Quote from: kit saginaw on January 16, 2016, 11:07:19 PM
FOX's ad-revenue allows them to keep more foreign news-bureau HQ's open while the established networks have had to close theirs.  Which means more correspondents can be choppered-into the action quicker. 

Viewers get it.  Subconsciously over time, as well.

So Malkin is essentially illuminating that her base would prefer not to be universally informed.  FOX wouldn't bother funding so many foreign bureaus if they simply wanted to advance a domestic agenda. 

They'd save money by doing what the older networks have been doing the last dozen years... cloning Reuters and Associated Press reports.

What difference does it make when in the end, the message is that of the left from FOX?

Quote from: mrclose on January 16, 2016, 05:51:18 PM(This is an old list and should probably be updated)

Yes you should update it.  Half those people are gone and the others aren't hosts but occasionally show up as guests, usually pitted against a conservative (which I hate).  I really dislike putting two talking heads of opposite views on at the same time.  You get a lot of talking over each other, and the time slots are so small they never make a point, which leaves both the guests and the viewers frustrated.

Quote from: carlb on January 16, 2016, 05:55:19 PM
The ONLY time I watched Fox was when Beck was on. Haven't seen it since.

Different strokes. To me, Beck was like The Trumpster, a charlatan and big bag of wind, but that is just me. I rank both right there with 'Fools RUSH in'.

Quote from: Shooterman on January 17, 2016, 09:17:30 AM
Different strokes. To me, Beck was like The Trumpster, a charlatan and big bag of wind, but that is just me. I rank both right there with 'Fools RUSH in'.

Beck...?   Nooo...... he's never stuck his finger into the political wind and jumped on an a political trend to make a buck, has he?
Was the radio talk-show host character in the Omega Man representative of Beck, or was that before his time?  The similarities are striking.

Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2016, 07:31:04 AM
What difference does it make when in the end, the message is that of the left from FOX?

The other 4 networks haven't figured it out.  They've lost ad-revenue by injecting leftist-messaging.  So they've stopped taking risks.   

This doesn't answer your question, but

http://www.poynter.org/2007/globe-closes-foreign-bureaus-to-save-jobs-in-boston-newsroom/80390/

I'm not sure that local papers need to cover global events, says Jack Welch, who wants to own the Globe.

Malkin's base needs to link-to a FOX news-story that demonstrates why they're fed-up.  -Because it won't be an international one.   

Quote from: kit saginaw on January 17, 2016, 09:56:45 AM
The other 4 networks haven't figured it out.  They've lost ad-revenue by injecting leftist-messaging.  So they've stopped taking risks.   

This doesn't answer your question, but

http://www.poynter.org/2007/globe-closes-foreign-bureaus-to-save-jobs-in-boston-newsroom/80390/

I'm not sure that local papers need to cover global events, says Jack Welch, who wants to own the Globe.

Malkin's base needs to link-to a FOX news-story that demonstrates why they're fed-up.  -Because it won't be an international one.   

Like I said earlier, it's not so much what FOX reports, it's what they don't report that helps the Lib/Establishment with their messaging.
A real Conservative news network would expose the commie agenda behind OWS, BLM etc, instead of treating it like news, because it's not, it's pure leftist propaganda.

Quote from: Shooterman on January 17, 2016, 09:17:30 AM
Different strokes. To me, Beck was like The Trumpster, a charlatan and big bag of wind, but that is just me. I rank both right there with 'Fools RUSH in'.

The problem I have with Beck, is that he seems to think, we should be implementing the Bible as the law of the land. He likes to always try to mix politics with religion.

Both Beck, as well as a great many of his fans, fail to recognize is that a theocracy, whether it's muzzie theocracy such as that in Iran, or Christian theocracy as we used to have in Europe during the inquisition for example, is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing.

Theocracies are systems of government which always, in history, lead to the trampling by the state government, of the freedoms and basic human rights of the governed.

This is why, the framers of our nation, rejected the idea of a theocracy of any sort in the U.S. And created a clearly defined divide between religious power and authority, and the power and authority of the state.

You cannot claim out one side of the mouth to support the Constitution as Beck does. While out the other side of your mouth, pushing for theocratic rule also. As Beck does.

The two are wholly incompatible, by design.

Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
One America News!!!
(616 Verizon Fios)

Yeah, and I can't watch it.

Quote from: daidalos on January 17, 2016, 12:47:50 PM
The problem I have with Beck, is that he seems to think, we should be implementing the Bible as the law of the land. He likes to always try to mix politics with religion.

Both Beck, as well as a great many of his fans, fail to recognize is that a theocracy, whether it's muzzie theocracy such as that in Iran, or Christian theocracy as we used to have in Europe during the inquisition for example, is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing.

Theocracies are systems of government which always, in history, lead to the trampling by the state government, of the freedoms and basic human rights of the governed.

This is why, the framers of our nation, rejected the idea of a theocracy of any sort in the U.S. And created a clearly defined divide between religious power and authority, and the power and authority of the state.

You cannot claim out one side of the mouth to support the Constitution as Beck does. While out the other side of your mouth, pushing for theocratic rule also. As Beck does.

The two are wholly incompatible, by design.

You are mischaracterizing him completely. He wants the government out of religion as much as anyone. He just advocates for people to find commonality in their Christian values and to form their political views accordingly. That Christianity should have a voice in the public sphere is contradicted nowhere in the Constitution.

One exception that I don't like is that he advocates for bringing in Christian refugees from the middle east in large numbers. He has a right to advocate for it of course, but Christian charity is what you do with your own money and resources -- you have no right to burden the general public with your notion of charity.

Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
One America News!!!
(616 Verizon Fios)

OANN? One America News Network?
There are not many cable systems that carry that channel.

Not to be confused with One News Now,
a news outlet operated by the American Family Association.
They're pretty good, too.

Quote from: daidalos on January 17, 2016, 12:47:50 PM
The problem I have with Beck, is that he seems to think, we should be implementing the Bible as the law of the land. He likes to always try to mix politics with religion.

Both Beck, as well as a great many of his fans, fail to recognize is that a theocracy, whether it's muzzie theocracy such as that in Iran, or Christian theocracy as we used to have in Europe during the inquisition for example, is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing.

Theocracies are systems of government which always, in history, lead to the trampling by the state government, of the freedoms and basic human rights of the governed.

This is why, the framers of our nation, rejected the idea of a theocracy of any sort in the U.S. And created a clearly defined divide between religious power and authority, and the power and authority of the state.

You cannot claim out one side of the mouth to support the Constitution as Beck does. While out the other side of your mouth, pushing for theocratic rule also. As Beck does.

The two are wholly incompatible, by design.

What's bad about a theocracy is that
church and state are combined (effectively, if not actually) into one institution.
The theocrat imagines himself to be in the place of God,
and usually assumes power that should be reserved for God.

The Bible contains many valuable lessons
that should be considered when drafting our laws.

The Bible itself states that the Law that God gave to Moses
was meant to be temporary,
an instructor to prepare the way for Christ.
(That's the main point of the book of Hebrews.)

But the Law still contains many valuable insights on
how to govern carnal minded people
(as opposed to spiritual minded people,
who would have no need for any law.)

Check out almost any FOX opinion program. You're starting to see what you see on all MSM opinion programs. The conservative sits and quietly  listens to the point the Libtard is making. Then it comes the turn of conservative to reply - and the Libtard immediately leaps in to interrupt him/her, talk over him/her, or make faces, noises and roll their eyes while the conservative speaks.

Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 02:19:01 PM
Solar

I have Verizon Fios but I wanted to find a way for folks like you who don't have OAN on their cable to watch it.

I found yiptv which streams OAN live.

Just to allay any worries, I signed up for their free account to see if there were any catches or if OAN was really free.
Good news .. It is free and it does work.

I used a throwaway email and a phony cell phone# .. along with a phony member name to sign up.

I have the channel (OAN) streaming now in a separate window.

The basic account is free, has 18 free channels whereas the premium membership (Which I don't need) has a whole lot more.

https://www.yiptv.com/live-tv/index.php/en/

No, I have limited bandwidth, I can't stream anything.

Quote from: mrclose on January 17, 2016, 03:33:44 PM
Well Geeze Solar .. come on over to the house!
(I have beer in the fridge)

Hell, it's an hours drive to the nearest free hotspot, and I highly doubt they want my 40" monitor and PC set up in the library.
It's one of the sacrifices I happily make not having to deal with city dwellers.

Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2016, 03:41:34 PM
Hell, it's an hours drive to the nearest free hotspot, and I highly doubt they want my 40" monitor and PC set up in the library.
It's one of the sacrifices I happily make not having to deal with city dwellers.

Yeah, it's One America.  I've only watched a snippet of it, so my memory put up Politics One when I tried referencing it here. 

Quote from: Solar on January 17, 2016, 10:55:09 AM
Like I said earlier, it's not so much what FOX reports, it's what they don't report that helps the Lib/Establishment with their messaging.
A real Conservative news network would expose the commie agenda behind OWS, BLM etc, instead of treating it like news, because it's not, it's pure leftist propaganda.

Nah, it isn't.  People are smarter than to be bamboozled by a pure leftist propaganda model, long-term in scope. 

More people are better aware of the Soros/MoveOn/American Communist Party backing OWS because of FOX. 

As far as BLM, I boycott outdoor or survivalist shows if a host makes 'mankind caused global-warming' comments.  I never hear global-warming messaging in FOX disaster/weather-reporting.  Private-property seizures tend not to be National stories.  But they do tend to be echo-chambers in the cases of standoffs and court-hearings. 

We used to have a show here, Michigan Outdoors, which always devoted 5-to-10 minutes toward County/State/Federal land-shenanigans.  I hope California has a similar model.  Exposing the general corrosiveness of the BLM is better suited to local coverage.