If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Americans can recognize the difference between making up a scandal and covering one   (theweek.com) divider line 152
    More: Obvious, Fox News, MSNBC, Americans, political scandal, republican presidential candidates, exculpatory evidence, Marist, scandals  
•       •       •

4652 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2014 at 2:49 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-17 01:15:11 PM
The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

churchandstate.org.uk
 
2014-02-17 01:18:15 PM
Well, a percentage of them can.
 
2014-02-17 01:25:24 PM

jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:


Absolutely.
 
2014-02-17 01:27:47 PM
Occassionally reality matters.
 
2014-02-17 01:49:51 PM

jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]


How is voter infromed?  How people got infromatrion?
 
2014-02-17 01:51:53 PM
*stamps feet* Benghazi IS a scandal!1!
 
2014-02-17 01:52:16 PM
Our country is screwed.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-02-17 01:53:29 PM
nice, nekom.
 
2014-02-17 01:58:50 PM
The more you lie the less credibility you have.

That's not an enomously complex finding.
 
2014-02-17 02:25:09 PM
So there's a difference between news and farking chickens?
 
2014-02-17 02:46:13 PM
FTFA: And Fox is the experienced TV muckraker, having gamely tried to tag the Obama administration with a series of supposed scandals such as Solyndra, Operation Fast and Furious, and the IRS auditing episode, often prioritizing such stories when more traditional outlets put them on the back burner...Fox's credibility is shot precisely because of itsbreathlessly deeming multiple pseudo-scandals as "Worse Than Watergate."

photo.goodreads.com

It's not just about infroming....
 
2014-02-17 02:49:49 PM
Steve Kornacki: actual journalist with a brain
Sean Hannity: not so much
 
2014-02-17 02:52:54 PM
Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.
 
2014-02-17 02:56:00 PM
FTFA:  Fox sometimes hits upon a Democratic scandal that is not fictional

Fox News - Sometimes Credible - We report, you decide.
 
2014-02-17 02:56:28 PM
Um, not Real AmericansTM, subby.
 
2014-02-17 02:58:41 PM

nekom: jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]

How is voter infromed?  How people got infromatrion?


They need to do way instain reporter> who kill thier infromation. becuse these infromation cant frigth back?
it was on the news this mroing a terorost in bengazi who had kill her four dipolomats . they are taking the four dipolmat back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots
 
2014-02-17 02:59:02 PM

jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]


Are there that many bad spellers in the world? I can understand words that you may not use or read everyday, or those words that have weird spelling rules, but simple words like informed I don't understand. And didn't they have a friend that saw the sign and said "That's spelled wrong"? Or is it that their whole circle are bad spellers?
 
2014-02-17 03:00:19 PM

Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.


How was Benghazi a scandal?
 
2014-02-17 03:01:40 PM

ongbok: jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]

Are there that many bad spellers in the world? I can understand words that you may not use or read everyday, or those words that have weird spelling rules, but simple words like informed I don't understand. And didn't they have a friend that saw the sign and said "That's spelled wrong"? Or is it that their whole circle are bad spellers?


I'd like to offer a counterargument to your insightful questions:
 
2014-02-17 03:01:47 PM

Lord_Baull: Um, not Real AmericansTM, subby.


Real AmericansTM feel truth in their guts.  They don't pollute truth with facts or reason.
 
2014-02-17 03:01:57 PM
Let it not be forgotten for those who DRTFA, when there finally was a Democrat scandal, Wienerghazi, MSNBC was just as hard on the Wiener as FOX was.

/the Fox who cried wolf.
 
2014-02-17 03:03:39 PM

ongbok: jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]

Are there that many bad spellers in the world? I can understand words that you may not use or read everyday, or those words that have weird spelling rules, but simple words like informed I don't understand. And didn't they have a friend that saw the sign and said "That's spelled wrong"? Or is it that their whole circle are bad spellers?


GET A BRAIN, MORAN!
 
2014-02-17 03:04:46 PM
Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old
 
2014-02-17 03:05:09 PM

mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?


Because it was worse than Watergate, that's why.
 
2014-02-17 03:05:42 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old


-gate is for a real scandal
-ghazi is for a witch hunt
 
2014-02-17 03:05:55 PM
FTFA: As a result, Fox has created itself a sizeable audience, but drowns it in a swamp of fever dreams and cuts it off from the reality-based community.

I believe they mean to say "liebruls", here.
 
2014-02-17 03:06:43 PM
Some of us can tell the difference. There are still some out there that cannot because they just parrot talking points from Fox "News" and Limbaugh.
 
2014-02-17 03:07:22 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old


Yes. Do your patriotic duty to our lexicon and just do it. I know I've done it even in this thread.
 
2014-02-17 03:07:43 PM

Kevin72: Because it was worse than Watergate, that's why.


And it was unlawful.  Out of control Executive.  Emboldening our enemies.  I could go on, but it's kind of pointless.  Libs just don't respond to reason.
 
2014-02-17 03:08:46 PM

mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?


Aw, Jeez. Not this shiat again.
 
2014-02-17 03:09:37 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old


Gatefatigueghazi
 
2014-02-17 03:09:43 PM
The sad truth is that Fox is in a great position even if their audience dwindled to a fraction of other news sources.  Sucker-Americans are worth a fortune to advertisers, and Fox News does a fantastic job of slicing them out of the herd.
 
2014-02-17 03:10:24 PM

doyner: Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old

-gate is for a real scandal
-ghazi is for a witch hunt


I think you are correct on that. Something felt not right about Wienerghazi because it was legitimate. So, back to Wienergate.
 
2014-02-17 03:14:59 PM

Ben Ghazi: mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?

Aw, Jeez. Not this shiat again.


Ben, you have some splaining to do.
 
2014-02-17 03:15:53 PM

Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.


You're playing Snooker on a Pool table.
 
2014-02-17 03:17:47 PM

BSABSVR: Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old

Gatefatigueghazi


Wouldn't it be great if there were a scandal involving a diaphanous evening dress?

Gauzygownghazigate.
 
2014-02-17 03:19:01 PM

yakmans_dad: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

You're playing Snooker on a Pool table.


He's playing flamenco guitar on a tampon string
 
2014-02-17 03:19:57 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old


I prefer going with a forgotten classic, and referring to every scandal with the suffix "-pot Dome".
 
2014-02-17 03:20:18 PM
Oh, by the by, do you politically-minded farkers know when and how the phrase "Worse than Watergate" really got moving (recently, anyway)? The title of a 2004 book by John Dean about George W Bush's ascendance to the presidency and mismanagement of the country once he got there.

John Dean, who was Nixon's WH counsel - so he might know a thing or two more about Watergate than most of us keyboard activists, and therefore carries a bit of weight - was Barry Goldwater's protege, and wrote two follow-ups (Conservatives Without Conscience, a great takedown of the 2006-era Republican party of Katrina, Schiavo and Social Security privatization; and Broken Government, about the genesis of the still-continuing gumming up of the machinery of government) excoriating the right for farking up governing and governance, largely as tit-for-tat over Watergate (Cheney, Rumsfeld and many other Bushies were former Nixonites).

// they tried to pin the Watergate coverup on Dean at first
 
2014-02-17 03:23:02 PM

Tigger: The more you lie the less credibility you have.

That's not an enomously complex finding.


People who lie all the time always assume everyone's lying to them.
 
2014-02-17 03:25:17 PM
I accidentally made the mistake of clicking over to their political cartoons, and now I has a dumb.
 
2014-02-17 03:26:45 PM

mrshowrules: yakmans_dad: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

You're playing Snooker on a Pool table.

He's playing flamenco guitar on a tampon string


+5 internet points.
 
2014-02-17 03:27:14 PM

Ben Ghazi: mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?

Aw, Jeez. Not this shiat again.


Study it out
 
2014-02-17 03:29:21 PM

mrshowrules: Ben Ghazi: mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?

Aw, Jeez. Not this shiat again.

Ben, you have some splaining to do.


Look, it's like this, you see? Um, there was this... this girl, and she and I, well, we kinda hit it off, and you know that apartment complex near the stadium? The one with the green signs all over it? Kinda artsy? Yeah, well, she lives there and we hung out all night and got high and there was this awesome band a few doors down...

Anyway, where was I? Oh, right. I did not have scandalous relations with that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Her daughter, though...
 
2014-02-17 03:29:25 PM
My twitter feed derped hard thanks to one guy retweeting idiots still upset about Benghazi. Apparently celebrating President's Day for people who "didn't leave 4 people behind in Benghazi" is a thing. Lest we forget how wonderful the country was with W in charge...
 
2014-02-17 03:30:43 PM

jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]


Never really noticed it before......there are two different styles of the letter 'F' in that sign.  Strange.  As well as the mixing of upper and lower case seemingly at random.  Love the 'Amercia"!
 
2014-02-17 03:31:57 PM
Seriously, they're giving MSNBC and Maddow credit for exposing and giving truth to the Christie scandal? That's a stretch, saying a few dozen viewers helped sink his barge.
 
2014-02-17 03:33:57 PM
Plus, even if you take both accusations 100% completely dead seriously... the GOP's accusing Mrs. Clinton of kind of a bullshiat PR move that was slightly inconvenient for members of congress.  Christie is being accused of corruption on the order of running what amounts to  organized crime.

Sort of a fundamentally more interesting and important accusation even before you consider the GOP's one being nonsense.
 
2014-02-17 03:34:52 PM
FOX NEWS: WORSE THAN WATERGATE!!!
Translation: We just make shiat up and call it "Fox News".
 
2014-02-17 03:37:09 PM
It's decided:  I'm going to open a hotel in D.C. called the Waterghazi and blow everyone's mind.
 
2014-02-17 03:37:11 PM
Somacandra:
img.fark.net
It's not just about infroming....

Man, that kid really wants to eat that bug...
 
2014-02-17 03:47:28 PM

jake_lex: The whole point of the article can be summed up with this JPEG:

[churchandstate.org.uk image 425x367]


"Infromed" has always caught the attention on this sign, but did you notice "Yes God Bless Amercia"?  Did Mittens write this?
 
2014-02-17 03:48:38 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old


As stated in an earlier thread, -gate is for a real scandal, -ghazi is for fake scandals.

Ergo, Bridgegate.
 
2014-02-17 03:49:25 PM

Dr Dreidel: Oh, by the by, do you politically-minded farkers know when and how the phrase "Worse than Watergate" really got moving (recently, anyway)? The title of a 2004 book by John Dean about George W Bush's ascendance to the presidency and mismanagement of the country once he got there.

John Dean, who was Nixon's WH counsel - so he might know a thing or two more about Watergate than most of us keyboard activists, and therefore carries a bit of weight - was Barry Goldwater's protege, and wrote two follow-ups (Conservatives Without Conscience, a great takedown of the 2006-era Republican party of Katrina, Schiavo and Social Security privatization; and Broken Government, about the genesis of the still-continuing gumming up of the machinery of government) excoriating the right for farking up governing and governance, largely as tit-for-tat over Watergate (Cheney, Rumsfeld and many other Bushies were former Nixonites).

// they tried to pin the Watergate coverup on Dean at first


Bush's presidency is probably among the three worst in American history.  He took a country with a budgetary surplus and foreign threats under control and transformed it into a security state victim of preventable terror, helped plunge it into a vast recession, and helped incite Republicans into a frothing-at-the-mouth, liberals-are-Devils rage at anything resembling comity and bipartisan government.

Fox News was there every step of the way.

/eh.  It still pisses me off.
 
2014-02-17 03:50:51 PM
no, they can't, hope that helps
 
2014-02-17 03:54:04 PM

Cletus C.: Seriously, they're giving MSNBC and Maddow credit for exposing and giving truth to the Christie scandal? That's a stretch, saying a few dozen viewers helped sink his barge.


It's not that FoxNews viewers can't handle the truth, it's just that the truth doesn't agree with their narrative, a narrative that is based off of fear and loathing of their fellow man.  So, yes, obviously, your funny about MSNBC (which has been told many times by many FarkCons as some evidence - of what - that more retards choose lies and bullsh*t than the alternative) means something, it means that MSNBC can't claim credit for this solely.  It must be the rest of the liberal media!

You'd be get on the red herring signal, Cletus!  Unite against the scourge of the liberal media!
 
2014-02-17 03:58:24 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: Seriously, they're giving MSNBC and Maddow credit for exposing and giving truth to the Christie scandal? That's a stretch, saying a few dozen viewers helped sink his barge.

It's not that FoxNews viewers can't handle the truth, it's just that the truth doesn't agree with their narrative, a narrative that is based off of fear and loathing of their fellow man.  So, yes, obviously, your funny about MSNBC (which has been told many times by many FarkCons as some evidence - of what - that more retards choose lies and bullsh*t than the alternative) means something, it means that MSNBC can't claim credit for this solely.  It must be the rest of the liberal media!

You'd be get on the red herring signal, Cletus!  Unite against the scourge of the liberal media!


Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic. The Christie scandal was pursued with vigor by the "mainstream" media. If it had just been Maddow most people would never have heard or just chalked it up to another of her rants.

But then again, I have no idea what the fark you're talking about so there's that.
 
2014-02-17 04:00:48 PM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: Seriously, they're giving MSNBC and Maddow credit for exposing and giving truth to the Christie scandal? That's a stretch, saying a few dozen viewers helped sink his barge.

It's not that FoxNews viewers can't handle the truth, it's just that the truth doesn't agree with their narrative, a narrative that is based off of fear and loathing of their fellow man.  So, yes, obviously, your funny about MSNBC (which has been told many times by many FarkCons as some evidence - of what - that more retards choose lies and bullsh*t than the alternative) means something, it means that MSNBC can't claim credit for this solely.  It must be the rest of the liberal media!

You'd be get on the red herring signal, Cletus!  Unite against the scourge of the liberal media!

Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic. The Christie scandal was pursued with vigor by the "mainstream" media. If it had just been Maddow most people would never have heard or just chalked it up to another of her rants.

But then again, I have no idea what the fark you're talking about so there's that.


That's not how the news media works. Every major outlet jumps on anything juicy ASAP, and celebrity scandal is their bread and butter. It wouldn't have mattered who broke the story.
 
2014-02-17 04:01:56 PM

Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic. The Christie scandal was pursued with vigor by the "mainstream" media. If it had just been Maddow most people would never have heard or just chalked it up to another of her rants.

But then again, I have no idea what the fark you're talking about so there's that.


coeyagi: So, yes, obviously, your funny about MSNBC (which has been told many times by many FarkCons as some evidence - of what - that more retards choose lies and bullsh*t than the alternative)


No sh*t, sherlock.  You have no idea that I was agreeing with you and giving you a reason for it?

FFS, man, it's time to start blaming yourself for your lack of reading comprehension.  I write for a living and still get a paycheck for it, so it's time to start wondering about the man in the mirror.
 
2014-02-17 04:06:17 PM
They can't make Benghazi stick because they can't tie the murderous acts of terrorists back to Obama/Clinton.

I think people grasp that Obama didn't attack that embassy, and that though it was bad, bad shiat happens in Muslim countries undergoing revolutions.

Whereas with the bridge thing you have a pretty clear link between Christie Administration --> Wildstein --> Bridge Closures thanks to that magic email.
 
2014-02-17 04:09:50 PM

JavierLobo: They can't make Benghazi stick because they can't tie the murderous acts of terrorists back to Obama/Clinton.

I think people grasp that Obama didn't attack that embassy, and that though it was bad, bad shiat happens in Muslim countries undergoing revolutions.

Whereas with the bridge thing you have a pretty clear link between Christie Administration --> Wildstein --> Bridge Closures thanks to that magic email.


But but but Benghazi is still real to me!  If Issa wants answers, Obama had better give them to Issa!  I mean, either Obama has a time machine and can fix this - OR - he could give a famous interview where he makes a plea to FUTURE TIME TRAVELERS to go back and fix Benghazi.  That way, in the year 2248 or something, the future time travelers will stumble across the plea from Obama and happily oblige!
 
2014-02-17 04:10:51 PM

coeyagi: Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic. The Christie scandal was pursued with vigor by the "mainstream" media. If it had just been Maddow most people would never have heard or just chalked it up to another of her rants.

But then again, I have no idea what the fark you're talking about so there's that.

coeyagi: So, yes, obviously, your funny about MSNBC (which has been told many times by many FarkCons as some evidence - of what - that more retards choose lies and bullsh*t than the alternative)

No sh*t, sherlock.  You have no idea that I was agreeing with you and giving you a reason for it?

FFS, man, it's time to start blaming yourself for your lack of reading comprehension.  I write for a living and still get a paycheck for it, so it's time to start wondering about the man in the mirror.


They pay for Penthouse Forum letters?
 
2014-02-17 04:17:20 PM
Benghazi is to scandal as Creationism is to science.

Faith based belief systems.
 
2014-02-17 04:18:07 PM

coeyagi: FFS, man, it's time to start blaming yourself for your lack of reading comprehension.  I write for a living and still get a paycheck for it, so it's time to start wondering about the man in the mirror.


Self-blame? That's not the conservative way of things! It's everyone else's fault Cletus is wrong!
 
2014-02-17 04:19:55 PM
I wonder to what extent dedicated Fox viewers realize that Fox is trying to manufacture scandals  but go on to rationalize it as necessary to combat the lies invented by the liberal media.
 
2014-02-17 04:21:25 PM
lh6.ggpht.com


aka

The FOX that cried Benghazi
 
2014-02-17 04:23:08 PM

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic. The Christie scandal was pursued with vigor by the "mainstream" media. If it had just been Maddow most people would never have heard or just chalked it up to another of her rants.

But then again, I have no idea what the fark you're talking about so there's that.

coeyagi: So, yes, obviously, your funny about MSNBC (which has been told many times by many FarkCons as some evidence - of what - that more retards choose lies and bullsh*t than the alternative)

No sh*t, sherlock.  You have no idea that I was agreeing with you and giving you a reason for it?

FFS, man, it's time to start blaming yourself for your lack of reading comprehension.  I write for a living and still get a paycheck for it, so it's time to start wondering about the man in the mirror.

They pay for Penthouse Forum letters?


Well, that wasn't bad, but I am going to now assume every time you deflect, in other words every response to me, you are in effect admitting you have no defense for my criticisms, be they about your lying or poor reading comprehension.
 
2014-02-17 04:25:48 PM
Gee.. Oh look... a cheerleader of the (left/right) is telling us how the other side is.....
////facepalm
 
2014-02-17 04:28:45 PM
Only some Americans can, unfortunately.  A lot of Americans are farking stupid.  Then again, the more people who finally realize that Fox News is not really telling the truth, even when the truth is absolutely plain to see, the better.
 
2014-02-17 04:34:14 PM

Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic.


I love how Conservatives value ratings over accuracy in their news sources.
 
2014-02-17 04:35:17 PM

Bartman66: Gee.. Oh look... a cheerleader of the (left/right) is telling us how the other side is.....
////facepalm


I know.  Both sides are bad.  But the libs are worse than Waterghazigatepot dome.
 
2014-02-17 04:36:59 PM

The Why Not Guy: Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic.

I love how Conservatives value ratings over accuracy in their news sources.


Huh? Listen bub, Community is getting hammered in the ratings by Big Bang Theory and American Farking Idol. That's the outrage!
 
2014-02-17 04:37:36 PM
It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.
 
2014-02-17 04:39:43 PM

Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.


Water Under the Bridge Gate?
Administration Slimdown?
 
2014-02-17 04:39:56 PM
Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!
 
2014-02-17 04:41:55 PM

Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!


Oh boy.
 
2014-02-17 04:44:11 PM

Cletus C.: Huh? Listen bub, Community is getting hammered in the ratings by Big Bang Theory and American Farking Idol. That's the outrage!


And Fox News trounces MSNBC in the ratings, yet Fox viewers seem less infromed.
 
2014-02-17 04:44:59 PM

Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.


I'm not certain they would have.
 
2014-02-17 04:45:59 PM
I'll just put this here...
 
2014-02-17 04:48:21 PM

Garet Garrett: The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.


Sure, if you start counting IRS coverage on July 1st, two months after the story broke, two weeks after the IRS testified the WH was not involved, and one week after it was shown that groups with 'progressive' and 'occupy' in their names were also targeted.

Do you enjoy being lied to or do you just not care?
 
2014-02-17 04:48:31 PM
The headline reminds me of that Dustin Hoffman/Robert Di Nero movie about covering up a scandal with a fake war.
 
2014-02-17 04:48:34 PM
Well lets see, Benghazi didn't prevent Obama's reelection why the fark would continuing to cover it produce results 4 years later
 
2014-02-17 04:48:34 PM

Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!


Hear hear.  In all my years of non-partisan, dispassionate observation of the political process, I have never seen such a blatantly partisan and fact-free response to an issue as that of the libtards trying to shield their POTUS and SECSTATE from whatever it was that it is suggested they did that was blatantly scandalous in Benghazi.
 
2014-02-17 04:49:04 PM

The Why Not Guy: Cletus C.: Huh? Listen bub, Community is getting hammered in the ratings by Big Bang Theory and American Farking Idol. That's the outrage!

And Fox News trounces MSNBC in the ratings, yet Fox viewers seem less infromed.


Fox viewers are well informed. Perhaps misinformed but that's a form of informed.
 
2014-02-17 04:50:16 PM
Whoopsie!

www.mugsysrapsheet.com
 
2014-02-17 04:50:52 PM

The Why Not Guy: Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.

I'm not certain they would have.


Eh, just find the John Birch broadsheets from the mid-late 70s. That's what Fox would have done.
 
2014-02-17 04:51:01 PM

mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?


It just was.
 
2014-02-17 04:53:19 PM
thanksforkeepingusinfromed.jpg

This will blow your mind:

That picture was taken in Austin, Texas.
Yes, that person lives in the People's Republic of Austin.
 
2014-02-17 04:53:40 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-17 04:54:24 PM

The Why Not Guy: Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.

I'm not certain they would have.


They would have, but they would have been telling us all about how it was McGovern's fault.
 
2014-02-17 04:56:28 PM

Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.


"And there is absolutely no evidence President Nixon was ever anywhere near the Watergate..."
 
2014-02-17 04:58:24 PM

mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?


It is scandalous that people are politicizing a tragic event to try to manipulate elections. The fact that it didn't work for the 2012 election, but they are still pushing it for 2016 is pretty scandalously stupid.
 
2014-02-17 05:04:48 PM

Garet Garrett: The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.


You mean the one where a Bush-appointee said the White House had nothing to do with what the Cincinnati office was doing? You are correct that there is a scandal there - but it has more to do with the fact that anti-tax groups somehow do not expect more attention when they try to say they are non-taxable public service groups.

Garet Garrett: As for Benghazi, you all can stop now. We get it. You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing. You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf. You don't care that the killers remain at large. It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" We understand you quite clearly. CLINTON 2016!


No, we just do not understand how an act of terrorism is different than a terrorist act. We also don't like it when people use dead bodies of Americans for no reason other than to win elections, and smirk about it at the same time. It's funny how all the various congressional investigations into Benghazi count the same as none to you.
 
2014-02-17 05:05:20 PM

DeaH: It is scandalous that people are politicizing a tragic event to try to manipulate elections. The fact that it didn't work for the 2012 election, but they are still pushing it for 2016 is pretty scandalously stupid.


And yet, libs are letting the DemocRats get away with it.
 
2014-02-17 05:05:56 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-17 05:06:04 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old


How about -gate for real scandals and -ghazi for manufactured RW poutrage?
 
2014-02-17 05:11:21 PM

Skleenar: And yet, libs are letting the DemocRats get away with it.


Please, go on... I'd love to hear this one.
 
2014-02-17 05:18:41 PM

coeyagi: Doktor_Zhivago: Can -ghazi be the suffix to every scandal now? -gate is getting old

As stated in an earlier thread, -gate is for a real scandal, -ghazi is for fake scandals.

Ergo, Bridgegate.


I thought it was 10 gates to the ghazi.
 
2014-02-17 05:19:52 PM

Kevin72: mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?

Because it was worse than Watergate, that's why.


Well, to be fair, what I saw of Bob Dole's apartment at the Watergate on TV, it looked pretty nice.  So it's sort of easy for Benghazi to not be as nice.

Did you hear about bedbug problems or something?
 
2014-02-17 05:20:43 PM

The Why Not Guy: Please, go on... I'd love to hear this one.


Pssst... you've got a hook in your mouth.
 
2014-02-17 05:21:45 PM

Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!


2/10
 
2014-02-17 05:25:35 PM

theorellior: The Why Not Guy: Please, go on... I'd love to hear this one.

Pssst... you've got a hook in your mouth.


Yeah, it's called the lamestream MSM drive-by media.  He should try listening to some true Amercian journalists sometime, instead of the communists at CNBC.
 
2014-02-17 05:32:41 PM

Skleenar: DeaH: It is scandalous that people are politicizing a tragic event to try to manipulate elections. The fact that it didn't work for the 2012 election, but they are still pushing it for 2016 is pretty scandalously stupid.

And yet, libs are letting the DemocRats get away with it.


Your meds need adjusting. It'll be okay. Just see your doctor. Soon.
 
2014-02-17 05:34:40 PM
Too much Poe's Law in this thread.
 
2014-02-17 05:40:43 PM

spelletrader: Too much Poe's Law in this thread.


Yeah.  He was a huge libtard allright.
 
2014-02-17 05:43:52 PM

Skleenar: Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!

Hear hear.  In all my years of non-partisan, dispassionate observation of the political process, I have never seen such a blatantly partisan and fact-free response to an issue as that of the libtards trying to shield their POTUS and SECSTATE from whatever it was that it is suggested they did that was blatantly scandalous in Benghazi.


Guys,
Are you aware you could have stopped at the sinker?

You didn't need to devour the rod and reel too.
 
2014-02-17 05:45:40 PM

nyseattitude: Guys,
Are you aware you could have stopped at the sinker?

You didn't need to devour the rod and reel too.


They got the angler and his canoe, too.
 
2014-02-17 05:46:56 PM

nyseattitude: You didn't need to devour the rod and reel too.


Don't worry.  I've got one of these, too:

www.ronco.com
 
2014-02-17 05:47:54 PM
I, for one, don't have an opinion until Sarah Palin gives it to me.
 
2014-02-17 06:00:20 PM

JerkStore: I, for one, don't have an opinion until Sarah Palin gives it to me.


See?  This is what I hate--a blindly partisan allegiance to a "side" without considering facts.  If it wasn't for the fact that Liberals are twice as bad, I'd have a tough time recommending people vote Republican.
 
2014-02-17 06:11:07 PM

Cletus C.: Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!

Oh boy.


It's always amusing when someone goes so far derp, even you have to say something about it.
 
2014-02-17 06:14:01 PM
Or, MSNBC has a better story to tell.  People resonate a lot more with being dicked around by local politicians than they do with something that happened the other side of the world in a barley liberated country.
 
2014-02-17 06:15:55 PM

Name_Omitted: Or, MSNBC has a better story to tell.  People resonate a lot more with being dicked around by local politicians than they do with something that happened the other side of the world in a barley liberated country.


Take me to this place, for I have thirst.
 
2014-02-17 06:36:18 PM

grumpfuff: Cletus C.: Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!

Oh boy.

It's always amusing when someone goes so far derp, even you have to say something about it.


You know, I thought this particular troll was long gone. I'm sorry to see someone rattled the Benghazi bell and he came drooling out of his cage.
 
2014-02-17 06:52:15 PM

Garet Garrett: Americans can recognize the difference between making up wall to wall coverage of a scandal by every major news network and covering one up.

FTFY, smitty.

The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

As for Benghazi, you all can stop now.  We get it.  You don't care why Americans were in put harm's way, why they were killed, or why you were lied to about who did the killing.  You don't care that the administration has refused to allow Congress to investigate those questions on your behalf.  You don't care that the killers remain at large.  It's a fake scandal because, well, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"  We understand you quite clearly.  CLINTON 2016!


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-02-17 07:15:05 PM
www.bitlogic.com

www.bitlogic.com

www.bitlogic.com

www.bitlogic.com
 
2014-02-17 07:15:07 PM

Garet Garrett: The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.



I love this one. The 24-hours after the bridgegate story broke compared to the 6 months ~January-June, 2013.

Apples-to-potatoes.

Thanks for emphasizing the point of TFA, though!
 
2014-02-17 07:17:54 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Garet Garrett: The liberal news networks that people actually watch had 17x more coverage of BridgeGate in 24 hours than of the IRS scandal in over 6 months.

Sure, if you start counting IRS coverage on July 1st, two months after the story broke, two weeks after the IRS testified the WH was not involved, and one week after it was shown that groups with 'progressive' and 'occupy' in their names were also targeted.

Do you enjoy being lied to or do you just not care?


LOL... I didn't even finish reading his comment.. I thought it was about Benghazi, but the point is the same... a 6 month period beginning after the supposed scandal was revealed to be a non-scandal compared to the 24-hours after the bridge thing broke.  Pathetic.
 
2014-02-17 08:31:32 PM
Ever since Nixon, the republicans have been hell¬bent to nail a democrat because, both sides are bad therefor vote republican. Moral clarity and such.
 
2014-02-17 08:42:36 PM
It's still American TV news so any praise I'd have for MSNBC is limited.
It's just not possible for it to not be shiat.
 
2014-02-17 09:08:11 PM
Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?
 
2014-02-17 09:09:59 PM
Another "legacy" of Mein Kampf: when I was sampling the readings to get a clue of A-hole's thinking. Right from the start he dismisses how the "liberal media" will lie, defame, and dismiss his writings. Limbaugh and followers learned this well, as any time a media disputes his facts, "See, I told you! Liberal media!".
 
2014-02-17 09:23:29 PM

TerminalEchoes: Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


They're in the process of proving that pretty much every state official in NJ but Christie knew about the lane closures.
Whether he's a liar or an idiot this is destroying his aspirations to the White House. Does that make a difference?
 
2014-02-17 09:30:16 PM

TerminalEchoes: Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


Well, it isn't a question of proving something about Benghazi and Clinton: there's nothing of consequence for her or Obama to have done. There was no way to have interceded.  OTOH, Christie sounds like he was complicit in a criminal enterprise. People fleeing subpoenas isn't evidence one associates w/ honest mistakes. So, the two incidents aren't equal. One was a tragedy. The other was a crime.
 
2014-02-17 10:15:14 PM

TerminalEchoes: Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


In our moment of triumph???
 
2014-02-17 10:27:20 PM

TerminalEchoes: Libs have tried just as hard to make the bridge-thing (I refuse to use "gate") a scandal as Cons have tried to make Benghazi a scandal. Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


The bridge thing is an actual scandal. The only question is whether Christie is directly involved or not.
 
2014-02-17 10:39:33 PM

ikanreed: The sad truth is that Fox is in a great position even if their audience dwindled to a fraction of other news sources.  Sucker-Americans are worth a fortune to advertisers, and Fox News does a fantastic job of slicing them out of the herd.


Food for thought here.

Networks' biases can be judged not on their programming, but their advertising. Advertisers want to know goddamn well which demographic they'll be reaching before they roll a campaign out.

I tuned in to FOXNEWS recently for a few laughs, and it struck me how narrow the advertising market seemed to be:

1. LifeAlert type products.
2. Gold "investment" opportunities.
3. Low end Billy Mays style commercials for stupid useless shiat like SlapChop.
4. Not a single ad for a high end item.

Conclusion: For all of FOX's crowing about ratings (an increasingly useless bragging point), the fact is that their audience seems to be old, poor, and ignorant. Even on their site they have ads for "Penny Stock Millionaires!" on the sidebar.

I'm sure FOX does well enough, but I think that their reputation as a broadcasting behemoth is overstated. The fact is, most people in this country DON'T watch them.
 
2014-02-17 10:42:11 PM

ongbok: Are there that many bad spellers in the world? I can understand words that you may not use or read everyday, or those words that have weird spelling rules, but simple words like informed I don't understand. And didn't they have a friend that saw the sign and said "That's spelled wrong"? Or is it that their whole circle are bad spellers?


CSB: I went to a teabag protest once to counter-protest since it was my Congressional district.  I had a very detailed sign with lots of words on both sides quoting the Constitution and the Bible, and one of the teabaggers was trying to make fun of me for it.  I infromed him he had three words on his sign, and one of them was spelled wrong, which surprisingly made him walk away in silence.  Later in the day, I was told by an elderly gentleman that the Jews only supported health care reform because they are a tribal people.  The signs you see are are not outliers in the slightest, and it's not just the spelling.
 
2014-02-17 10:43:38 PM

Kevin72: So, back to Wienergate.


I believe that's called a zipper.
 
2014-02-17 10:49:05 PM

ifarkthereforiam: Ever since Nixon, the republicans have been hell¬bent to nail a democrat because, both sides are bad therefor vote republican. Moral clarity and such.


It's scandal-envy. Nixon did a fantastic job of tarnishing the dignity of the office of the Presidency, and the GOP has been salivating at the opportunity to find an equivalent Democrat ever since.

Nixon's scandal was actually a big turning point for the GOP because they interpreted the event as proof of the inherently liberal media. Everything from Limbaugh to O'Reilly goes back to the Republicans feeling like they had to push back against a phantom enemy. Nixon's resignation was the birth of the "liberal media" lie.

It's why the GOP tried the eviscerate Clinton over Lewinsky. They really thought they had a shot there to balance the scales, but it didn't quite work out that way. Nixon is still analogous with corruption. Clinton is analogous with indiscretion.
 
2014-02-17 11:34:49 PM

Cletus C.: The Why Not Guy: Cletus C.: Actually, I was referring to the fact MSNBC's viewership is pathetic.

I love how Conservatives value ratings over accuracy in their news sources.

Huh? Listen bub, Community is getting hammered in the ratings by Big Bang Theory and American Farking Idol. That's the outrage!


That is an outrage. Community is the best show on tv.

/rick and morty growing on me though.
 
2014-02-17 11:44:43 PM

Kevin72: mrshowrules: Skleenar: Well, sure, but if Hillary was involved in any real scandals, like Benghazi, then she'd be toast for the nomination.

How was Benghazi a scandal?

Because it was worse than Watergate, that's why.


Also Obama lied and people died.  Don't you know?

Study it out is all I'm sayin'
 
2014-02-18 12:50:16 AM

cousin-merle: Kevin72: So, back to Wienergate.

I believe that's called a zipper.


Get this man an Internet immediately.
 
2014-02-18 01:01:37 AM

TerminalEchoes: Seeing as how absolutely nothing can be proven against Clinton or Christie, why can't everyone just stfu and focus on something that actually makes a difference?


Sorry concern troll, but the Christie story isn't going away until it makes sense. We still have no idea who shut down the bridge or why. We just know the order came from the governor's office.  Hell, the feds don't even seem interested in the Bridgegate stuff. They're looking into the charges of corruption surrounding the Hurricane Sandy relief funds.

I love shiatting all over how terrible cable news is, but I feel like when they do the right thing we should encourage them. Isn't political corruption precisely the kind of thing the media should be covering? Lord knows we don't need any more coverage of Ted Nugent's twitter or whatever horseshiat 24 cable news networks usually report on.
 
2014-02-18 01:02:11 AM

contrapunctus: ifarkthereforiam: Ever since Nixon, the republicans have been hell¬bent to nail a democrat because, both sides are bad therefor vote republican. Moral clarity and such.

It's scandal-envy. Nixon did a fantastic job of tarnishing the dignity of the office of the Presidency, and the GOP has been salivating at the opportunity to find an equivalent Democrat ever since.


True that.

It's why the GOP tried the eviscerate Clinton over Lewinsky.

One of the truest things said on Fark. ... or anywhere.
 
2014-02-18 02:21:22 AM
imageshack.com
 
2014-02-18 02:25:53 AM
imageshack.com
 
2014-02-18 02:26:38 AM
Sorry, had to make a correction. The first will go away shortly.
 
2014-02-18 06:28:34 AM

Cletus C.: Seriously, they're giving MSNBC and Maddow credit for exposing and giving truth to the Christie scandal? That's a stretch, saying a few dozen viewers helped sink his barge.


No, they're giving them credit for sticking with it and for covering actual scandals instead of fake ones.
 
2014-02-18 07:53:34 AM
Deliberately causing traffic jams and then trying to blame it on your aides: the very latest trend in expressing your faith

Those trapped commuters just sang and danced all day
 
2014-02-18 08:44:30 AM

Bartman66: Gee.. Oh look... a cheerleader of the (left/right) is telling us how the other side is.....
////facepalm


So vote Republican?
 
2014-02-18 09:01:28 AM
Here's a hint right-wingers: A "scandal" needs something to be illegal or immoral to have happened.

Example:
Bridgegate (Christi): For political pay-back (immoral) the bridge was closed (maybe illegal).
Outing a CIA agent (Bush II):  Illegal, and immoral with coverup (lying under oath) added.
Firing attorney generals who wouldn't pursue cases against Democrats (Bush II): immoral

Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence

Benghazi, IRS, Fast and furious.  Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, if you stuck with incompetence maybe people would pay attention.
 
2014-02-18 09:05:19 AM

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 537x385]

[www.bitlogic.com image 557x395]

[www.bitlogic.com image 560x437]

[www.bitlogic.com image 560x420]


Perfectly shows why I can't even get past the premise the Benghazi truthers are trying to sell, it makes no sense.
 
2014-02-18 09:05:53 AM

Stoker: [imageshack.com image 800x622]


Oh, but a bastard son of a communist funded by a predatory money trader former Nazi collaborator do?
 
2014-02-18 09:08:10 AM

Aldon: Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence


Not true. The scandal was gutting FEMA.
 
2014-02-18 09:12:18 AM

yakmans_dad: Aldon: Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence

Not true. The scandal was gutting FEMA.


Nope, just another indication of massive incompetence.

Nothing illegal or immoral.  Just a disagreement with his policy which proved him to be incredibly wrong.
 
2014-02-18 09:29:27 AM

Aldon: yakmans_dad: Aldon: Not a Scandal:
Katrina (Bush II): Just incompetence

Not true. The scandal was gutting FEMA.

Nope, just another indication of massive incompetence.

Nothing illegal or immoral.  Just a disagreement with his policy which proved him to be incredibly wrong.


We'll have to disagree. But I'd like to remind you that we have crimes where recklessness is one of the elements.
 
2014-02-18 11:14:54 AM

Bermuda59: It would have been fun to see how FOX would have covered Watergate.


Given Ailes developed the idea for FOX while working in the Nixon and Bush1 administrations for the express purpose of circumventing the "prejudices of network news"  , I'm sure their coverage would have been fair and balanced.

http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon+era-blueprint-for -f ox-news
 
2014-02-18 11:32:00 AM
contrapunctus:

1. LifeAlert type products.
2. Gold "investment" opportunities.
3. Low end Billy Mays style commercials for stupid useless shiat like SlapChop.
4. Not a single ad for a high end item.

Conclusion: For all of FOX's crowing about ratings (an increasingly useless bragging point), the fact is that their audience seems to be old, poor, and ignorant. Even on their site they have ads for "Penny Stock Millionaires!" on the sidebar.

I'm sure FOX does well enough, but I think that their reputation as a broadcasting behemoth is overstated. The fact is, most people in this country DON'T watch them.



Why do I see the same types of ads on History2 then?
 
2014-02-18 11:43:00 AM
"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends ... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stevenson
 
2014-02-18 02:43:07 PM

Roy_G_Biv: Stoker: [imageshack.com image 800x622]

Oh, but a bastard son of a communist funded by a predatory money trader former Nazi collaborator do?


What? Elaborate please.

/Hmm, the first one didn't go away.
 
2014-02-18 05:22:53 PM

Stoker: Roy_G_Biv: Stoker: [imageshack.com image 800x622]

Oh, but a bastard son of a communist funded by a predatory money trader former Nazi collaborator do?

What? Elaborate please.

/Hmm, the first one didn't go away.


In before Kirk yelling Khan Soros!
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report