CNN Drops Anchor Connie Chung (1 Viewer)

[LarryDavenport]

Sorry, I didn't mean to start a CNN vs. FOX war. I agree that CNN lost a lot of class when Bernie retired.

 

[Reginald Trent]

I prefer a more balance news presentation. I can't stand one-sided propaganda from either side.

Fox talking heads/anchors are so far leaning to right they probably have bruised knuckles from dragging their right hands as they walk.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Fox talking heads/anchors are so far leaning to right they probably have bruised knuckles from dragging their right hands as they walk.

I suppose you think Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are more unbiased? :rolleyes

 

[Joel Mack]

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

 

[Scooter]

QUOTE:"Danger Will Robinson! Danger! "

That was pretty funny!!!!

O'Reilly seems unstoppable..not only in that time slot but in cable news overall. I CAN tell you who I think has a shot at gaining some rating for a rival network..Lester Holt. When FOX get's TOO talking headlike I switch to MSNBC..I HATE cnn...al jazera west...and find MSNBC to be...tolerable.

Connie was a crapshoot from day one. They hoped name recognition would be enough to bring her into the spotlight. Same hope for Donahue at MSNBC. Didn't work...won't work.

 

[Scooter]

From The Drudge Report:

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003

O'REILLY 5.2 [RATING]
HANNITY/COLMES 4.2
GRETA 4.2
LARRY KING 4.0
CNN [8 PM] 3.7
AARON BROWN 3.7
MSNBC [10 PM] 2.9
MSNBC [9 PM] 2.9
MSNBC [8 PM] 2.0

 

[Ken Chan]

When will they get it right? Maybe when they get a little fairer and more balanced?

What do you mean? That they have to be more to the right to be right? More and more it seems like there's a conflation between "opposite of left" and "opposite of wrong".

As for "fair and balanced", just because they repeat it doesn't make it true. The talking heads on Fox are (charitably) centrist to conservative. The only one clearly "liberal" (and there's a term that has become a tacit insult) is Colmes, but he's such a lightweight he hardly balances Hannity, much less the rest of the bunch.

It's one thing to have a network for conservatives, but to then claim it's actually balanced is a crock. When you start with premise that conservatives watch more cable news than liberals, then it's no surprise that Fox has better ratings. Actual balance would hurt, not help. The veneer of balance does help though, because people (on all sides) like to think of themselves as fair-minded.

//Ken

 

[Steve Clark]

From The Drudge Report: CABLE NEWS RACE
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 O'REILLY 5.2 [RATING]
HANNITY/COLMES 4.2 GRETA 4.2

Bill O'Reilly has become quite a phenomena. To add further insult to CNN's injuries, ratings that came out today say that Fox News has outdrawn CNN during the first five days of the war coverge. Fox News averaged 4 million viewers a day and CNN averaged 3.57 million viewers a day. It was widely expected that CNN would get a boost in the ratings from the major news event to allow it to go past Fox News. I agree with an earlier poster that Lester Holt of MSNBC has proved himself to be a worthy news anchor during the war coverage.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I'd be happy if Bill O'Reilly actually let his victims have the final word and quit interrupting them all the time

 

[MickeS]

"I watch the Fox News Channel, because they're unbiased and support the war 100 percent." (from The Onion).

/Mike

 

[Patrick Sun]

Folks, please lay off the political talk.

 

[MikeM]

There's nothing more "fair and balanced" than hearing:

"Now reporting from Afghanistan, here's our correspondent Ollie North..."

 

[Jeff Kohn]

There's nothing more "fair and balanced" than hearing:

"Now reporting from Afghanistan, here's our correspondent Ollie North..."

Except maybe having George Stephanopoulos host "This Week".

As I see it, the fact that Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced" doesn't mean that everybody is 100% centrist/neutral, but that they have a "balanced" mix. Yes, Brit Hum and Tony Snow are somewhat right of center, and Sean Hannity and Fred Barnes are unabashed conservatives, but Alan Colmes isn't the only liberal. Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Greta Van Susteran, Geraldo Rivera and Mort Kondracke are all left of center.

And I think Alan Colmes would take offense at the implication that he's no match for Sean Hannity.

 

[Scooter]

If you go to the FOX NEWS website...scroll down to NEW PERSONALITIES and go thru some of them..you'll find a LOT who's backgrounds are from network and other cable news departments...far from total conservative backgrounds.

And there is a difference between your anchors and reporters. The anchors are no doubt behind the President on this Iraq issue...but the reporters by and large do fine to outstanding work reporting facts..not opinions..but facts.

Anyhow..this has debated here before. We all like what we like. As per kinda this topic..seems Keith Oberman has been tabbed to rejoin MSNBC as a featured personality against O'Reilly. Wonder how long that will last?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

"...and all the soldiers here tell me they've been watching Fox News because it portrays them as the American Heroes they are"-Oliver North

Unfortunately, my brother tells me that this would be difficult, as NO UNITS IN THE FIELD(which was the background of Mr. North's report) OR SHIPS have access to broadcast TV of any kind

If they could watch Fox News or ANYTHING, I wouldn't have to email him the news on the war every day

 

[Ken Chan]

"Fair and Balanced" doesn't mean that everybody is 100% centrist/neutral, but that they have a "balanced" mix.

Right. But you can't just count heads. You have to consider their position -- host or guest head -- and weight, and just how off center they are.

Again, take Hannity and Colmes. Colmes might take offense, but you might even get bipartisan agreement that he's a total lightweight If you're conservative, it might be comforting to think, "Well, Colmes had his chance, but he just wasn't as convincing as Hannity"; while a liberal might be frustrated that Colmes didn't make this or that obvious point, over and over.

//Ken

 

[Tommy Ceez]

Sorry, I wouldn't be caught dead watching FOX

IN SEATTLE!?! NO WAY!

Seriously, CNN is trying to shrug off FOX's ratings dominance by claiming that there 'serious' about news. Connie Chung totally blew that argument. This move was a strategic repositioning. Plus, could you imagine Connie Chung interviewing imbedded reporters when the normal lineup came back on air?

BTW, I may be in the minority in my reading of the FOX slogan. There secretly saying that thier right leaning reporting is a counter to the REST OF THE MEDIA.

I occasionaly flip to Al Jezeera West. Aaron Brown is a bit annoying but he showed some spunk in the early hours of the recent 'big news story' (see I didnt mention it).

MSNBC is trying to swing back twords center to pull some ratings.

Dont even get me started on BBC and ABC!

 

[Malcolm R]

CNN is trying to shrug off FOX's ratings dominance by claiming that they're 'serious' about news.

Also known as "the Dan Rather Whine." (That's always Rather's rationalization for why CBS News is always in the ratings basement.) I always get a giggle if I happen to be watching and he says something like "stay with the 'hard news' CBS News."

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I frankly enjoy Dan Rather's reporting. It's old-school journalism without the fuss and the muss. They don't sit there and yack with some guy, they pull out the map and the pointer and have him talk you through it. Call me old-school, but that kind of reporting was dying before I was even born. It may be basement ratings, but he sticks to hard confirmed facts from what I've seen, doesn't sensationalize, doesn't go for propoganda, just reports the news, and when he's stating opinion, he says it point blank

My 2 cents

 

[John C]

"Oh me so Maury, oh oh me so Maury!"