Re: Millions Turn To Cable (Fox) News Following Oklahoma Tornado

[Professor Bubba]

In article <kl0iid96t1...@news.eternal-september.org>, BeeSting
Alergy <bees...@harvard.edu> wrote:

> Ratings: Millions Turn to Cable News Following Oklahoma Tornado
> By Alex Weprin
> May 21, 2013 5:20 PM
> http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings-millions-turn-to-cable-news-
> following-oklahoma-tornado_b180243#more-180243
>
> The tornado that swept through Moore, OK quickly drew national
> attention, as cable news ratings from Monday show. You can see the full
> numbers here...
> http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-monday-may-20_b180237
>
> ...but below are some notable mentions:
>
> The tornado was picked up on cable news during the 4 PM hour, with the
> severity of the storm becoming apparent during the 5 PM hour.
>
> FNC: 4pm: 1.691M viewers / 186,000 A25-54. 5pm: 2.398M viewers, 364,000
> A25-54
> Weather Channel: 4pm: 925,000 viewers / 302,000 A25-54. 5pm: 1.273M
> viewers, 464,000 A25-54
> CNN: 4pm: 645,000 viewers /167,000 A25-54. 5pm: 1.022M viewers /
> 321,000 A25-54
> MSNBC: 4pm: 433,000 viewers /81,000 A25-54. 5pm 709,000 viewers
> /135,000 A25-54
>
> In primetime (8-11PM), with special schedules, the numbers were even
> higher, as people who came home from work tuned in to see what happened:
>
> Fox News: 2.603M viewers / 632,000 A25-54
> CNN: 1.882M viewers / 790,000 A25-54
> Weather Channel: 1.245M viewers / 512,000 A25-54
> MSNBC: 926,000 viewers / 337,000 A25-54.


Your header is misleading.

People watching coverage on Fox News: 2.603M (28%)
People watching the other three outlets: 6.656M (72%)

While we're at it:

Population of USA: 315.9M
People watching coverage on Fox News: 2.603M (0.82%)

[suzeeq]

Well.... 2.6 million is still 'millions'.

[Ron]

On May 22, 9:40 am, "BeeSting Alergy" <beest...@harvard.edu> wrote:
> SomeDumbNut wrote:
> > In article <kl0iid96t16yalczph...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> Tell me how, idiot.

>
> > People watching coverage on Fox News: 2.603M (28%)
> > People watching the other three outlets: 6.656M (72%)
>

> This is STUPID thinking. I hope this poster is NOT a teacher.
>
> In any given baseball game, the Los Angeles Dodgers beat (Oh I dunno)
> the San Francisco Giants, 7-4. Your brain-dead argument is that NO, the
> Dodgers didn't win because there were other baseball teams and when
> combined with San Diego, Los Angeles Angels & the New York Yankees,
> these teams scored more runs (combined) than the Dodgers in those games.
>
> So the Dodgers LOST.
> How stupid is this thinking? How stupid are you?
> You are swimming in leftist madness. Unplug yourself.

>
> > While we're at it:
>
> > Population of USA: 315.9M
> > People watching coverage on Fox News: 2.603M (0.82%)
>

> Read the headers, stupid person, see where it says "Cable". It doesn't
> say "the population of the USA", does it?
>
> Dumbass.
>
> That's your twisted fantasy. Live with it.
>
> Are all people on the block you live - twisted morons, or do most
> simply laugh at just you?
>
> Just asking.




What grammar school do you attend?

[Ron]

You seem to be a Faithful Fox Follower. You are being mislead.

Fox posted on their site the following:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/24/student-sent-home-support-troops-shirt-army-base

The photo is tagged with "Punished For Patriotism" and "Girl Expelled
for Support Our Troops T-shirt"

Patriotism had nothing to do with it. She was not 'expelled', but
sent home for violation of the school dress code. The dress code can
be read on-line at (and Fox didn't supply this link)

http://www.am.dodea.edu/campbell/mahaffey/PoliciesProcedures/dresscode/shirts.html

Which states:

"Pullover polo style or dress shirts/blouses with short or long
sleeves with a COLLAR are to be worn."

T-shirts don't have a collar

[opel]

On 5/22/2013 9:54 AM, Ron wrote:
> T-shirts don't have a collar

You need an especially tight turtleneck.

[opel]

On 5/22/2013 9:05 AM, Ron wrote:
> What grammar school do you attend?

Here, learn something:

http://www.bartleby.com/141/

[Ron]

No commentary on the misleading Fox News item?

Thought so.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <knikjo$c6v$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

And even more millions were watching cable news outlets other than Fox.
That's why the header is misleading. It implies that Fox News trounced
its competition. It's not true. Fox News drew about a third of the
available audience. That's respectable enough without hyping the
numbers, but fanboys will be fanboys.

I myself watched Fox for a while that night because Shep Smith was
doing a good job, and the on-scene reporter they'd hooked up with was
very good. I turned it off when Sean Hannity came on to anchor.

[Ubiquitous]

Desperate spin noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too
skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when
it suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every
Republican president a Nixon.

[1,983 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

You sound a little desperate.

[Ron]

On May 23, 2:33 am, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:12:56 -0700 (PDT),Ron says...

>
> > No commentary on the misleading Fox News item?
>

> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/19/msnbc-edits-romney-rally-
> speech-portrays-candidate-as-out-touch/
>
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/16/ed-schultz-edits-
> rick-perry-falsely-accuse-him-making-racist-remark-a#ixzz1qv7FzaFJ
>
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/1551844899001/nbc-edits-zimmermans-911-tape/
>
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/03/msnbc-forced-to-apologize-
> after-egregiously-taking-quotes-out-of-context-for-gun-control-segment/
>
> You thought wrong.



My remark was directed at Opel. Remember??

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 9:46 AM, Ron wrote:
> My remark was directed at Opel.

I'm sorry dipshit, were you speaking to me?

[opel]

On 5/22/2013 9:54 AM, Ron wrote:

> T-shirts don't have a collar

Let's just see:

http://www.zazzle.com/collar+tshirts

Collar T-shirts

Ayup, they ALL have collars.

[opel]

...makes you wonder if it was a calculate strategy to let testimony
proceed...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/did-lois-lerner-botch-fifth-amendment-rights/

After a key agency IRS official today invoked her Fifth Amendment right
not to incriminate herself during congressional testimony, Oversight and
Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa said he will review legal
precedent in order to determine whether Lois Lerner, the director of
Exempt Organizations at the IRS, could be held in contempt of Congress.
Although Lerner, who�s at the center of the controversy, refused to
answer questions from members of the committee, she read a brief
statement into the record declaring her innocence. Furthermore, at the
request of Issa, Lerner authenticated a document containing her written
answers for the inspector general�s investigation of the matter.
Those actions prompted members of the committee to question whether
Lerner effectively waived her right to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
�She just testified. She just waived her Fifth Amendment right to
privilege,� Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former federal prosecutor, said.
�You don�t get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected
to cross-examination. That�s not the way it works.�

[Way Back Jack]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:12:13 -0600, opel wrote:

> ...makes you wonder if it was a calculate strategy to let testimony
> proceed...
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/did-lois-lerner-botch-fifth-amendment-rights/

Makes me wonder if her atty. is some unqualified affirmative action type,
like the asshole in the White House.

[opel]

Unlikely, taking the 5th is very elemental and basic.

You simply can't testify AND then take the 5th.

Someone coached her to self-sacrifice her immunity to congress.

More to come...

[Robert A. Leffingwell]

"opel" <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote in message
news:knleii$avc$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/23/2013 9:46 AM, Ron wrote:
>> My remark was directed at Opel.
>

>were you speaking to me?

Why would anyone want to speak to Opie, a certifiable pile of shit?

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 12:21 PM, Robert A. Leffingwell wrote:
>
> "opel" <ad...@novalid.org.> wrote in message
> news:knleii$avc$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/23/2013 9:46 AM, Ron wrote:
>>> My remark was directed at Opel.
>>
>> were you speaking to me?
>
> Why would anyone want

Canuckleheads go on "silence" mode, pass.

[MattB .]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:00:44 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:17:53 -0700, "1,983 murdered in Obama's
>organized communities" <Fas...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>>>Population of USA: 315.9M
>>>People watching coverage on Fox News: 2.603M (0.82%)
>>
>>You sound a little desperate.
>

>No, actually he's putting the hype in perspective
>
>95% of ALL America get their news from OTHER than a fake news channel
>(faux)
>
>Funny about you dimwit
>
>You NEVER, NEVER cite the 3 channels (C-SPAN 1, 2, 3) dedicated to
>UNSCRIPTED, coverage of the Senate, House and related committees week
>after week

C-span isn't bad except after watching it for to long you get really
pissed off at the stupidity of both parties at times.

>
>Idiots like you cite Limpballs, Hannity, O'Really and WorldNutDaily as
>your "news"
>
>SNICKER


I also find it interesting on all the Biased news is what they don't
cover. At times you can learn more about what goes on in the USA
from foreign news sources.

Best bet read many sources and go out and see for yourself.

[Dano]

"opel" wrote in message news:knlkso$lu9$3...@dont-email.me...

===============================

Actually you're wrong. One can refuse to answer any individual question.
You can't legally apply it unless the question will lead to self
incrimination.

[FPP]

In article <knlkso$lu9$3...@dont-email.me>, opel <ad...@novalid.org.>
wrote:

> Unlikely, taking the 5th is very elemental and basic.
>
> You simply can't testify AND then take the 5th.

True. In court... but she wasn't IN court.

She was in a Congressional Hearing, so that doesn't apply here.

FPP

--
"Computers are like Old Testaments Gods. Lots of rules and no mercy."

[FirstPost]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 17:45:47 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <knlkso$lu9$3...@dont-email.me>, opel <ad...@novalid.org.>
>wrote:
>> Unlikely, taking the 5th is very elemental and basic.
>>
>> You simply can't testify AND then take the 5th.
>
>True. In court... but she wasn't IN court.
>
>She was in a Congressional Hearing, so that doesn't apply here.
>
>FPP

In court you can't interpret taking the fifth as any kind of
implication of guilt.
In congress it can be taken anyway they see it.
Claiming that you did no wrong and then claiming the fifth afterwards
definitely doesn't fly the same way in congress as it does in criminal
court.

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 1:43 PM, Dano wrote:
> "opel" wrote in message news:knlkso$lu9$3...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 5/23/2013 11:44 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:12:13 -0600, opel wrote:
>>
>>> ...makes you wonder if it was a calculate strategy to let testimony
>>> proceed...
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/did-lois-lerner-botch-fifth-amendment-rights/
>>>
>>
>> Makes me wonder if her atty. is some unqualified affirmative action type,
>> like the asshole in the White House.
>>
>
> Unlikely, taking the 5th is very elemental and basic.
>
> You simply can't testify AND then take the 5th.
>
> Someone coached her to self-sacrifice her immunity to congress.
>
> More to come...
>
> ===============================
>
> Actually you're wrong.

No. I'm not.

> One can refuse to answer any individual
> question. You can't legally apply it unless the question will lead to
> self incrimination.

You are not allowed to categorically deny (testify) any and all charges
which may be forthcoming and also take the 5th.

Period.

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 3:45 PM, FPP wrote:
> In article <knlkso$lu9$3...@dont-email.me>, opel <ad...@novalid.org.>
> wrote:
>> Unlikely, taking the 5th is very elemental and basic.
>>
>> You simply can't testify AND then take the 5th.
>
> True. In court... but she wasn't IN court.
>
> She was in a Congressional Hearing, so that doesn't apply here.
>
> FPP
>

That's a complete LIE!

The rules are the same.

[opel]

On 5/23/2013 5:23 PM, Jason Hudstrom wrote:

> She had a liberal lawyer provided by obama. HAHAHAHA
>

;-)

[1,983 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:00:44 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:17:53 -0700, "1,983 murdered in Obama's
>organized communities" <Fas...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>

>>>Population of USA: 315.9M
>>>People watching coverage on Fox News: 2.603M (0.82%)
>>
>>You sound a little desperate.
>

>No, actually he's putting the hype in perspective

No Gary, he sounds (more than) a little desperate.

You, on the other hand, sound like the same old Obama-humping douche.

[FPP]

In article <knm62s$m41$2...@dont-email.me>, opel <ad...@novalid.org.>
wrote:

Don't take my word for it... ask a lawyer. Or a Conservative Think Tank.

> If this were a criminal prosecution, this would probably be an easier call.
> As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in 1951 in Rogers v. United States, a
> case involving a federal grand jury investigation of the Communist Party of
> Denver, a witness can waive her Fifth Amendment right against compelled
> self-incrimination by failing to assert it in a timely manner. That is why
> criminal defense lawyers advise their clients to provide their names to
> investigators but not answer any other questions.

> If after an investigation,
> Lerner had voluntarily agreed to testify in a criminal case brought against
> her by the Justice Department, no court would allow her to invoke the Fifth
> Amendment to avoid answering questions from prosecutors during cross
> examination about her assertions during direct testimony that she had not
> done anything wrong, broken any laws or IRS rules, or provided false
> information to Congress.

> But Lerner�s testimony was compelled by a subpoena. Furthermore, a
> congressional hearing is a civil proceeding, not a criminal prosecution.
> There is no question that the right against self-incrimination can be
> asserted in any civil proceeding, including a congressional hearing, whenever
> an answer in a deposition or direct testimony might subject the individual to
> criminal prosecution.

This comes from that bastion of Conservative thinking... The Heritage
Foundation. Hardly a Liberal shill...

Are you calling Heritage a liar, as well?

Better watch it, or Jim DeMint will take away your little flag pin...

God, you guys are *so* EASY...