Well, I do find their shows the most entertaining. Especially Red Eye. If I could trade all the other cable news shows just so that I can continue watching Red Eye, I definitely would.

It's funny as fuck, they have the best guests and it's very politically correct (in ways that angers both Conservatives and Liberals).

The show is basically centered around homoerotic and pedophilia humor plus a lot of jokes about sex in general.

Then there's War Stories with Oliver North, which is good for anyone who loves War History. I guess my fellow History Channel geeks will appreciate that one more.

Fox and Friends is also good. Well, at least better than any other morning programming.

And all the contributors actually have personalities. See Tucker Carlson and Dr. Lamont Hill.

And the Fox Channel itself also has the best programming. Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy, etc.

its because they dont always change there minds and flip flop like the other stations. they tell it like it is.

Not trying to brag, but Fox News is owning everyone right now.

"With the second quarter coming to a close, Fox News averaged about the same number of viewers as the top three other cable news networks combined." -The Hollywood Reporter

I still find it hilarious how the other networks spend more and more time in their shows trying to make Fox News look bad, like Daily Show spending almost 10 minutes berating them for comments they made years ago. Pathetic...

But it is true. They have the most viewers. Does that mean they're the best? It does if that's the kind of reporting you prefer but not if you're a bit more moderate in your views.

Hell, Jon Stewart himself has described the show as "fake news" on numerous occasions.

But people buy it! They actually believe and respect what he says. He actually affects people's opinion.

Not good.

Now as far as the actual joke itself that you were referring to (this one, right?) what Stewart did was show the difference between Fox's coverage during the Bush Administration (when they were highly critical or protesters or those who opposed Bush) and their coverage now that Obama is president (when they have been praising protesters and have themselves been highly critical of the President).

and vice versa with MSNBC I'm sure. That wasn't on the daily show? (;

If they where the same president that would be a valid point. However I will admit,[just like the majority of protesters did] that Bush also made some of the same mistakes. But of course leave it to Olberman to find a poor example where people refused to believe that republicans made any mistakes.

"From what I can hear, it sounds like you're saying that there aren't any conservative news outlets, which is ridiculous."

I never said that. I merely said that Fox is not liberal. Other news syndicates are liberal, some more than others. Fox is considered conservative to some and moderate to others.

If by best you mean most entertaining then yes. However all television media is not actually news but rather public relations for the Republicans or Democrats, so by saying that Fox is the best is really not saying much at all.

Though it is no secret as to which political part Fox supports, the same can be said about MSNBC and CNN.

All news reports aside, Fox has outstanding ratings for fantastic shows, or at least I hope so...

American Idol? House? The Simpsons? Family Guy?

All of these shows have brought in viewers for years and years to come...

Of course that's not the only reason, but I do hope it is the main one...

Hello David,

You are sounding similar to Fox News. A few facts, a few false inferences, a couple of fallacious comments and a whole lot of arrogance. Bare in mind that the participants of CD are not as perfect in debate as yourself. And for the record Xaeon is the only person whom [you named] I've debated in which an actual debate ensued.

And while I'll admit that you are capable of logical debate I am curious to know why you opt to insult people when none have insulted you?

For the record: I am no more or no less capable of that which I question concerning you. Also, Xaeon and I are allies not because of agreement, for we disagree in much, but merely because we are honest with one another, respectfully.

You have much to share with others, but don't allow arrogance to curtail your effectiveness in reason and truth. Consider this an exhortation to benefit others, politely as is possible, according to your acceptable ability.

No, I am not your guide in life, I am simply reminding you of that which you know to be necessary. The people with whom we interact will never lift themselves from ignorance if we deny them the ability to do so.

Be a leader not a grave digger!!!!

Yes, I am obviously the president of media operations at Fox News. I've been in hiding until now but you seem to have blown my cover.

-----

Yet another Fox News hater.. :/ Notice I said network"S", and I gave one example. Since you want to go after one example, you might as well go after these as well:

-----

Let's start with MSNBC:

Keith Olbermann

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyrm4iQehu0

Rachel Maddow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZVkU9JxX8

Ed Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB0J8N0Ah4I

Dan Abrams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_X-5B5VyNg

Chris Matthews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNDmVRqcrAo

Joe Scarborough

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkM0eDStAsU

David Schuster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceeCqItxf5Q

-----

How about some CNN?

Anderson Cooper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYhbSsD3ACU

Rick Sanchez

http://themoderatevoice.com/28551/cnns-rich-sanchez-slams-fox-news-on-its-obama-will-get-your-guns-narrative/

CNN founder Ted Turner

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-104746241.html

Howard Kurtz

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/02/cnns-kurtz-should-glenn-beck-be-fired-calling-obama-racist

http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/howie-blasts-fox-news/

----

NBC

http://gawker.com/5327673/nbc-agrees-to-muzzle-journalists-following-fox-news-pressure

---

ABC

http://current.com/items/90263149_abc-news-president-calls-gop-s-healthcare-attacks-a-sorry-spectacle.htm

-----

PBS

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2355.html

---------

I think that is a little more than a comedy show, don't you think? Letterman, Leno, and the rest of the bunch I could mention as well, but you seem to want to dispute 'comedy' shows, so I will leave them out. They all attack Fox News, because they know Fox News has the best ratings and they are an easy target with the subjectivity they add alongside their news, just like any other network...

They are owned by the same company, News Corp. Go to www.fox.com and look under Fox networks and studios.

I tend to agree with what he says, but not because he says it. I am an independent thinker.

Well yes, but not everyone is like that.

Do you even watch the show? One of my favorite things about the show is that it is critical of both sides, because both sides need to be criticized.

No I do not watch the show. But from what I have seen it's basically a desperate attempt to catch fox news in the wrong. And many times taking it out of context. But hey, maybe I have just seen some bad examples. I'm sure he's fair to everyone equally. l:

When did we start talking about Olbermann? Did you mean Stewart?

No I was talking about Olbermann. I can't really remember why I brought him up.

If they were the same president then there would be nothing to compare.

Not sure what you meant by that.

Why do you always see the world through these thick partisan glasses Jake? If someone is criticizing fox news they are 1) a liberal and 2) attacking all republicans/conservatives. This isn't true, and it's stopping you from seeing the truth about these issues.

Well that usually is true! Sure it's fine when people attack republicans/conservatives. Then when I try to defend myself people say things like 'everything is not black and white', or that I'm 'being partisan'.

Do you see yourself as non biased or non partisan?

Because you are usually 1) arguing the most liberal side of the debate. OR 2) attacking all republicans/conservatives. And I guess to be fair # 3) would be attacking Christians or religion in general.

Agreed! For the most part anyway,

but you'll see a couple of my recent debates have been very loooong and filled with fact checking and logic which fell on deaf ears,

so I just felt like having some fun ;)

If you, like so many others, don't want to go to the trouble of independent thought , (this explain high ratings) and you simply want to parrot opinions to sound (to your friends who are just like you) as if you keep up with current events and have an educated opinion, fox news has the best programming for you.

Fox news is the most popular cable news station because they have the most viewers, currently.

Answering the question by restating part of the question, while true, is not a very productive way to debate.

Yeah, all those other stations that have objective reporting, or that change there coverage because of silly things like facts, and reality.

Well I guess they do always take the same side on every issue, regardless of the facts, so they get points for consistency.

I like Fox news and I love some of their shows. But my opinion doesn't mean they're the best. They're only the most popular because they're the only non-liberal station. I don't care if you think Fox is conservative of moderate, every other station is very left-wing. That's why it's popular.

Okay, MKICed answer me this: describe in your opinion what the political spectrum of news stations are. In other words: which stations are biased towards conservatives, which stations are biased towards liberals and which either have a balance or are objective in their coverage.

For me it would be:

Right: Fox

Left: MSNBC

Moderate: CNN (though they suck in other ways)

Objective: PBS, BBC etc...

From what I can hear, it sounds like you're saying that there aren't any conservative news outlets, which is ridiculous.

Not trying to brag, but Fox News is owning everyone right now.

Oh, I didn't realized you worked for Fox... otherwise what would you have to brag about?

I still find it hilarious how the other networks spend more and more time in their shows trying to make Fox News look bad, like Daily Show spending almost 10 minutes berating them for comments they made years ago. Pathetic...

Okay, so you're complaining about a Comedy show, and using it as an example of other networks? Really? Let me list some other shows on that network:

-South Park

-Futurama

-Scrubs

-Comedy Central Presents... (a stand up comedy show)

So how about you tell us how these shows also show how whiny the other networks are.

Hell, Jon Stewart himself has described the show as "fake news" on numerous occasions.

Now as far as the actual joke itself that you were referring to (this one, right?) what Stewart did was show the difference between Fox's coverage during the Bush Administration (when they were highly critical or protesters or those who opposed Bush) and their coverage now that Obama is president (when they have been praising protesters and have themselves been highly critical of the President).

He also pointed out other hypocrisies, like complaining that liberals complain about victimization, when many times they themselves complain about victimization... or that "whinny liberals" often attempt to limit free speech, when often times fox commentators will tell people that they need to "shut up." The funniest part was when someone was complaining about having to pay for government programs and then said that he was on welfare without even realize the contradiction.

So to sum up: The Daily Show is a comedy show, and to judge them by the same standards as a real news show is... well it would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad. The point they made though, was legitimate because they showed how obviously not objective of a news network Fox is.

What bothers me most about Fox news however, is when they outright lie... and trust me, they do:

Fox News is the most popular because they have incendiary hosts who are highly opinionated. People watch either because the entertainment value is great or because they agree with the bias. Mostly it's that people are taken in by the "values" of Fox, although they ought to have none, other than to report the news accurately.

I conceeded that it's true. But that is not the question of the debate. I'm asking if their programming warrants the ratings, or if it might be popular for another reason.

But people buy it! They actually believe and respect what he says. He actually affects people's opinion.

I tend to agree with what he says, but not because he says it. I am an independent thinker.

and vice versa with MSNBC I'm sure. That wasn't on the daily show? (;

Actually, now that you mention it he does criticize MSNBC, a lot.

For example he compares MSNBC to Fox.

Or here where he criticizes the media for their coverage of Miss California when she gave her views on gay marriage.

Do you even watch the show? One of my favorite things about the show is that it is critical of both sides, because both sides need to be criticized.

I've said numerous times on this site what my opinions of MSNBC are. I don't like what they are doing to journalism any more than what fox does (although they do outright lie significantly less than fox).

If they where the same president that would be a valid point. However I will admit,[just like the majority of protesters did] that Bush also made some of the same mistakes. But of course leave it to Olberman to find a poor example where people refused to believe that republicans made any mistakes.

If they were the same president then there would be nothing to compare.

When did we start talking about Olbermann? Did you mean Stewart?

You missed the point of my argument. This isn't about making Republicans look bad, it's about Fox not being consistent with their coverage.

Why do you always see the world through these thick partisan glasses Jake? If someone is criticizing fox news they are 1) a liberal and 2) attacking all republicans/conservatives. This isn't true, and it's stopping you from seeing the truth about these issues.

Faux has horrible programming so long as they claim to be a newstation, that's like comedy central claiming to be educational.

The reason Faux has more viewers is because a segment of the right wing just likes to have their world view constantly validated. This is normal behaviour for cult members. In fact it's necessary. Even if a Conservative newstation were to actually not constantly lie about things, that wouldn't keep the birther and death panel fires burning in anyway, and those kinds of people would stop watching that mythical fair and balanced Conservative station.

At any rate, most liberals get their information places other than cable news, hence why we consistently win every debate on sites such as these with facts and logic, as opposed to the Faux fans who use misinformation and fallacies an average gradeschooler could see through with bi-focals.

I mean really? When was the last time one of you Conservatives were able to have a successful debate with me, or soccer, Xaeon, or any of a number of other only slightly informed "liberals"?

Soccer is a sixteen year old kid for Christ's sake. I mean, you all should be able to get at least one over on him right?

Well, maybe you're not really that dumb. Maybe it's just your source of information. Just for the sake of me having a half descent debate, one of you start getting your news someplace that deals in facts.

Name of debate:

Fox news is the most popular cable news station because they have the best programming.

Fox News Network is not the same as Fox. Fox News is a twenty-four hour cable news station while Fox is just a normal station.

Non-Causa Pro-Causa!

There is no supporting data that would evidence the cause of the popularity of Fox News as compared to the popularity of other cable news stations. The question of cause is a speculative pursuit that I am not inclined to entertain. Whether true or false, both sides of the question lack factual evidence.

I would therefore submit that debating such a question is also not a very productive way to debate.

Fanfrickintastic!

I'm asking people for their opinions, as most debates do. If there had been research or a source for facts on this debate, there would be no need for it.

So if you don't feel it is a debate worth participating in, don't.

I'm sorry, what was your point?

I don't think you're contributing anythig to this debate. But thank you for wasting our time.

Yeah but that doesn't matter it is still two different channels. .....

Well yes, but not everyone is like that.

Well, some people base their views off South Park, so whatcha gonna do?

No I do not watch the show. But from what I have seen it's basically a desperate attempt to catch fox news in the wrong. And many times taking it out of context. But hey, maybe I have just seen some bad examples. I'm sure he's fair to everyone equally. l:

You should watch it at least once just so you can see a different perspective on the issues (this is why I occasionally watch people like Beck). I guarantee you'll laugh at least once. The Colbert Report is funny also.

I'd be lying if I said that Jon Stewart criticized those on the right equally as those on the left, but he does poke fun at both, so don't think that it's completely one sided.

Not sure what you meant by that.

Maybe I wasn't being clear. What the daily show did was show Fox's coverage while Bush was president, and compared it to when Obama was president. Obviously in order to have this comparison you need at least two presidents, ideally on different sides of the political spectrum.

The point that was made is that Fox is supportive of protesters when they agree with their own views, but critical of these protesters when they go against their views (a.k.a. calling them loons). What's important to note here is that the criticism is of the coverage of the protesters, and not the protesters themselves.

Well that usually is true! Sure it's fine when people attack republicans/conservatives. Then when I try to defend myself people say things like 'everything is not black and white', or that I'm 'being partisan'.

To repeat what I just said above: the criticism is of the coverage not the views themselves. Like I said before, MSNBC is guilty of this as well. By assuming that Fox is blameless because they are on your side of the debate is partisan.

Do you see yourself as non biased or non partisan?

Non biased? Of course not. Everyone has a bias. If you asked me which nation was the best, I'd be biased since I've lived in the U.S. all my life.

Non partisan?

Yes. I usually don't refer to myself as a democrat because I prefer to think for myself. I would be lying if I said I didn't agree with democrats on way more issues than republicans, but I certainly would not automatically agree with someone's argument because it is "liberal" or disagree simply because of the fact that it's "conservative." I do my best to weigh people's arguments on their merit alone.

Allow me to give you an example of why I called you partisan. There was some argument about atheists and you said something along the lines of "America has showed us that diversity works." I thought this was very well put. Then about a month or so later you created that debate with the guy who dressed up like Thomas Paine, and he said that diversity was a bad thing, and you agreed with him.

Now it's certainly possible that you merely changed your mind in this instance, but I think it's more likely that, when you thought about the issue for yourself you came up with your first answer; however in the second case, you saw a conservative make a statement and you automatically agreed.

Because you are usually 1) arguing the most liberal side of the debate. OR 2) attacking all republicans/conservatives. And I guess to be fair # 3) would be attacking Christians or religion in general.

1) This is true, but most of the time this has to do with how the debates are set up. For example if there was a debate about socialism then I would be on the conservative side, because I don't think socialism works. On the U.S.'s political spectrum, however, yes I usually end up on the left.

2) I rarely, if ever, make statements meant to criticize broad groups of people. I may make criticisms of specific opinions or arguments that may be held by groups such as republicans, but this is a debate site, and I always give reasons for my criticisms.

3) I do tend to be critical of religion, but I think it's exaggerating to say I "attack" Christians. One group that I will actively, and strongly oppose are creationists, because I can't think of any major group in the U.S. that is quite as stupid and/or ignorant as creationists. They are degrading the quality of science education in the U.S. and if we intend to keep up with the rest of the world economically, science education will be important.

Fox news is very, very right-wing, which I, as a liberal, find irritating. they have some cool shows, though.

However, I think their news sort of sucks. I'm sure conservatives say that about all of the left-leaning stations, and I'm sure this will be disputed by people of different political persuasions.

Watching Fox is like watching a train wreck. You don't want to look but you can't help yourself. It's hard to believe that so many goodlooking women have law degrees and allow themselves to be used as bait. The men use as bait outrageous arguments and unbelievable lies...thus we watch in disbelief at how far TV has come. Fox popularity will wain. Or someone will step over the line.

Knocking the administration for four years will get old. That kind of programming

can't sustain itself for so long.