Obama media coverage? Did all the glowing, sycophantic, journalistically unprofessional coverage of Obama by CNN, MSNBC, and the nets create this support?" What do you think? Any merit to this musing? When you pick your news source, what do you look for?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
True-Song True-Song 8 years
Here, here. Why so much vitriol for the environmentalists? We don't go door to door lecturing people about recycling. Good grief.
rabidmoon rabidmoon 8 years
Oh Stephley, This rings so many bells. When I still lived in Texas, in my first small home, there was a woman that lived on the street behind me who was the political opposite of me, and that in itself was fine. However, she was also a pretty aggressive person, which wasn't. By that I mean it was common for her to make fun of my lawn signs, or bumper stickers. She would let her dog shit in my yard. She would attempt to provoke me. This woman did not have much. She was, by all accounts, what we might call poor white trash - and yet defended Rick Perry and Bush as if they were her brothers. She identified with these men as if they were one of her own.. The great success story of the NeoCons is how they managed to fool a bunch of people who were already poor, and only got poorer, into thinking they were on the same side while they robbed these same poor bastards blind the entire time. Amazing.
stephley stephley 8 years
Ah Rabid, it's still in vogue: "In her new book, Not In My Name, Julie Burchill reserves her grandest fury about hypocrites for environmentalists. We are, she (and her co-author, Chas Newkey-Burden) say, pious, sexless and contemptuous of humankind. We are all are posh and rich, and have found in environmentalism a new excuse for lecturing the poor. We tell other people to live by rules we don’t apply to ourselves."
stephley stephley 8 years
Ah Rabid, it's still in vogue: "In her new book, Not In My Name, Julie Burchill reserves her grandest fury about hypocrites for environmentalists. We are, she (and her co-author, Chas Newkey-Burden) say, pious, sexless and contemptuous of humankind. We are all are posh and rich, and have found in environmentalism a new excuse for lecturing the poor. We tell other people to live by rules we don’t apply to ourselves."
rabidmoon rabidmoon 8 years
Griffin 73, With all due respect, I would love to see the full list of wealthy environmentalists sitting around blasting their ACs. (Never mind that the homes are probably there because of Republican-voting millionaire developers.) One guy does not a point make, and again, blanketing environmentalists as "Hypocrites" is just another massive judgement about an entire segment of the voting population without any real statistical reference to back it up. You are proving my point about how these words get thrown around without any real substance. Its so easy to call us names, its so easy to decide who we are. I am an environmentalist. I do not preach to you, or anyone else, about how to take care of this planet - I do so, because I believe with all my heart that it is our responsibility as the dominant species on this planet, to try to do a little justice by that while we are here. I eat beef, I buy makeup, I live as much as I feel I can, and should. But I also try to recycle. I try not to waste. I take the bus. I repair before I repurchase. In short, I try to live without causing more harm, or being outright arrogant about the fact that I live in a world of finite resources, and am lucky enough to live in a location that is safe, comfortable and pleasant. (Unlike millions in this world.) Now tell me...why in the hell is that such a problem for you?
rabidmoon rabidmoon 8 years
It was a comment used some years ago by one of the Bush-era Repubs (first term)...I recalled it from a phone conversation my mom and I had once, long ago (she was deeply frustrated with the phrase). I can ask her if she remembers who had said it. I remember the conversation to this day because, like "liberal media" and "bleeding heart liberals" and "lefty loonies" it was a phrase that had shocked me. I have seen, over the past 3 decades, the use of the word "liberal" become increasingly negative in context. But back on topic, the insinuation of the comment, in context of our conversation, was that the environmentalists were all a pack of rich elitists with nothing better to do than make up stuff about the planet. (I am still trying to figure out why making an effort to take care of the planet, preserve that which - once lost - cannot be recovered, and try to live with some respect for our shared planet is a bad thing, and why it generates so much hostility. What are people afraid of?) My mom was furious, and I was aghast, because if anything, most people I knew that were left-leaning were actually a bit leaner in the pocketbook; it was, if anything, the neo-cons that were seen as the wealthy, protecting their own, protecting the interests of big business, property developers, big oil, or big religion, it (adopting religious dogma as part of their electoral toolbox to galvanise voters they would not have courted decades before worked brilliantly for the NeoCons..didn't it!) I saw it as the political equivalent of "OH LOOK, A BIRD!" Let's call all the professors in baggy khaki trousers in Austin "wealthy liberals" so that people don't remember the fact that it actually came out of the mouths of the true "wealthy elites" that, in fact, have been benefitted from the struggling American taxpayer for decades now. Those were my perceptions at the time, and I stand behind them today, and its why the "liberal media" comment made me remember it. It stuck with me as another absurd phrase, used and repeated with the specific purpose of getting it to "stick". Of course, this is all based on a barely-remembered conversation, and I would be the first to concede that. On another note....I notice, for instance, that the word "elitist" is becoming more and more common now. Of course it is. Its a tool being used to divert people...perhaps from thinking for themselves about what is actually being said, or to soothe them if they are feeling insecure about what they are not willing or able to think about beyond manic symbolism and fear-driven reactionary voting. I realise this post has become a wordy rant, but its now 2:30 am here and I am past tired. If this did not properly address your question, just PM me, and I promise to bug mom about that conversation and jog her memory to provide a direct quote. Hell for all I remember right now, it was Rick Perry. :P
Griffin73 Griffin73 8 years
There are wealthy Environmentalists and they are all sitting in there 10,000 square foot homes enjoying the large ranch estates and putting the air conditioning on full blast. Environmentalist are the biggest Hippocrates in the world. Look at Al gore and his house and estate. I don't see and solar panels on the roof, do you?
True-Song True-Song 8 years
Wait, I'm sorry. Meaning it's a myth that environmentalists are wealthy? Or that it's a myth that any wealthy ones exist?
rabidmoon rabidmoon 8 years
"Please. The myth of liberal media is the greatest achievement of the republican propaganda machine. " Along with: "wealthy environmentalists" Remember that one? I do. I had a good old laugh over that one too.
popgoestheworld popgoestheworld 8 years
That newsbuster's quote is just beyond ridiculous. The guy just comes across as bitter.
organicsugr organicsugr 8 years
Torgleson is right. There is no perceptible bias in the New York Times or on MSNBC. Only faux news has a bias.
True-Song True-Song 8 years
Please. The myth of liberal media is the greatest achievement of the republican propaganda machine. Where was the liberal media when the Bush administration magically turned Osama bin Ladin into Sadam Hussein and took us to war in Iraq?
Griffin73 Griffin73 8 years
At least Fox doesn't pander to the left like all the other news channels and programs. That's why they seem to sit right, but really they are the most balanced on the air. CNN and MSNBC are ultra liberal, it's really hard to watch those channels without wanting to laugh. I mean come on Ted Turner...CNN, that should explain that one.
gitsie123 gitsie123 8 years
:rofl: This isn't news
gitsie123 gitsie123 8 years
:rofl: This isn't news
yesteryear yesteryear 8 years
duh.
yesteryear yesteryear 8 years
duh.
organicsugr organicsugr 8 years
"That Newsbusters quote is so absurd!" Agreed. Obama hasn't gotten a fair shake from any of the major media outlets yet.
True-Song True-Song 8 years
People listen to and watch what they want to hear. I think all news is...in need of improvement.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
That Newsbusters quote is so absurd! ALL of the news media has been giving McCain gentle treatment this whole time now. Yes, Obama gets some favorable coverage as well, but all of the networks pick everything he says and does apart. An example? While the AP reports that Obama's social security plan is "missing detail", despite the fact that it is 90% flushed out inlcuding facts and figures, they fail to report that McCain has NO SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN AT ALL. No one in the media is talking about McCain's record on energy, while it stands starkly in contrast to his claims to be a leader in renewable energy. http://teamsugar.com/user/Jillness/blog/1852246 If I can find this information, the major networks and the AP can as well.
stephley stephley 8 years
The networks target whichever audience they think will make them the most money. Fox's decision to be the voice of a certain group worked for them but if the money stopped rolling in for some reason, they'd branch out. For the executives, the only political decisions and candidates that matter are the ones that will make their jobs more secure. They aren't idelogues by any stretch of the imagination.
Osama bin Laden Twitter and Internet Traffic Spikes
Flexible Vacation Policies
Cheap Volkswagon Gilt Deal
Plastic Surgery Present
The Ponheary Ly Foundation Educates Cambodian Children
Babies' Exposure to Toxins
Rise in Adult Weight Loss Spas, Resorts, and Retreats

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X