Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's really saying something when Fox News has become the most racially diverse, bi partisan network.

What brings me to this opinion which is actually fact.

Simple. Their news coverage, hosts, and contributors.

Starting off in the Morning with

Fox and Friends: the report on the good and the bad and question moves, but don't make every word cynically motivated.

Outnumbered: The host is a female black woman. A show full of women, always one or two at least democrats.

Fox News Specialists: One Black Woman Ebony Williams a democrat, and Katherine Timpf and independent.

Prime Time, The Story with Martha MacCallum, obviously a left leaning host.

Prime Time, The Five: Two females, Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Juan Williams a democrat who also would sit in for Oreilly when he was around.

Contributors: they don't stack 5 vs 1 the way CNN does. It's one on one. Fair and balanced.

Compare this to CNN

One Black Host on in the 10pm slot, Don Lemon. One female host during Prime Time Erin Burnett.

During the prime time its 6-7 plus the host vs one conservative.

93% of CNN coverage of Trump is negative, Fox is 52% Negative, 48% Positive.
These are real numbers.

So my question to liberals and democrats, why would you watch MSNBC or CNN unless all you wanted to watch was negative bad bias press when the diversity and balance is actually on Fox.

Don Lemon

I had to list him. Even if he is a complete joke.

""So my question to liberals and democrats, why would you watch MSNBC or CNN""

Why would ANYONE watch those two so called news shows. There is good reason people call MSNBC the MSDNC network. And when Hillary was running people called CNN the Clinton News Network. Now that Hillary is out of the picture people just call CNN the Clown News Network.

Well if you look at the ratings for both of those channels....

OP: What in the actual f#ck.

"Fair and Balanced," eh?

Hint: if they were really "fair and balanced" they wouldn't need to tell you constantly.

Fox is shit.

Infowars is the best source for news.

Unless if changed dramatically over the past couple years... FOX news and TYT are two sides of the same sh1tty coin. Biased agenda driven unwatchable crap. Same goes for CNN and the rest of the so called "news".

Fox v. MSNBC and its ilk is a false dichotomy. Occasionally, every network will have some balance, if only by accident, but it's clear what the agendas of both are. It's dumb on either side.

There are better news sources out there, is my point. Or if you can't find them on a particular topic, read a handful of articles on sites with competing agendas so you're at least getting multiple takes.

I'm shocked at how many people in my generation still have cable, though, so this is a weird topic for me anyway, one that I suspect won't have nearly the same cultural relevance in 10-20 years.

Originally posted by SamZED
Unless if changed dramatically over the past couple years... FOX news and TYT are two sides of the same sh1tty coin. Biased agenda driven unwatchable crap. Same goes for CNN and the rest of the so called "news".

I did love seeing TYT meltdown on election day. Ana Kasparian is especially entertaining. Cenk is hilarious as well, they all consider themselves open minded intellectuals.

Sadly, I am going to have to agree with Sable. Out of the 4 major news networks, Fox News is definitely the most fair and balanced. That's facepalm-material.

Almost all news outlets have descended into stupidity where they criticize Trump for not doing things that no other president has ever done in history. "How dare trump not acknowledge this death in this city at this particular time!" Just retarded.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sadly, I am going to have to agree with Sable. Out of the 4 major news networks, Fox News is definitely the most fair and balanced. That's facepalm-material.

Almost all news outlets have descended into stupidity where they criticize Trump for not doing things that no other president has ever done in history. "How dare trump not acknowledge this death in this city at this particular time!" Just retarded.

That is the funny thing. Especially with Trump, Fox came the closest to being balanced, and yet even their negative to positive story ratio was 52/48 lol. So even Fox still ran more negative than positive stuff about him.

No other media outlet came close. That is disturbing.

I also do have to chuckle though that the website people here try to use to determine how reliable a site is has CNN and Breitbart as having the same factual reporting rating. Remember that next time you see someone "lol Breitbart" a link from them.

The right wing blog I have linked to and been insulted over using(Powerline) has a higher factual reporting rating than CNN lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
That is the funny thing. Especially with Trump, Fox came the closest to being balanced, and yet even their negative to positive story ratio was 52/48 lol. So even Fox still ran more negative than positive stuff about him.

No other media outlet came close. That is disturbing.

I also do have to chuckle though that the website people here try to use to determine how reliable a site is has CNN and Breitbart as having the same factual reporting rating. Remember that next time you see someone "lol Breitbart" a link from them.

The right wing blog I have linked to and been insulted over using(Powerline) has a higher factual reporting rating than CNN lol.

In fairness, I think "lol Breitbart" is a valid response. Your point really only holds weight if the person in question is holding it up to CNN specifically.

I also think comparing the positive/negative ratio is a bit of a false dichotomy in news articles. You can be factual without really taking a side, and those are often the easiest stories to digest. So like, Trump has terrible approval ratings right now, but you can report on them factually - even discussing the causes of the low ratings - without being inherently negative. They are what they are. The positive/negative comes with the interpretation and opinions, which is usually where you start to see the agenda come out.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
OP: What in the actual f#ck.

"Fair and Balanced," eh?

Hint: if they were really "fair and balanced" they wouldn't need to tell you constantly.

They actually dropped the phrase "fair and balanced" a long time ago. Just another example of you not knowing shit about anything. Stick to the Movie forum leech

Originally posted by Digi
In fairness, I think "lol Breitbart" is a valid response. Your point really only holds weight if the person in question is holding it up to CNN specifically.

I also think comparing the positive/negative ratio is a bit of a false dichotomy in news articles. You can be factual without really taking a side, and those are often the easiest stories to digest. So like, Trump has terrible approval ratings right now, but you can report on them factually - even discussing the causes of the low ratings - without being inherently negative. They are what they are. The positive/negative comes with the interpretation and opinions, which is usually where you start to see the agenda come out.

If the same people had done a "lol CNN' when people have posted CNN articles you'd have a point.

Spoiler alert: they don't.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the same people had done a "lol CNN' when people have posted CNN articles you'd have a point.

Spoiler alert: they don't.

Sure, agreed, but that's not my point. The bias of some sources to one side doesn't excuse bias of other sites in a different direction. F*** 'em both.

Or, perhaps more fairly, consider each article on its merits or lack thereof, because even horribly agenda-laden sites on either side will have good, informative articles every now and then. But that's harder than finding a more consistently reliable news source. So, "lol, media wars and sh*tty sites" is maybe my most honest response.

Hannity tops mad cow maddow in head to head.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-news-fox-news-hannity-tops-maddow-9-oclock-debut-1043157

Hannity Dominates Mad Cow Maddow in head to head.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/29/sean-hannity-rachel-maddow-ratings-243307

another female host gets her own show

CNN: One female Anchor
Fox News: Seven Female Anchors

Originally posted by Sable
Hannity Dominates Mad Cow Maddow in head to head.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/29/sean-hannity-rachel-maddow-ratings-243307

I'm torn. I want Hannity to succeed, but the Munsters was such a good show and I wanna see a grown up Eddy Munster succeed.

it's more fair than the others but it still sucks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYbtUztVctI

Great interview.