So my question is this then, considering the below examples (old and recent), if one who watches MSNBC cannot see the liberal bias in MSNBC… what does that say about their cognitive skills? BigJournalism has the ratings from the election night, and FoxNews trumps the liberal media… here is what the cable networks drew on average From 8-11 PM ET:
- FNC: 6.957 million total viewers, 2.43 million A25-54
- CNN: 2.423 million total viewers, 1.03 million A25-54
- MSNBC: 1.945 million total viewers, 669,000 A25-54
Fox gets a better mix of watchers compared to other news outlets — a more even mix of political watchers in other words:
And it is why Fox slams MSNBC in the ratings daily! We find others agree (Media’ite) with the idea that Fox’s coverage was superior:
- “Fair and Balanced” is a tag line for Fox News that often gets derided by its critics (and sometimes most deservedly.) But that does not mean that they don’t deserve credit when credit is due.
Writing for Time’s Tuned In blog James Poniewozik seemed to agree that Fox News was fairer than the lot:
Politico also drew a similar distinction between the coverage and analysis provided by MSNBC and Fox News:
Verum Serum adds to the mix with the following stories:
And the same from US News:
The Washington Post offered a pox-on-all-their-houses approach, which nevertheless criticized the biased MSNBC coverage. And sure enough the biased anchors at MSNBC provided plenty of far-left insight. Rand Paul’s victory speech was an occasion to predict the end of global civilization (no really). Marco Rubio’s win in Florida immediately led to a discussion of ethnic authenticity. Chris O’Donnell asked Michelle Bachmann if she’d be “hypnotized” to laughter from the panel. Lawrence O’Donnell warned Rachel Maddow not to compare any “human being” to Glenn Beck. And so it went.