January 14, 2014

Five facts about Fox News

One of the most closely observed—and powerful—figures in the news business, Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes, is the subject of a 560-page biography being released today. Even before its publication, “The Loudest Voice in the Room” by journalist Gabriel Sherman has triggered jousting matches between Ailes’ legions of critics and defenders.

Whatever one’s view of Ailes, it is undeniable that he has turned the 17-year-old Fox News Channel into a powerhouse that dominates the cable news ratings and wields substantial power in the world of conservative politics. Below are five facts about the organization that changed the face of cable news:

1Fox News was very tough on the last Democratic candidate for president. (But MSNBC was even tougher on the Republican). During the late stages of the 2012 presidential campaign, a Pew Research analysis found that Barack Obama received far more negative coverage than positive on the Fox News Channel. Yet Fox found its ideological mirror image in MSNBC. In the final stretch of the campaign, nearly half (46%) of Obama’s coverage on Fox was negative, while just 6% was positive in tone. But MSNBC produced an even harsher narrative about the Republican in the race: 71% of Romney’s coverage was negative, versus 3% positive.

2The Fox News audience skews more ideological than that of its two main competitors. Fully, 60% of Fox News viewers describe themselves as conservative, compared with 23% who say they are moderate and 10% who are liberal, according to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center. By contrast, the ideological makeup of CNN viewers (32% conservative, 30% moderate, 30% liberal) and MSNBC viewers (32% conservative, 23% moderate, 36% liberal) is far more mixed.

3Fox News is expensive. If you’re a cable subscriber, you pay roughly 89 cents per month for the Fox News Channel, based on 2012 estimates provided by the industry research firm SNL Kagan. Cable channels generate much of their revenue from “license fees” they receive from cable companies in exchange for carriage in households. Those fees are passed along in subscribers’ monthly cable bills. Fox has aggressively negotiated its license fees, and now claims one of the highest average rates per subscriber. Only six non-premium cable channels command higher fees than Fox. CNN, by contrast, is estimated to average 57 cents per subscriber per month and MSNBC, 18 cents.

4Fox still leads in audience, but that audience is smaller than it used to be.
In 2013, Fox’s prime-time viewership declined 6% from the previous year, according to median monthly viewership data provided by Nielsen Media Research. But with 1.7 million viewers each evening, the channel still drew a bigger audience than CNN, MSNBC and HLN combined. Fox surpassed then-leader CNN in prime-time viewership in 2002, and has never looked back. However, there is some evidence of a ceiling for audience growth. Fox has not increased its median evening viewership since 2009.


5Fox outspends its rivals. In 2009, Fox surpassed CNN as the cable news outlet that spends the most money each year. In 2012, the channel was estimated by SNL Kagan to spend $820 million—on everything from salaries for on-air talent to maintaining bureaus and keeping the lights on. That spending was up 11% from 2011 levels, according to Kagan data. CNN was estimated to spend $682 million on news gathering in 2012, and MSNBC, which draws partially upon the resources of parent NBC News, $240 million.

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: News Audience Trends and Attitudes, News Content Analysis, News Sources, State of the News Media, Television

  1. Photo of Jesse Holcomb

    is a Research Associate at the Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project.

Leave a Comment


All comments must follow the Pew Research comment policy and will be moderated before posting.


  1. Kyle2 weeks ago

    Number 2 makes sense. Various surveys have shown that liberals are least likely to seek out an opposing point of view. It goes back to socialist Pauline Kael stating she did not understand how Nixon beat McGovern (it was a landslide) because she didn’t know anyone that voted for him. Liberals tend to only listen to liberal media outlets because they don’t want to hear a dissenting point of view. They relish confirmation of their “knowledge.”

    In more current times, it would follow with the vilification of the Koch brothers. Because of their support for conservative candidates, they are “evil.” Most liberals would not bother to search out that the Kochs sponsor numerous programs on PBS and NPR or that David is a supporter of the immigration reform and supports gay marriage, notably more liberal positions. But you won’t hear that on NPR, PBS, MSNBC, HLN, CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC. It doesn’t fit the narrative.

    1. vFunct2 weeks ago

      We liberals have no need to hear opposing viewpoints, as our liberal media already provides opposing viewpoints already, since liberal media is fair and balanced.

      IT is the conservatives that do not wish to hear opposing viewpoints, which is why they keep SAYING they are fair and balanced, to reinforce that false identity.

      If they were actually fair and balanced, they wouldn’t need to state that, correct?

  2. Brent3 weeks ago

    The best news of this whole article is number 4, that viewership is declining among cable news. I was one of the original ‘CNN junkies’ back in the 80′s, and have watched a fair amount of CNN and MSNBC since they came on the scene and can tell you that they’re all just a bunch of crap now. It’s evidenced by Rupert Murdoch, when he divided up NewsCorp he put FoxNews on the entertainment side instead of the news side. It’s all about ratings and getting scoops as opposed to actually providing the service of delivering news these days.

    1. Brent3 weeks ago

      Meant to say ‘…watched a fair amount of FoxNews and MSNBC since…’

      1. Bonnielee1 week ago

        Of course viewership has gone down. It was an election year.

  3. HeeveSteven3 weeks ago

    The number one fact about FOX is that MSNBC is worse? It could well be that the Romney campaign fairly earned it’s negative coverage. You can’t just call negative stories bias.

  4. Jerry Boggs3 weeks ago

    As a journalist, you should know better than to make your bias so obvious.

    All writers know to put their most important point at the end of a report, a paragraph, and a sentence. That’s the point they want readers to leave with.

    Re: “Fox still leads in audience, but that audience is smaller than it used to be.”

    You could just as easily said, “Fox’s audience is smaller than it used to be, but it still leads.”

    Which thought did you want readers to take away?

  5. james laxton1 month ago

    My heart bleeds purple peanut butter for MSN and NBC that didn’t tell the truth in the first place , maybe if yall had of read the 10 commandments you wouldn’t be losing money and crying about it . Honesty is always the best policy . God save America

  6. Fageol1 month ago

    Pew ideology (since Pew used the term first) by section headings.
    1. Seems balanced since the report is about Fox
    2. A. Use of the word “skew” — the denotation of the word is correct but the connotation of the word “skew” is that it’s another word for “slant”
    B. Use of the word “ideological” — the word denotes some sort of acceptance of a set of principles of attitudes. The word connotes rigid thinking that is apparently inimical to a perceived or desired change of attitudes, e.g. acceptance of homosexuality to thinking that homosexuality is healthy and cool. Further it appears that conservatism is ideological whereas liberalism isn’t.
    3. The use of the word “expensive” — per the numbers cited, the denotation of the word is correct. However the word connotes that a Fox viewer isn’t getting his money’s worth.
    4. The graph indicates that Fox is experiencing something akin to an “S” curve whereas the other news/opinion — take your pick — providers are on a receding linear track despite a growing population. Briefly the heading was biased as not only Fox viewership was declining but fewer viewers were looking at the other providers.
    5. “Fox outspends its rivals” Looks like a good old objective statement.
    My conclusion is that three of the five headings contained a message unfavorable to Fox. Assuming I’m correct, should a reader read anything published by Pew with a grain or ton of salt?

    1. TheRadioman19761 month ago

      You are correct. In fact, what the heck am I doing here reading this skewed article? Maybe more for reading pleasure than for search of facts. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Your response should be used as an example of critical thinking and provide discussion in a philosophy class.

    2. Jace1 month ago

      The fact is that there are many article on here stating that left-leaning news organizations like MSNBC contain more opinion than Fox. This article may use some negative connotations, but the foil articles on here condemning MSNBC seem to balance that.

    3. Commenter1 month ago

      Pew is financed by right wing parties and publish right wing ideology. This is new-ish for Pew….. but it’s not longer non-partisan. Arnold Foundation is putting up a lot of money to get Pew to discredit pensions…… follow the money.

    4. Dave Ryan3 weeks ago

      The mere fact that this article singles out Fox News for this kind of deconstruction manifests a clear bias.

      Read the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.
      and LEFT TURN by Tim Groseclose.
      These and others show the clear tilt of the News media to the left of the spectrum.

      Here’s a Pew report that was written with the intent of proving Fox News is biased. But what it accidentally proved is that Fox is actually the most balanced, giving both conservative AND liberal viewpoints. And Fox only appears to “tilt right” when compared to the other networks that tilt overwhelmingly left!


      1. Jerry Boggs3 weeks ago

        Glad you mentioned LEFT TURN by Tim Groseclose and BIAS by Bernard Goldberg. Both are great.

      2. John Roberg3 weeks ago

        Dave, Suggest you also read What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman and compare to BIAS. While Goldberg’s book is apparently only his thinking (no references, footnotes, etc), Alterman’s is a packed with source references you can fact-check. Having read both, if one’s to each with an open mind, one can’t help but view Alterman’s book as closer to the truth. My best, John

        1. Dave Ryan2 weeks ago

          I’d already heard of it, and It’s on my list of books to read, thank you for the suggestion, John.

          Apparently Groseclose and Alterman have dueled on the subject a few times. By this commentary by Groseclose…


          …he offers more sourced and reliable facts for his work. But I’d still like to see Alterman’s work, to see both sides.

          But when 50 years of polling shows that liberal journalists and editors SELF-IDENTIFY as overwhelmingly liberal at a ratio of about 80%, it would defy common sense to believe that news reporters didn’t tilt liberal.

          Some of these polls are also cited by Goldberg in his BIAS book (pages (pages 115-136).

  7. gail tillman2 months ago

    My husband & I are in our 70′s and are very concerned about our country and the total disregard of our values that made us so different and so loved b the rest of the world! We have made our mistakes (slavery) and we are paying dearly, both in conscience and treasure. It seems station other than Fox News want to focus on the African American president rather than the issues; the constitution, the huge debt, the minorities who are becoming as beholden to this govt. as they were to the massas on the plantations; what a waste!!!! As a conservative,Christian who loves her country and ALL our citizens; I want the truth and I believe Fox does also. But to call us raciest is the worst insult. Gail Tillman

    1. r.k.1 month ago

      Have you ever been outside of the country? The rest of the world hates us and/or thinks we’re morons because of the ridiculousness Fox News spews.

      And I hope you realize since Obama has a black father and a white mother he is just as much white as he is black….”masses on the plantations”? Dear god, you are so entirely racist.

      1. Dave Ryan3 weeks ago

        My problem with Obama is not that he’s black. It’s that the Democrats and the complicit media use the fact that Obama is black as a slander-weapon to discredit any valid criticism of Obama’s policies.

        CONSERVATIVE: “Obama used the IRS to harass private citizens and 501 (c) (3) and (4) groups to prevent them from organizing political opposition in 2012, and thus unfairly won the election. Obama was negligent before, during and after Benghazi and is still covering it up, and obstructing investigation. NDAA 2012 and NDAA 2013, allow Obama to declare martial law in peacetime. The incredible failure of the Obamacare website, and low enrollment because of high cost and low coverage. Obamacare is unconstitutional, and was passed into law in March 2010 despite that 53% of the U.S. opposed it, and the Democrats rammed it through anyway. And that opposition rose to 56% a year after it passed, and is at least 56% on any day since it was implemented in Oct 2013. Eric Holder’s open racism on multiple occasions, prosecuting only cases where minorities are the victims (so much for equal protection). Eric Holder’s involvement in Fast and Furious gun-running to Mexican drug cartels, and obstruction of THAT investigation. On and On.”

        LIBERAL: “Oh, you’re just a racist who can’t handle that a black man is president.”

        OH YES! That’s SUCH a civil and factual response to legitimate criticism of Obama policies and failures.

        Let me clue you in on where that tactic comes from:

        “Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic [or racist]. The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind.”
        –Moscow Central Committee, 1943

        Both of Obama’s parents were communists.
        Both of Obama’s grandparents who raised him after age 10 were far-left, if not Marxist. Who introduced Obama to mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who was a Marxist –more than Marxist, a Stalinist, who was under constant investigation by the FBI.
        Obama’c closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is far-left if not Marxist, and her parents were closely associated with Frank Marshall Davis.
        Anitia Dunn (Obama’s first Communications director) : Marxist.
        Mark Lloyd (Obama’s FCC czar) : Marxist.
        Ron Bloom (Obama’s transportation czar): Marxist.
        Obama is deeply indoctrinated in far-Left literature, and is so versed in Saul Alinsky, that his job for ACORN was to teach Alinsky’s “rules for radicals” Social Marxist tactics to classrooms full of “community organizers” like himself. Community Organizer being the euphemistic term for Marxist agitator, professional demagogue. Divisive tactics Obama has splintered the nation with since he became president.

        THESE are the things we object to from Obama. It has nothing to do with his race. Conservative Republicans love Allen West, Herman Cain, Dr Ben Carson, J.C. Watts, Mark Steele. Conservatives for 20 years have been polled who they would like to run and in every election since 1992 have said Colin Powell. If he only had wanted the job.
        So it is absolutely false to call Republicans “racist”.

        It is ALL about policy, ideology and character (or in Obama’s case, lack thereof).
        Stop slandering people who disagree with Obama (and you) on the ISSUES.

      2. Kyle2 weeks ago

        People from other countries disrespect us because of Obama’s continual backtracking on US commitments and his words and actions (Poland and Czech missile defense, red line in the sand, Benghazi, mistreatment of Netanyahu, “rules of engagement” in Afghanistan, use of drones killing civilians over sovereign nations, etc.).

        It has nothing to do with Fox News.

    2. lindsncal4 weeks ago

      Other civilized countries, who get real news, laugh at us for watching Fox.

      1. Dave Ryan3 weeks ago

        “Other civilized countries” are completely dominated by the left to the point that they completely shut out any dissenting views. Political Correctness/ Social Marxism on full display.

        Europe is dominated by socialist countries like France, the U.K., Germany and those of Scandanavia. A BBC executive openly boasted of his network’s bias against the U.S. during the Iraq war.

        Charlie Rose on his program asked Robert Kagan (who had just returned from Europe) back in 2004 why Europeans overwhelmingly opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein. Kagan said: “Because never in the European media do they hear a pro-American point of view.”

  8. incomitatus2 months ago

    Pew Research is not exactly an honest broker when it comes to their so-called ‘projects’ They are almost exclusively populated and funded by the left. Of course that doesn’t mean they would ever let their political bias leak into their ‘studies’-right?

  9. Makana2 months ago

    1. Fox News was very tough on the last Democratic candidate for president. (But MSNBC was even tougher on the Republican).

    Yes Fox is biased toward the right. And MSNBC is biased to the left. Hardly startling.

    2.The Fox News audience skews more ideological than that of its two main competitors. The analysis says more about Pew than the fact does about Fox. There are other possible deductions – perhaps more Liberals misidentify their positions as mainstream rather than Liberal.

    3.Fox News is expensive. The cable and satellite companies are not charities nor are they altruistic. They are paying for what they see as the value of the audience that Fox brings. If MSNBC could demand more fees, why would it not do so?

    4. Fox still leads in audience, but that audience is smaller than it used to be. This fact is true for all three channels in the graph and more so for MSNBC. A neutral person might draw the conclusion that television viewership is moving to other technologies.

    5. Fox outspends its rivals. If Fox outspends its rivals and it is receiving more licensing fees, one can conclude that its business plan is superior or “it takes money to make money.”

  10. Ed Barry2 months ago


    A mechanical question:

    I received with interest and respect the research done in FIVE FACTS ABOUT FOX NEWS.

    But I was taken aback when I was immediately deluged by the outpouring of individual of the 107 comments. What I wanted – and thought I had asked for – was the neat summaries
    of the FIVE FACTS, in order. How should I have keyed my computer to receive what I wanted?

    Thanks for an answer. I value Pew research products and find helpful in my own work.

  11. Lynn2 months ago

    I will listen to any source that sites documented facts, doesn’t attack and leaves me feeling empowered.

  12. Len Simpson3 months ago

    I have not turned on a TV in 9 years. I get everything from the internet. Those who wish to get their daily pablum fix of news get it from TV. With 85% of the MSM owned by International Corporations no rational person would believe what they hear on TV. The internet has a multitude of news sources with counter arguments, and coverage of many sides of the same story.

    The TV is truly the “Idiot Box”.

  13. Jim3 months ago

    This country is so divided. We should just the 47% of people who do nothing, the takers, let them move to California, let like paying taxes and supporting these clowns.
    Maybe I’ll become one of them. With Diblasio running NY, it doesn’t pay to work anymore.
    Lets see:
    I can get Food Stamps, obamaphone, free medical, unemployment for 99 weeks, work off the books, free college(for those of us that can read).
    I now see why obama started out with a 47% lead. It’s great to be given things!!!

    1. Len Simpson3 months ago

      It is truly sad to see the proof of how TV, such as Fox, can influence the less knowledgeable among us.

      1. JR2 months ago


      2. Patricia C.+Gilbert2 months ago

        Len – I agree with you.

      3. Naomi4 weeks ago

        Just as MSNBC is. Who has the “lean forward” slogan? That alone states bias.

        Oh, I will tell you what…I bet I am better educated AND better read than you, Len!

    2. lindsncal4 weeks ago

      The mere mention of ‘Obama phones’ tells everyone who you listen to.
      It’s amazing, with all the real information out there, you completely ignore, because those you listen to never show you, all the free stuff from republicans that goes to our richest corporations and dwarfs the money going to welfare to the people.

      1. Dave Ryan3 weeks ago

        Because no one but conservative media will report and not selectively omit those facts?

        “Penny the moocher” and the “I’m gonna get me an Obama phone” welfare-parasite woman can both be viewed on Youtube. It’s not like Fox is the only network to run those clips.
        They’re manifestations of the attitude that has allowed welfare, disability and other handouts to unnecessarily double under Obama.

    3. Paul9 hours ago

      Let’s start with the CEOs who pay almost no taxes at all due to obscene loopholes! Off to the rock with every last one of them! You agree, right, Jim?

  14. Bwin3 months ago

    Many of the would be MSNBC and CNN viewers have migrated to the internet for their news. I’d like to see a study that includes these folks.

    1. Jim3 months ago

      No, many of the would be msnbc viewers are watching the Kardashians

      1. lindsncal4 weeks ago

        The comment you refer to can show the facts about what he said. Your comment is simply belittling and bashing without a clue.

        1. Dave Ryan3 weeks ago

          I don’t endorse insults from either side.

          But apparently you’ve somehow missed the far higher ratio of insults directed here at Fox viewers in the many above comments.

  15. Tony3 months ago

    The main difference between Fox and MSNBC is that most people who watch MSNBC know that they are getting liberal opinion. Much of the Fox news viewership isn’t aware that they are getting conservative opinion dressed up as news. As to Fox allowing liberals to talk, with the exception of Juan Williams, most of the liberals Fox allows to talk are so completely out of touch that they are effectively straw men set up for the Fox news opinion hero of the hour to disassemble.

    1. Patricia C.+Gilbert3 months ago

      Tony – And you are absolutely correct in your comment.

      1. JR2 months ago

        Very true. This was the most perceptive comment here.

    2. Naned2 months ago

      Yes and right on! I have noticed that also.

    3. lindsncal4 weeks ago

      No, MSNBC, especially Maddow and Hayes spends it’s time showing you, with facts and sources, that you’ve been given lies from conservative news. Fox and the limbaughs say something and MSNBC is forced to prove that it’s false.

  16. SK3 months ago

    There’s a pattern to these comments: the left-wing people seems to be critical of Fox News and cite their extensive, general experience watching news. The right-wing people call the left-wing people “socialist” and when their evidence is called into question, simply ignore the matter and attack the questioner.

    The simple fact of the matter is that although MSNBC is harsher against specific people, FOX gives a general and harmful twist to their news. They condemn the poor as “leachers” despite tax-shelters that the wealthy use. Strangely enough their viewers sound more and more like extremist Islamic groups every year.

    1. Patricia C.+Gilbert3 months ago

      YEP, you get it.

    2. Dave Ryan2 weeks ago

      Apparently you missed the many comments by myself and others citing facts and links to back up what we say, WAY beyond snarky remarks like yours.

      In polls for the last 50 years, news reporters and editors have consistently SELF-IDENTIFIED as overwhelmingly liberal.


      I could hurl insults like yourself, but I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.

      Your comment that Fox News calls people “leachers” proves that you don’t actually watch Fox, you just watch soundbytes of it twisted to DEMAGOGUE Fox, on some liberal spin site like Media Matters, DailyKos, Raw, or MSNBC.
      What commentators on Fox say is that the Democrats cultivate a culture of welfare dependency, and that the more people Democrats get on food stamps, disability, and other forms of assistance, the more reliable voters the DNC has.
      Are you blind to the fact that Obama’s government now runs COMMERCIALS SOLICITING food stamps and disability?
      That welfare and food stamp dependency have doubled in just Obama’s first term? That welfare dependency is rising despite an alleged economic recovery? What’s wrong with this picture?
      Commentators on Fox (given equal time with liberals who offer opposing views) assert that this socialist-cultivated widening of dependency is discouraging the work ethic that built this country, and sapping the American spirit.

      When conservatives here call liberal journalists “socialist”, it is precisely because they are of a well intended but flawed European-socialist mentality. And these benign types at the grassroots level are unwittingly guided by leadership that is far less benign, and far more anti-capitalist/anti-Western/anti-American.
      (Discoverthenetworks, “Tactics of the Left”)

      It is a precise plan termed Social Marxism or Political Correctness:

      And it is a plan that began with a Marxist group called the Frankfurt School in the 1930′s that fully emerged as the 1960′s cultural revolution.

      Here is how a former Soviet KGB agent describes it:

  17. Truth be told3 months ago

    Truth be told…..The network channels are losing viewers every second, I for one, no longer watch network news. Most if not all news programs resemble “reality shows”, nothing but brainless rubbish. If it wasn’t for the comedy channel and sports, I would get rid of my TV channel service in a New York minute. No wonder Netflix is becoming so popular.

  18. Packard Day3 months ago

    If CNN were to disappear tomorrow, would anyone but the immediate families of the current batch of employees even miss them?

  19. S L+Mark3 months ago

    I forget to say that I do watch PBS on a regular basis along with Jon Stewart, along with listening to NPR for news and features.

    1. incomitatus2 months ago

      Why not just have White House press briefings sent to your house? It would be pretty much the same thing.

  20. S L Mark3 months ago

    All three are so fixed with little change in format, thought in addition to having the same “pundits” on so frequently that I think I can tell you what they will say before they say it. All are so predictable. Its like Congress, replace them all. I am depending more and more on the internet for my news and commentary.

  21. James Schumaker3 months ago

    A very useful survey by Pew. It would have been interesting to throw a few other news organizations into the mix, however, like the Washington Post, Al-Jazeera, The Atlantic, CNBC, Mother Jones, Media Matters and the Moscow Times, all of which I also follow. I’m very conservative (at least according to the recent Time survey science.time.com/2014/01/09/can-… ), but frankly, I find Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity almost completely worthless as sources of actual news. Anyone who gets their news and commentary from them is just seeking to confirm previously held views, or to get an update on the latest fake right wing meme. Maddow is a different story. She has her hobby horses, such as LGBT issues and reproductive rights, and I usually switch channels when she is talking about these subjects. In contrast to the far-right pundits, however, when Maddow comments on other topics like Benghazi, voter rights, corruption in government, etc., she is very watchable and has a lot of interesting things to say. Other MSNBC pundits like Chris Matthews are hyper-ideological and a little bit goes a long way. However, I do very much like Alex Wagner and Andrea Mitchell (the female mayor of “This Town”). I do read the NYT religiously — it’s just better at covering the news than anyone else, even though I think the editorial board should get its collective head examined. I was surprised at how close WSJ and MSNBC were on the ideology of their viewers — something I wouldn’t have guessed. Lots to learn here.

  22. SGK3 months ago

    I always laugh hysterically when people say Fox is so biased. MSNBC is without question the most radical left wing propaganda in the history of all media! Screed after screed after screed! Never any facts.

    1. JR2 months ago

      Actually, in the past I have fact-checked various stories from both sources. Like them or not, MSNBC is nearly always verifiable. Fox, on the other hand, were inaccurate (and in some instances, downright lying) on numerous instances. Learning that for myself is part of the reason I find them so reprehensible. I may not agree with certain slants from both sources, but one absolutely fudges the truth more than other.

      1. Patricia C.+Gilbert2 months ago

        JR – Amen, you are right and FOX viewers as a whole are the least informed people in our country and take great pride in their ignorance it seems.

      2. TheRadioman19761 month ago

        I’ll call you out on this one: sources, please. And don’t send me a link to Media Matters. I’ll delete that just as fast as you can post it.

      3. Dave Ryan2 weeks ago

        When all the “factcheck” sites such as the Washington Post are as left-leaning as the New York Times itself, I can see where you would walk away with that impression.

        While they do factcheck a percentage of stories on the liberal/Democrat side, they seem fixated on proving the conservatives are wrong.

        Hiding behind an image of neutral objectivity. But still liberal journalists, tilting the news with their brethren. Forward!

  23. Victoria Merson Pickwick3 months ago

    I wish you had included polling research on PBS TV stations & that you will in the future.

  24. sara d3 months ago

    You might research why you, Google, etc. want my Friends List and other stuff when I try to sign in

  25. TXSFRED3 months ago

    I notice the decline angle of viewership is identical , indicating no one is “leaving” Fox News as much as a lot of people get tired of seeing the same videos run with same comments constantly all day on Fox OR the MSM. To me that is healthy as it just means they check back to make sure there isn’t new news occasionally.

    All the people below worrying about slant are simply worried about hearing truth…If the Station does not come up ( or down ) to their personal ideas of truth.

    Message to YOU people: There is a LOT of negative truth about President Obama and his agendas. BY the way,don’t bother to foam up on me here as I am a “Fire and Forget” and do not care one bit if the truth hurts feelings… and I won’t be back to read your screed. :-})

  26. Jim Whalen3 months ago

    Im tired of having my news delivered by so called reporters who profess their opinions as factual, and thereby newsworthy. And Fox is the worst of the bunch. Only NPR gives me a chance to consider my news as being unbiased….

    1. bonnie3 months ago

      agreed. NPR radio and PBS TV are dedicated to give an impartial and unbiased news report.

      1. Charlie Jensen3 months ago

        The few times I have watched Fox News I have seen not just opinions that I disagree with, but frequently manipulated quotes or video clips which when presented on other News sources ‘in toto’ demonstrates an affinity for fabrication or as Tennessee Williams wrote in one of his plays; “A distinct odor of mendacity.”
        I do not see that happening on CNN, MSNBC or usually the three networks. And when they do present something that is less than completely accurate they almost always present an apology and a correction.

        1. bob3 months ago

          I don’t suppose you remember NBC and MSNBC cutting and manipulating audio of George Zimmerman to make it sound like he stated the subject he was observing was black? What these two fine ‘news’ outlets did was cut the part where Zimmerman is asked if the subject is white, Hispanic or black. They of course got busted, after they broadcast this ‘mendacity’ and were forced to correct their slant on reporting. I guess that makes it OK.
          Charlie, If I had to guess, I would say you lean left. (not that there’s anything wrong with it.)

          1. Paolo3 months ago

            And to Charlie’s point, there was an acknowledgement, apology and consequence as a result of the edited content in question. And there is where the glaring difference between the networks lies. FOX has made manipulating video and audio into an art form. There are countless examples of this. People like John Stewart routinely expose this by simply showing how FOX anchors present the information, followed by the exact same content shown its entirety, creating a thing called, “context.” And guess what? Always a different picture when viewed this way. But with hours and hours of examples of this, how many people have lost their jobs at FOX? How many apologies have been issued? Keith Olbermann was fired. Martin Bashir was fired. The producer who made the decision to edit and run with the Zimmerman audio was fired. Why does NBC hold people accountable for misinformation or “egregious” statements, but FOX does not?

      2. Seanmom3 months ago

        Wow. You really don’t know what “unbiased” means, do you? NPR and PBS are not “unbiased.” They are not even “liberal.” They are both “far-left liberal,” and the closest you can get to “socialist” and still be American. Wake up.

        1. Jeffrey S.2 months ago

          Just to interject- Socialism as an ideology is not mutually exclusive with being an American.

      3. incomitatus2 months ago

        Now that’s funny!

  27. Tom Eglinton3 months ago

    I read the Fox story and was struck (but not stunned) by the clearly negative tone.
    You even slanted the good news negatively.
    Just two examples.
    You headlined Fox leads in cable audience but its audience is down.
    Truth:In fact virtually add TV audiences are down -cable and over the air.
    You headlined with Fox costs more to view and it spends more.
    Truth: Fox leads in audience because it invests more in people and programming.

    I sometimes hear people say “Pew is non-partisan.” I did some research awhile ago and found your funding is from mostly liberal sources.

    I guess stories like this is how you pay the piper.

  28. Benjamin Benedict3 months ago

    I am a moderate who likes Al Jazeera America.

  29. Sam3 months ago

    I am a moderate and find Fox less abrasive than MSNBC. MSNBC appears appears extremely biased and less tolerant.

  30. bonnie3 months ago

    what i respect about watching the PBS News Hour every evening is that it is a balanced report with in depth interviews from people from both sides of the political environment on a certain situation being discussed. They have no commercials so are not under any entities pressure and since they don’t have commercials and that the news is an hour long, you get much more news and like i said, more in depth coverage on the news of the day.

    1. Gary3 months ago

      I totally agree with you about PBS which I listen to when I get a chance. I do not watch any other news channels except CBS & ABC. I am a conservative but do not watch Fox as they are too radical on political issues in my opinion.

      1. bonnie3 months ago

        amen, gary.
        it’s good to keep an open mind.

  31. Old Sarge3 months ago

    I agree………………

  32. Old Sarge3 months ago

    I agree 100%. Why can the news not cease political correctness/ If it is a lie call it a lie not spin………It is time for Americans to demand their tax dollars no longer go to PBS ect. after they have advertisers also. Stop politician’s from utilizing insider information like Pelosies husband and his selling of Post Offices

  33. Allan3 months ago

    I’d like to see “pure” reporting from my news. I don’t want my agenda, nor anyone else’s to be in focus, but pure truth. I’d like to see FOX start a Sunday evening program that would rival 60Minutes, with something along the lines of the “State of our Union”. In other words, a very simple portrayal of our “real” government. Where is our money going? Why? Why? and Why? do we have such a huge deficit and budget? Stories of present government, stories of our past government who spent tomorrows money then, and in effect, got us into the bind we are now? Why don’t we have a reporting card for our politician’s actions?
    Really, I think though they spend a lot of time looking good on TV, they would do much better at their jobs if they spent as much time doing their jobs.
    I think the politician’s are smarter than they are.

    1. Pat3 months ago

      I agree. I’m so sick of today’s liberal press. Regardless of our political affiliation, I respect and expect a journalist to report the news unafraid and unbiased. Period!

      1. Kyle3 months ago

        “Liberal press” … really???? If you have not figured it out by now, every “news” media outlet (besides PBS) has a corporate owner who spews their political views on the rest of us. Fox News Pres. Roger Ailes has admitted that Fox News is his opinion in a news format (not real news, just opinion). That’s your conservative media at work. Others have a liberal bias (MSNBC) that can be called Liberal media. But almost all media is corporate, not liberal or conservative, corporate with their CEO’s opinion spun as news. Wake up!!!

        1. Jim Whalen3 months ago

          Right on!!!!!

    2. C. Strickland3 months ago

      What is most noticeable is the almost total absence of news and opinion from outside the USA. What coverage there is features war and US involvement or possible involvement. There is almost nothing about daily life in other countries or politics in other countries. If there is no natural disaster or other catastrophe and no civil war or terrorist action there is no coverage. American political life is so dysfunctional and so naturally complicated there is little room for anything else but football.

      By the way, if America did not spend US$1trillion annually on defence and defence related expenditures the country would not be in the debt situation it is in now.

  34. Sam Dobermann3 months ago

    re: viewership. what are the numbers for the networks. I include PBS with CBS, NBC and ABC. Quite a few people like me do not even have Cable or satellite and are glad of it.

    I know that PBS draws 3 million but I don’t know if that is every evening or what.

    I don’t know what PBS spends on News but I know it buys rights to programing from Independent Television News and other world wide networks. I watch a variety of news programs daily and read others and think I get a fairly good picture of what is going on. I don’t think any cable stations do a very good job of covering important issues and occurrences of the day.

    1. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      In 2012, about 22 million people watched one of the evening broadcast network (ABC, CBS, NBC) news programs. More on that here: stateofthemedia.org/2013/network….

      We’ll be updating those numbers soon… look for them and more in our upcoming annual State of the News Media report.

  35. George Petts3 months ago

    Apparently Fox owns direct tv, a good reason to switch to another provider. The conservative audience sells themselves so cheaply. All one has to do to get applause is to denigrate Obama. Many prefer bad government to gay marriage or legal abortion. They embrace the views of the billionaires while they don’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Voting according to ones economic interest makes some sense. Voting for low taxes for the rich makes no sense at all. Trickledown is a testable theory. When it is tested against history it fails. Trickle down is really nothing more than the idea that the majority should be satisfied with crumbs from the tables of the rich. Before one of you calls me a communist or a socialist you should know that I am a life long Republican and a former Republican operative. My first vote was caste for Dwight Eisenhower. Think!

    1. Wayne3 months ago

      “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain
      You have bought into Pinnochio’s narrative, George. “Republicans just want less taxes for the rich!”- Only simple minds would believe that Liberal BS.

  36. Barbara Griffith3 months ago

    I have never much liked CNN after what they did to Lou Dobbs. They let the open border organizations influence Dobbs leaving. Claiming he was raciest when Dobbs wife is Hispanic and and all of his children speak Spanish. Dobbs was paid well when he left and I watch his show every day on Fox News. I also like the Kelly File. For my money I’m sticking with Fox News.

  37. marco3 months ago

    jesse, it would be difficult to discern your political preference by the tone of your article. Not! Stop the madness!

  38. Margaret3 months ago

    I wish I could choose my channels instead of taking a package. I would be happy to do without Fox news.

    1. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      I think Sen. John McCain had people like you in mind with this legislation theverge.com/2013/5/9/4316688/jo…

    2. Jerry F3 months ago

      You CAN do without Fox News. Don’t watch it. You have the choice.

    3. Scott3 months ago

      We agree on at least one thing Margaret; I wish I could pick and choose as well. If that were the case I would drop MSNBC and Al Jeezera America, and probably CNN until they get rid of Piers Morgan. Look at their pathetic viewership; do you think if the FOX viewers could drop them from their subscription cost that these networks could keep the lights on? I don’t…except for Al Jeezera because they are privately funded to be a tool of propaganda and they do not exist to make a profit.

      As far as FOX’s subscription cost, I think I speak for most viewers when I say that .89 cents is likely the best value for the money we spend in any given month and I would gladly pay many times more. They are beating the pants off the competition with nearly 3x the viewership, which shows the demand; why shouldn’t they command more than a poorly performing network?

      On the content of the viewership, it looks to me like the number skew to the left as you go down the list toward Rachel Madow, but it’s not as pronounced…in my opinion because many more liberals(than conservatives) don’t consider themselves as such and would like to consider themselves moderate/independents.(this comes from a general lack of knowledge and a failure develop fully formed opinions that are based on current facts about the world in which they live which in turn allows them to be incredibly flexible in their beliefs and easily manipulated.) It is also my belief that many more liberals get their news from John Stewart and similar sources, rather than put 30 minutes a week into any “serious” news source no matter what bent it may be. Let’s not forget the liberal du jour who’s political concerns are summed up with “legalize it”.

  39. Robert3 months ago

    Fox news is fair and balanced in the sense that the hosts frequently have liberal guests who at times offer stiff arguments and rebuttals. Compare that with MSNBC that very seldom if ever present divergent commentary from conservatives. The MSNBC guests are mostly toadies who are echo chambers for the progressive agenda.

    1. Grant Grieves3 months ago

      I Agree …I love “FOX”

      1. Pat3 months ago

        So do I.

    2. Carolyn3 months ago

      Robert, All I can say is, “That’s how you see it.” FOX News says what you want to hear.
      And to me, they report it your way and hope they don’t get caught in their embellished, or
      dubious truths.

      I find them to be dangerous, only because less educated actually believe they are hearing factual news.

      1. Pat3 months ago

        Carolyn, it seems to me that you have your facts wrong. The lower class and low middle-class will vote for a POTUS for race only, believe whatever he says and never question, and only watch CNN and/or MSNBC (NBC) because they do not have to listen to any other side. All I wish is that people would take time to find the facts themselves, listen to CNN evening one day and Fox News evening the next day. THEN, make an informed decision about what they believe to be the truth. Believe me! we have a president whom is a pro at skewing the truth.

      2. Wayne3 months ago

        Pat has it exactly right, Carolyn. Everything you said is true of MSNBC to a “T”. I will bet 2 things: You are a Liberal and voted for Obama; you never watch FOX News. If you did, you would hear the likes of Juan Williams and several other Liberals every single day debating along with Conservative thinkers. It is you that is biased and follow Liberalism/Progressiveness with blinders on so as not to hear the other side. If you really love your country, then it is your duty to listen OPENLY to both sides and make educated decisions. If you are African American, I can tell you flat out that there is no racism in the Republican Party (except for the odd lowlife who probably does not vote anyhow). There are any number of African Americans that I would vote for for President (e.g., Condie Rice, Collen Powell, Dr. Ben Carson, etc.) but not Barack Obama who is not even an African American. His ancestors were not slaves but, in fact, were Arabs who WERE the slave traders. He has openly spurned the USA and is bent on changing it to a socialistic system. FYI, The Republican Party came into being just before the Civil War with one and only one platform, ‘to free the slaves’. They elected the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, (who, of course, did free the slaves) and the Democrats, who were completely against freeing the slaves, founded the Ku Klux Klan to maliciously torture and kill Blacks in an attempt to keep them in slavery. “He who refuses to study the past is doomed to repeat it.” (Santayana)

    3. bob3 months ago

      I’ll second that.

  40. d3 months ago

    partly, not partially (whose antonym is IMpartially)

  41. Wayne3 months ago

    I am very incredulous about the statistic stated in this article that 32% of MSNBC viewers are Conservative. I am not even a full Conservative and I could not stand to listen the manure that comes out of the mouths of their sophomoric commentators. Does anyone know if PEW Research has a bias? Of course, facts are facts, but they can be skewed as shown so openly by Liberals/Progressives.

    1. Pilgrim3 months ago

      Agreed! The MSNBC numbers don’t make sense as far as conservatives are concerned. Something skewed the data. I can buy that CNN is flat across the spectrum but even that seems “iffy” based on news content.

    2. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      This is the survey that stat came from people-press.org/2012/09/27/sect…. The finding about MSNBC viewers might possibly be explained, in part, by the fact that 35% of the total adult population self-identify as conservative, while just 22% self-ID as liberal.

  42. Vic3 months ago

    1. 46% of Obama’s coverage on FOX was negative; 71% of Romney’s coverage on MSNBC was negative. (According to PEW) That amounts to an ideological mirror image? Not very accurate.
    2.Missing are the stats for negatives and positives on Romney at FOX and Obama at MSNBC.

    If conclusions are to be drawn and comparisons made, the stats should be complete. Otherwise you are just playing with the figures to support your own pre-conceived conclusions.

    1. Badjax3 months ago

      Thank You!!!! So glad someone else noticed this. I’m new to reading Pew and was very disappointed it was not all included in article.
      My expectations were too high.

    2. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      Vic, here are some more numbers. 6% of Obama’s Fox coverage was positive, while 3% of Romney’s MSNBC coverage was positive. MSNBC’s Obama coverage was 39% positive/15% negative, and Fox’s Romney coverage was 28% positive/12% negative. Here’s another study during the campaign period that suggests similar patterns of coverage: journalism.org/2012/08/23/master….

  43. maximilian3 months ago

    I used to watch MSNBC and CNN all the time…I was a progressive liberal and worked on many issues, wrote white papers, helped candidates get elected, etc. I drank the Kool-Aid. But, I was warped to have thought Chris Mathews had a legitimate perspective on politics and matters of the day. Yes, I know, he has a “thing” for Obama and waves the president’s flag on a daily basis. Most every anchor on MSNBC screams the liberal mantra and takes pot-shots at conservative thinking. But, it is moderate and conservative thinking the country needs to solve problems, not the left-wing rants that do nothing but beg for more of my money to support social programs that continue to take us further into debt. And so, as an Independent, I listen to Fox News and get a – mostly – fair and balanced presentation of the situation. Suggest you do the same.

    1. Daniel Michaels3 months ago

      OMG! Balanced and fair. That is the funniest effing thing I’ve heard in a long time.

    2. Margaret3 months ago

      when they have to announce they are “fair and balanced” they are not

    3. Dom3 months ago

      Are you serious?

    4. Pilgrim3 months ago

      Welcome aboard!

  44. C W Anderson3 months ago

    Has anyone checked the clock hour content comparing the cable news channels, in regards to soft content to hard news. I have not monitored any of the channels however my perception is that Fox has more commercial content per clock hour.

  45. dan3 months ago

    Fox calls themselves Fair and Balanced. They have the entire right of center all to themselves. That is the rub. Fox is no where near fair and balanced but their audience refuses to acknowledge it.

    The rest of alphabet soup of news groups (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) divide up the balance. MSNBC does not portray itself as anything but liberal. So yes Faux news has the largest share but by no means a majority.

    Over all, Jon Stewart is better at pointing out the hypocritical nature of all the networks. He picks on Faux because it is so easy.

    1. Seanmom3 months ago

      Anyone who thinks Jon Stewart is news is too stupid to vote and undoubtedly voted for Obama on the advice of that political genius, Lena Dunham.

      1. G-2 months ago

        “Anyone who thinks Jon Stewart is news is too stupid to vote and undoubtedly voted for Obama…”
        I don’t believe Dan implied that Jon Stewart presented the news. He clearly stated that Jon Stewart excelled at pointing out the hypocricy of ALL the news outlets. You see, that is called satire, humor, and/or entertainment. Too stupid to vote, yet undoubtedly voted, eh? Which one is it, Einstein?

  46. Al Johnson3 months ago

    Put things into perspective. There is a total of about 3 million Fox, MSNBC and CNN viewers. That leaves more than 300 million (99%+) Americans who do not watch any of them.

    1. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      Always a good point to make. Those 3 million–we call them ‘appointment’ viewers– are far fewer even than the number who watch the major broadcast network newscasts. But among more casual cable news viewers (those who watch as little as 60 mins/month) there are actually quite a few (see this chart: stateofthemedia.org/2013/cable-a…).

  47. Wooker13 months ago

    Of the $820 Million spent by Fox I’d wager that $800 Million is provided by the Koch brothers, America’s fascists!

    1. emer833 months ago

      This must stop; because they are wealthy and disagree with you does not make them fascists. The Clintons have become enormously (and mysteriously) wealthy but I would never call them fascists: crooks, yes, but not fascists. What about George Soros who extorted money from Jews during the Holocaust? How about most of Hollywood who pays itself millions but leaves the unnamed talent penniless? How about the Pelosis and their peculiar financial status. Shame on you!

      1. David Lloyd-Jones3 months ago


        George Soros was born in 1930. This makes him six or seven when Dachau got into the swing of things, and 11 when the Holocaust was at its peak.

        This means you are not merely a liar. You are an innumerate, thoughtless, and gullible liar.


  48. Merriwether3 months ago

    Re #2: Since these respondents self-describe their leanings, with no independent means to verify their claims, could this mean that Foxers are more forthright in their self-descriptions? Could it mean that MSNBC audience have a different yardstick from Foxers on what views are “moderate” or “liberal”?

    Re #3: Perhaps Fox and its supporters should factor in its 5X(!) cost differential over MSNBC when complaining that too few markets accept (“purchase”) Fox’s coverage.
    …Yet one must wonder who subsidizes the rest of MSNBC’s costs, and why.

    Re #4: That audience majority drubbing, and of course Fox’s politics, explain why—almost unprecedented in history—a sitting president repeatedly singled out one network and its audience to publicly ridicule.

    Re #5: Can the 2.8X expenses differential between Fox and MSNBC owe partially to Fox’s more-extensive on-site research and fact-checking?
    Pulling blog and web stories is cheaper than sending a reporter to gather facts on the ground.

    1. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      MSNBC’s reported news-related expenses are low, in part, because the channel draws on the larger news-gathering resources of NBC News.

    2. David Lloyd-Jones3 months ago

      “Re #5: Can the 2.8X expenses differential between Fox and MSNBC owe partially to Fox’s more-extensive on-site research and fact-checking?”

      Hunh? What research? When did they ever do any fact checking?

      I’m serious: what are you referring to?


  49. slk3 months ago

    as an independent, i watch all!!! i do love to hear debates, but msnbc, at most times is a one way talk – anti anyone who disagrees with them!!! watching fox, i can get a steady diet of liberal/socialist/communist views!!! i don’t care for republicans, but i despise socialism!!! one question, “why do most socialists, not like to be called socialists”???

    1. Bill C3 months ago

      The truth hurts!

    2. Bill C3 months ago

      …because the truth hurts!

  50. Morton A Winkel3 months ago

    Of the people whose opinion of Christie did not change, what were their opinions previously?

  51. Enhanced Reasons3 months ago

    Really upsets me I have to pay $0.87 as part of my monthly cable bill to FOX when it has been set on skip channel

  52. john3 months ago

    When did CNN and MSNBC become news outlets ?

    1. Jesse Holcomb3 months ago

      1980 and 1996, respectively.

  53. Donald3 months ago

    Every Fox news regular I know tilts so far to starboard they begin to take on water. Rupert’s mouthpiece.

  54. Phillip Nagle3 months ago

    The cost per subscriber is very misleading. Since Fox News has a much higher viewership than CNN or MSNBC one would expect a significantly higher cost. It is also unfair to say that Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of each other. Recently we have seen an MSNBC host tossed off the air for vile remarks and another host making a tearful apology for making fun of a Romney grandchild (she should have been fired). To make things worse, MSNBC has given an hour show to Al Sharpton, an anti-Semite with blood on his hands, who has a long record of racial demagoguery. I believe this whole story was justa hit piece, Pew should be ashamed.

  55. joan secrest3 months ago

    Your quote about mirror image of Fox shows your prejudice. Really..msnbc isnt just one sided, they flat out lie.

    Fox is more conservative, but they have democrats and liberals on their news shows. Obama and his white house have tried to bully them for years. They even lied about a fox reporter and tapped his parents phone. They have harassed Sarah Palin’s father since she became veep candidate. Why would anyone be for this lying President that we have. He is a bully and uses the IRS to harass anyone who donated to Romney. He has always been a zealot who has lied about his life. He was a prince remember, or so he told one of his high school friends.

    There is a big difference betweem 49% negative and 90% negative. That is a skewed image along the order of Ed Schultz yelling, “there are no glitches with the health care web site. Fox is not a shill for the Republicans . If you have ever warched either Bret or Mike wallace, they ask very difficult questions of Repulblicans all the time. The other networks don’t even talk to conservatives, only progressive (and I don’t mean that in a kind way) republicans. CNN has a few who will ask question, but look at the lap dog press. The facts maam have nothing to do with reality. Your comment disgusted me. Are there any fair media and poll takers in this country. Just the lying media that
    doesnt tell the truth about any democrat ever. And they don’t tell the truth about the fed, the economy, unemployment, Benghazi, Eric Holder, the IRS, or Obamacare. Fox helps to keep them honest. That is why they have more viewers than the others combined. By the way, it is playoff time, golf is back, tennis in Australia, college basketball, etc etc etc…just wait until we get closer to the elections. Fox will be running even network tv into the ground.

    1. slk3 months ago


      1. Marlene Case3 months ago

        Wow, Joan, you are showing your “fair and balanced” side. LOL

        1. slk3 months ago

          do you have a pen too???

    2. Dom3 months ago

      Outside of name calling you didn’t say much. your “anyone that donated ” …makes it obvious you have no idea, as to Sara Palin she self destructed…..anyone that takes her serious needs their head examined….Read the book……see how FOX was birthed.. but of course you wont why get another side….FAIR

  56. Robert Morton3 months ago

    I admit I watch more FOX than any of the others, but there are MANY times on FOX when I look at what they are presenting and thinking, “Who told them that this item was news?” Interviewing celebrities or talking with mothers and children about some social event, then not saying anything about what is happening in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan (where we still have military personnel in harms way) does not make me feel that they are covering the news. On the other hand, when they cover the left wing Republican party, or the Socialist Democrats activities, that qualifies as news. Maybe that is why i watch. I do use shortwave radio to hear how the British, Germans, Canadians, and others cover a story that may not be covered by ANY news agency here, and there is a significant amount of news that the US will never hear about. How very sad.

    1. slk3 months ago

      you need to stayed tuned for more then 2 minutes!!!

  57. John L3 months ago

    It’s not about Fox or MSNBC or CNN. Over 90% of all media is now owned by 6 corporations.


    Folks, wake up. It’s about oligarchy, corporatocracy, the military-industrial complex, and the near-complete domination of lawmaking by industrial lobbies. The “left” and the “right” are now all part of “the 1%” — the primary role of all corporate media is to keep is believing otherwise.

    1. mom3 months ago

      absolutely hits the nail on the head-

  58. Ray3 months ago

    If my cable provider should drop Fox News, I would find another provider who did… Or sell my TV.

  59. FREE MAYN3 months ago

    Fox News is the biggest joke in this universe.

    1. Shadowwork3 months ago

      There is no way of knowing that.

    2. Ken3 months ago

      Amen! FAUX News is not a news organization; it’s an arm of the Republican party.

      1. mom3 months ago

        a court decision in florida-some years ago,
        decided Fox does not have to be ‘truthful’
        look it up.
        Canada refuses to air the Fox channel.
        why, do you think ?
        Read the Guardian- they do a better job.

  60. Kristen3 months ago

    Is it just me, or does none of these address “The Five”? And isn’t this rather uninteresting? None if this is juicy. Perhaps I’m the problem, expecting juicy news bits, but Fox just offers such a smorgasbord of journalistic failure, I’m disappointed at mere lameness and mediocrity.

  61. MendoChuck3 months ago

    It really doesn’t matter when, where or who you get your news from.
    If you do not check yours and their sources and establish when and where THEY got their information you are wasting your time.
    I believe that more than 80% of ALL news news on the internet, and it could be 90%, is a reprint of PR releases from organizations that want you to see things their way.
    As long as the “General Public” continues to watch and accept “Filtered News” factual information will require the INDIVIDUAL to do their own research and seek out any Real Facts.
    I believe that this phenomenon has reached such a peak that most folks never get past headlines or sound bites.

  62. Chas3 months ago

    The American press is a corrupt agenda driven institution dismissive of the average American and his concerns. Members of the press are overwhelmingly elitist liberals who believe their job is to guide the legislative and social agenda in the direction they wish. I was a long time New York
    Times reader and CNN viewer, but as those media sources became less trustworthy and more agenda driven I changed my news consuming habits. Thankfully today with talk radio FOX news and the Internet I have many choices about where to gather news and information? Rather than spending so much time worrying why the Fox news Channel is popular the press needs to ask itself how they lost people like me as readers and viewers

    1. eb ward3 months ago

      If you like your opinions handed to you, Fox is the place. Fox will massage, twist, spin, doctor and create out of whole cloth all the news you want to hear. Fox remains the primary source of the recession.

      1. SCP083 months ago

        EB – All cable & network news spoon feed their audiences nowdays and push an agenda. So really what you have a problem with is Fox News pushing a non-liberal agenda. As Mendo said, use multiple outlets and research their sources to get to the truth. Perhaps if you did that a little, you would realize just how absurd you sound blaming a single cable news station as the PRIMARY source of the recession.

    2. Rex3 months ago

      You gotta be trollin me.