I don't normally write about developments in health and food, simply because you can never get experts to agree on anything. However, this article was passed onto me by a Canadian friend of mine, and I am astonished by the thought that pharmaceutical companies may pull the plug on this potentially ground breaking research, simply because there is no profit in it.
Surely, to deny potentially life saving research to continue, because of there being no profit in it, would be criminal, would it not?
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Monday, 15 January 2007
One from a bored story writer???
Okay, I admit, the Weekly World News is not your most trusted source of news. It is however quite often a good source for stories to go the Ridiculous News File. However, this one is refused entry to that file, on account of the fact that it goes beyond ridiculous, to somehwere around the "You Cannot Be Serious!" file.
According to the story, a parent disappeared during a game of peekaboo with her 10 month old son. Now, the location for this story is Worson, Delaware. That is kind of appropriate, because this is the WORSt ONe that I have ever seen from any of these Amercian tabloids. I am utterly convinced that some bored writer at the offices of Weekly World News made this one up. Then again, they always say the truth is stranger than fiction...
Friday, 12 January 2007
Graphically Unbalanced??? Looks like it.
Fox News Channel constantly advertise themselves as "Fair and Balanced", but the reality of these chyrons, or lower thirds, is quite different. Newshounds has the screenshots.
We Report, You Decide!
We Report, You Decide!
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
The battle heats up in US Cable News
I have been following the ratings battle between the major US cable news channels, and I have to say, I have never seen a night so competitive as Sunday 26th November 2006. The numbers as reported by Inside Cable News and TV Newser are incredible.
In what is usually refered to as the "money" demo, Adults 25-54 years old, in PrimeTime, MSNBC beat Fox News Channel tied for the number 1 spot by just 3,000 viewers (163,000 to 160,000) and CNN was just 28,000 viewers behind.
Looking inside to the individual hours, the picture is even more interesting in the 'money' demo. MSNBC won the 5pm hour with 164,000 viewers, compared to FNC's 137,000 and CNN's 132,000. The next hour was won by CNN with 208,000 viewers, compared to MSNBC's 111,000 and FNC's paltry 86,000.
Fox News took the 7pm hour, but the biggest surprise is that MSNBC won both at 8pm and 9pm. MSNBC had 186,000 and 192,000 with Fox getting 157,000 and 140,000, and CNN getting 73,000 and 162,000 viewers in each respective hour. This means that Planet Mancow ended up in 3rd place!
Fox then took the 10pm hour but the 11pm hour went again to MSNBC, and by quite a margin. 226,000 viewers watched MSNBC in that hour, compared to 137,000 watching Fox News and 92,000 watching CNN.
Even in total viewers, the ratings battle was closer than normal. FNC took the 5pm hour there by just 25,000 viewers (581,000 to 556,000). CNN took the 6pm hour by 115,000 viewers over Fox News (581,000 to 466,000). Fox took the 7pm hour emphatically (570,000 to CNN's 408,000) and held onto that through the 8pm hour (720,000 to MSNBC's 578,000).
However, they were beaten into third place by CNN (531,000) and MSNBC (499,000) in the 9pm hour. Fox restored their lead for the 10pm hour (491,000 to CNN's 409,000), but MSNBC took the 11pm hour (416,000 to FNC 336,000).
Even the prime-time total was closer than normal, with Fox winning by just under 50,000 viewers from MSNBC who were just 5,000 viewers ahead of CNN.
The Monday numbers are back to relative normality, although in the money demo, MSNBC was second to Fox News in primetime, with Headline News thrid and CNN relegated to 4th place. MSNBC came second in the 8pm, 9pm and 11pm hours with Headline News taking second in the 10pm hour. The total day money demo numbers were close too for the minor placings, with less than 25,000 viewers separating CNN, MSNBC and Headline News.
There's little doubt in my mind that the ratings in this particular race are going to be very interesting to watch and read. Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC are definitely going to be duking it out over the following weeks and months for dominance, and I will definitely be following developments in this story.
In what is usually refered to as the "money" demo, Adults 25-54 years old, in PrimeTime, MSNBC beat Fox News Channel tied for the number 1 spot by just 3,000 viewers (163,000 to 160,000) and CNN was just 28,000 viewers behind.
Looking inside to the individual hours, the picture is even more interesting in the 'money' demo. MSNBC won the 5pm hour with 164,000 viewers, compared to FNC's 137,000 and CNN's 132,000. The next hour was won by CNN with 208,000 viewers, compared to MSNBC's 111,000 and FNC's paltry 86,000.
Fox News took the 7pm hour, but the biggest surprise is that MSNBC won both at 8pm and 9pm. MSNBC had 186,000 and 192,000 with Fox getting 157,000 and 140,000, and CNN getting 73,000 and 162,000 viewers in each respective hour. This means that Planet Mancow ended up in 3rd place!
Fox then took the 10pm hour but the 11pm hour went again to MSNBC, and by quite a margin. 226,000 viewers watched MSNBC in that hour, compared to 137,000 watching Fox News and 92,000 watching CNN.
Even in total viewers, the ratings battle was closer than normal. FNC took the 5pm hour there by just 25,000 viewers (581,000 to 556,000). CNN took the 6pm hour by 115,000 viewers over Fox News (581,000 to 466,000). Fox took the 7pm hour emphatically (570,000 to CNN's 408,000) and held onto that through the 8pm hour (720,000 to MSNBC's 578,000).
However, they were beaten into third place by CNN (531,000) and MSNBC (499,000) in the 9pm hour. Fox restored their lead for the 10pm hour (491,000 to CNN's 409,000), but MSNBC took the 11pm hour (416,000 to FNC 336,000).
Even the prime-time total was closer than normal, with Fox winning by just under 50,000 viewers from MSNBC who were just 5,000 viewers ahead of CNN.
The Monday numbers are back to relative normality, although in the money demo, MSNBC was second to Fox News in primetime, with Headline News thrid and CNN relegated to 4th place. MSNBC came second in the 8pm, 9pm and 11pm hours with Headline News taking second in the 10pm hour. The total day money demo numbers were close too for the minor placings, with less than 25,000 viewers separating CNN, MSNBC and Headline News.
There's little doubt in my mind that the ratings in this particular race are going to be very interesting to watch and read. Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC are definitely going to be duking it out over the following weeks and months for dominance, and I will definitely be following developments in this story.
Sunday, 26 November 2006
Time to have some fun.
It's not all about politics and media here, we do like to have some fun, and WNBC New York have a couple of fun things on their My Weekend section.
Two particular slideshows caught my attention. One was the most annoying songs of all time, and the other was the most annoying celebrities. View both and see what you think.
Two particular slideshows caught my attention. One was the most annoying songs of all time, and the other was the most annoying celebrities. View both and see what you think.
Media Research Centre shoots itself in foot!
The Media Research Center says on its mission statement, "The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media." Then in describing their history, the say... "On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC)."
What they really want is a media with a conservative bias, like that of Fox News Channel. The trouble is, they don't seem to know how to present that. On their front page today (Sunday 26th November 2006) is a story with the headline, "Rather: FNC Biased, Gets White House Talking Points". However, what they have written below it, comes across as a slip up on their part, and really rather funny.
'Dan Rather, who doesn't recognize any liberal bias in himself or the mainstream media, was quick to see it on Fox News Channel, telling HBO's Bill Maher: "Fox News operates in at least a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know” and “we know that they get talking points from the White House."'
Dan Rather, seeing Liberal bias on the Fox News Channel??? I don't think so...
What they really want is a media with a conservative bias, like that of Fox News Channel. The trouble is, they don't seem to know how to present that. On their front page today (Sunday 26th November 2006) is a story with the headline, "Rather: FNC Biased, Gets White House Talking Points". However, what they have written below it, comes across as a slip up on their part, and really rather funny.
'Dan Rather, who doesn't recognize any liberal bias in himself or the mainstream media, was quick to see it on Fox News Channel, telling HBO's Bill Maher: "Fox News operates in at least a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know” and “we know that they get talking points from the White House."'
Dan Rather, seeing Liberal bias on the Fox News Channel??? I don't think so...
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Al-Jazeera English (formerly International) launches.
So, we finally have it, the launch of the English language version of Al-Jazeera. The website has been updated with a new look as well.
My early judgements, based upon what I have seen? Well, I can't say too much yet, as it is only the first day. But my first impression after watching the news, was that, whilst I felt informed and updated about certain stories, it didn't leave me feeling briefed.
Fox News leaves me the same way. I tend to feel like ormed about the current Republican/Conservative talking points, rather than briefed on the news.
On a related note, the anti-Fox News website Newshounds highlights the fact that AJE is available in the UK on Sky Digital, which is part of News Corp which also owns the Fox News Channel. The report alledges hypocrisy by News Corp, supplying the channel to the UK and Ireland on Sky Digital, whilst at the same time using Fox News to villify it and brand it a terrorist network.
Whilst the allegation might not be without some degree of merit, the truth of the matter is rather more complicated.
In the UK, Sky Digital is not allowed to refuse anyone carriage on their platform should they be asked to carry a channel, as long as the relevant fees are paid. So whatever Rupert may feel about Al-Jazeera, there is nothing that he can do to prevent it being broadcast in the UK.
Whilst the majority of Americans polled do not want the channel, there is nothing that says that couldn't change. I wonder when we will see the first cable operator decide to carry the channel in the US.
My early judgements, based upon what I have seen? Well, I can't say too much yet, as it is only the first day. But my first impression after watching the news, was that, whilst I felt informed and updated about certain stories, it didn't leave me feeling briefed.
Fox News leaves me the same way. I tend to feel like ormed about the current Republican/Conservative talking points, rather than briefed on the news.
On a related note, the anti-Fox News website Newshounds highlights the fact that AJE is available in the UK on Sky Digital, which is part of News Corp which also owns the Fox News Channel. The report alledges hypocrisy by News Corp, supplying the channel to the UK and Ireland on Sky Digital, whilst at the same time using Fox News to villify it and brand it a terrorist network.
Whilst the allegation might not be without some degree of merit, the truth of the matter is rather more complicated.
In the UK, Sky Digital is not allowed to refuse anyone carriage on their platform should they be asked to carry a channel, as long as the relevant fees are paid. So whatever Rupert may feel about Al-Jazeera, there is nothing that he can do to prevent it being broadcast in the UK.
Whilst the majority of Americans polled do not want the channel, there is nothing that says that couldn't change. I wonder when we will see the first cable operator decide to carry the channel in the US.
Monday, 6 November 2006
Viewpoint on video
Okay, here goes. The first video edition of Viewpoint is up and, if my HTML skills are up to it, should be embeded down below. If it isn't, then the link to the video will be.
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=4c08c4452371e6af9b1482c02b8f4ef2.1121416
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=4c08c4452371e6af9b1482c02b8f4ef2.1121416
Sunday, 5 November 2006
AIM thinks "Conservative" Fox News is turning "Liberal", but Newsbusters doesn't!
I sometimes wonder just how grounded in reality some of these political writers are, for about a second, then I remember I know the answer.
The Editor of the AIM Report, Cliff Kincaid, put out an article this week claiming that... "...the conservative Fox News Channel gave liberal Democrat Harold Ford another big boost on Wednesday night in his critical Tennessee Senate race."
Gee, Cliff. Thank you for confirming what many of us already knew, that Fox News Channel has a Conservative/Republican bias and is neither "fair" nor "balanced". But then, Cliff shocks us by telling us... "Just days before the election, however, Fox News seems to be doing all that it can do to push him over the finish line ahead of (Republican) Bob Corker. Fair and balanced? Not in this contest."
Is Cliff actually suggesting that the Fox News Channel is losing its Conservative bias and gaining a Liberal one?
The funny thing is, Cliff is the only columnist I've seen talking about this. Newsbusters, the blog of the conservative Media Research Center, hasn't mentioned anything about Fox News turning liberal and neither has the anti-Fox News site, Newshounds, which still accuses Fox News of trying to scaremonger voters into voting Republican in the upcoming mid-term elections.
I guess then that the jury still thinks that Fox News is conservative.
The Editor of the AIM Report, Cliff Kincaid, put out an article this week claiming that... "...the conservative Fox News Channel gave liberal Democrat Harold Ford another big boost on Wednesday night in his critical Tennessee Senate race."
Gee, Cliff. Thank you for confirming what many of us already knew, that Fox News Channel has a Conservative/Republican bias and is neither "fair" nor "balanced". But then, Cliff shocks us by telling us... "Just days before the election, however, Fox News seems to be doing all that it can do to push him over the finish line ahead of (Republican) Bob Corker. Fair and balanced? Not in this contest."
Is Cliff actually suggesting that the Fox News Channel is losing its Conservative bias and gaining a Liberal one?
The funny thing is, Cliff is the only columnist I've seen talking about this. Newsbusters, the blog of the conservative Media Research Center, hasn't mentioned anything about Fox News turning liberal and neither has the anti-Fox News site, Newshounds, which still accuses Fox News of trying to scaremonger voters into voting Republican in the upcoming mid-term elections.
I guess then that the jury still thinks that Fox News is conservative.
Viewpoint Extra: AL-Jazeera International - Do Conservatives want to see it?
Couple of things to add to my previous post about Conservatives and AJI.
First, the exceedingly right wing Accuracy In Media has two columns about the channel. Matthew Hickman's "Briefing" column uses all the traditional Republican/Conservative talking points about the channel, and Cliff Kincaid's Media Monitor column draws comparisons between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq and accuses Al-Jazeera of being a propoganda network.
On the other side of the coin, ForeignPolicy.com provides a more insightful analysis into the channel. Interestingly, it says that AJI is biased, but no more so than Fox News than CNN.
All news services have at least a small degree of bias, mainly in the choice of stories to cover and the angles those stories cover. However, Fox News Channel seems to have a greater degree of bias than most. They seem to have a complete editorial stance on everything. I have noticed in recent weeks that some so-called scandals featuring Democrats, which were low-priority stories really, got almost wall-to-wall coverage on FNC, whilst similar low-level so-called scandals concerning Republicans, were ignored. Now does that sound "Fair" and "Balanced" to you?
I personally am looking forward to the launch of AJI. Unlike the Republicans/Conservatives, I will not judge the channel, until I see its content.
First, the exceedingly right wing Accuracy In Media has two columns about the channel. Matthew Hickman's "Briefing" column uses all the traditional Republican/Conservative talking points about the channel, and Cliff Kincaid's Media Monitor column draws comparisons between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq and accuses Al-Jazeera of being a propoganda network.
On the other side of the coin, ForeignPolicy.com provides a more insightful analysis into the channel. Interestingly, it says that AJI is biased, but no more so than Fox News than CNN.
All news services have at least a small degree of bias, mainly in the choice of stories to cover and the angles those stories cover. However, Fox News Channel seems to have a greater degree of bias than most. They seem to have a complete editorial stance on everything. I have noticed in recent weeks that some so-called scandals featuring Democrats, which were low-priority stories really, got almost wall-to-wall coverage on FNC, whilst similar low-level so-called scandals concerning Republicans, were ignored. Now does that sound "Fair" and "Balanced" to you?
I personally am looking forward to the launch of AJI. Unlike the Republicans/Conservatives, I will not judge the channel, until I see its content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)