Author Topic: Fox the most fair and accurate coverage of the election? (Read 659 times)

mosgood · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2004, 11:58:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by narsus
i thought foxnews and msnbc did a pretty good job, i didnt like cnn's format with the super huge screens, and commentators etc.

Larry King didn't add anything substancial to the program. it seemed like he was just there to hangaround.

Wasn't very well thought out.

Kev367th · « **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2004, 01:50:45 PM »

Well good old Wolf Blitzkrieg (CNN) had all the personality of a lump of coal, in fact thats probably insulting to coal. Will be expecting a lawsuit on behalf of coal all over the US delivered by Mr Thunderbird (Edwards).
Seriously I thought Fox ahd the most unbiased coverage, but must admit looking forward to Bill O'Rielly tonight.

rpm · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:28:18 PM »

I hopped around early and wound up sticking with Chris Matthews and MSNBC for the duration. I thought they did a great job.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:41:51 PM »

Larry King was out of his leage with the other commentators. They should have dumped him and brought David Gurgen live into the studio.

I only watched CNNs coverage and IMO they seemed to skew left and you could almost see their dissapointment at times.

Fruda · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:48:17 PM »

CBS and CNN seemed to be the only trustworthy ones.

They didn't give any states to any candidates until they were assured they'd get them.

Fox News, however, was a bit on the stunninghunk side, what with giving Bush 269 WAY before it was over.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:59:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fruda
CBS and CNN seemed to be the only trustworthy ones.

They didn't give any states to any candidates until they were assured they'd get them.

Fox News, however, was a bit on the stunninghunk side, what with giving Bush 269 WAY before it was over.

Better political analysts, as it turned out they were right.

WilldCrd · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:59:39 PM »

I checked once..at about 1:45 am
soon as the coverage had started I popped in the 1st of the star wars trilogy that a buddy had made...somewhere during empire i was fumbling with the remote in the dark and switched over to the reg. tv...looked like the same stuff as 2000...calling states befor all the votes were in and i heard mention of SKeery's 10k layer teams waitng to drag us down even further. It was at this point i saw a similarity between Edwards and Admiral Piett. I quikly switched back to my movie and all was well with the world. well up until lando doublecrossed his buddy but leia still looked hot! And Vader has the shinest helmet of all the bad dudes...but i digress

I'm WildCrd and I approve this message.
"Brought to you by "The People who could care less about the Election hooplah/spin for ratings " and from " The People for the number 69"

Pongo · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2004, 03:00:02 PM »

CBC was good. If kind of bland and having to resort to a white board for the graphics.

Fruda · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2004, 03:06:32 PM »

They gave Bush the 269 early because they're *******s. I know that Bush won Ohio in the end, but still, my point remains.

They would've given Bush the lead even if Ohio was Kerry's.

Halo · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2004, 03:14:26 PM »

How CNN has fallen, with Blitzer running around like a doorman looking for tips.

Silat · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2004, 04:18:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Seriously I thought Fox ahd the most unbiased coverage, but must admit looking forward to Bill O'Rielly tonight.

Will Bill have a loufa in his pants? Or maybe ask his guest to use a vibrator?

Mighty1 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2004, 04:27:38 PM »

Well I watched Fox most of the night and they didn't give a state till they had the numbers to prove it.

They not only took the numbers but from what counties they came from and what percentage of each party was IN that county so to say they called it early is wrong.

It took them forever to call Florida for Bush even though it was clear a few hours before that Bush couldn't lose it.

The way I look at it is that the media has shifted so far left that most people think just because a network tries to be fair to BOTH sides that they must be FOR Republicans.

The mainstream media and people who rely on them have forgotten what Fair really means.

WMLute · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2004, 04:37:51 PM »

Fox did well.
MSNBC did a good job.
ABC, while a touch bland, also did a good job.
NOT sure WHAT election CNN was watching.

While the other three news outlets showed about the same numbers in EC votes, CNN was in their own little world. It was amazing. CNN had Bush 254, Kerry 252 most the night, and acted like it was probable that Kerry would somehow win.

CNN coverages SUCKED.

I also ended up watching alot of MSNBC.

Wotan · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2004, 05:00:13 PM »

I flipped channels during every commercial and I gotta say Dan Rather was entertaining

'Whisper of the Ax" etc...

Of the big 3 CBS actually did a good job I thought.

I had imagined Dan would speaking through gritted teeth but I give him credit for proving me wrong.

FOX was the best but the Susan biotch is just to annoying to look at and listen to.

NBC / MSNBC did well but CNN was a ****ing joke. Nice Stage set but they couldn't find any else beside the 3 clowns for the studio?

Wolf walking around pointing to screens like a local weather man just didn't work for me.

Larry King was so far out of his league it was comical at points.

Dago · « **Reply #29 on:** November 03, 2004, 05:19:51 PM »

Dan Rather and CBS are expected to declare Bush the winner sometime before Christmas.

I would say the bias was a little evident on several stations.

dago