ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 6
< 12345 6 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Tucker Carlson’s Show Is Bleeding Advertising Money
RodeoPants2 09:52 PM 04-07-2019
Originally Posted by :
Last December, Tucker Carlson returned to one of his favorite kinds of segments on his Fox News show: railing against immigrants. As he's done many other times, he declared that immigration was an attempt by elites to hijack and corrupt U.S. culture, saying, "We have a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor, [our leaders] tell us, even if it makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided."
https://www.gq.com/story/tucker-carl...tisers-boycott
[Reply]
kcxiv 08:36 PM 04-08-2019
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
:-) Take away the airports and gym's where CNN is the only choice and is forced fed...

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-...service/336396
CNN’s Ratings Will Now be Measured Outside the Home
unless they have a neislen box, then they dont count.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 08:54 PM 04-08-2019
Originally Posted by kcxiv:
unless they have a neislen box, then they dont count.
Not true... This was changed and the link's in an earlier post.
[Reply]
WhiteWhale 08:57 PM 04-08-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
Were you unaware of his own words?



Now shut the **** up.
I've never met a prepubescent 14 year old, and unlike you I was actually getting laid when I was young. Plus that IS the age of consent in quite a few 'progressive' european nations. In most states, the age of consent isn't 18. FYI. That's more for prostitution and porn... Plus since 18 is the age that an american actually gets (mostly) full rights it's just kinda natural we assume that as the official day of adulthood.

You should probably look up what 'peodophile' means.

I know I have to KEEP pointing this out to leftists, but words mean things. Stop just arbitrarily expanding the definition of words. There are 14 year old's who look 22 and 22 year olds who look 14 in reality. Not gender specific either. There are no 10 year olds who look 18. Kids go through changes at a certain time in their lives... I'm sure your mommy explained this to you.

Also, just to point this out for fun... can we all recall Bubba is the guy whom's wife Hulk Hogan was banging in that sex tape fiasco?
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 09:08 PM 04-08-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
You just keep doubling down on the dumb.

First off, cite your bullshit claim of 98%. Made up number is made up. Like I said, it's still only 3% of their total numbers.

Second, your article was from 2017. The numbers I posted were from 2018, so the increase would be included in those numbers.

Third, you posted the increase from the Mueller investigation. That was how much all viewership was bumped, not just one network.

Hey sore thumb...

Answer how many airports you've been in that shows something other than CNN? How many other public spaces? Even you are smart enough to figure out they get almost all of the prime time news bump of 3%+ for outside the home viewing... And NO SHIT the article was from 2017, that's when Nielsen starting counting these "hostage" viewers... AND NO SHIT they were included in 2018, this was my original point, their numbers are skewed because of this dynamic. The numbers are correct, but they are counting 3%+ or more viewers that cannot choose to turn the channel or watch anything else. GET IT! Despite the added bump, Tucker and the rest of Fox are kicking CNN and MSNBC's Asses in prime time since the Mueller report. A lot of your cohorts got their bubble burst and realize the scam that was fed to them every night and choose not to watch. You are too stupid to realize it yet. Hint: NO ONE AROUND TRUMP WAS INDICTED FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIAN COLLUSION or will be per Mueller himself... But Barr... Some of the dolts will return when they are promised tax returns or a secret file from Cohen... The logical thinkers quit watching, you, Thumb boy, are a different story... Can you still read the recall or Prev CH on your remote?
[Reply]
Easy 6 04:17 PM 04-09-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
You make it sound like "The Left" is some entity with an agenda. Media Matters is on the left, but they do their own thing.

It would be like me asking why the right has groups like the Proud Boys out running around.



Judicial Watch?
But it remains true that there isn't a corresponding group on the right that specifically targets people they don't like, and the businesses that support them with very coordinated harassment/boycott campaigns

The right isnt trying to shut you, or anyone else, up... and no, that definitely is not what JW does
[Reply]
scho63 03:08 PM 04-10-2019
The only thing "bleeding" are all the crazy vaginas on the Loony Left who are in a World of trouble and pain.

You are going to be squashed like bugs on a windshield, deservedly so.
[Reply]
Jim Hammer 04:14 PM 04-10-2019
Originally Posted by Easy 6:
But it remains true that there isn't a corresponding group on the right that specifically targets people they don't like, and the businesses that support them with very coordinated harassment/boycott campaigns

The right isnt trying to shut you, or anyone else, up... and no, that definitely is not what JW does
JW targets liberals with lawsuits, so it's not exactly like MM.

As for similar media watchdogs on the right, a little Googling led me to Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 05:32 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
You're right. AOC gets WAY more coverage from EVERYONE than Palin did.

PLEASE stop acting like the coverage of her ridiculous behavior is a one sided thing. The regressive left LOVES her. Conservatives love her more because she's a poster child for progressive socialist stupidity. They're trying to frame her as the face of the democratic party and it's not out of fear.Liberal democrats are, unsurprisingly, mostly embarrassed by her.

I've noticed this pattern where leftists make a big deal of something and if/when it blows up in their face the narrative suddenly becomes "Conservatives make a big deal about nothing!"

It's so redundant at this point.
It's one sided and it's not even close.

Fox mentions Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 42 days running – 3,181 times

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...&ICID=ref_fark
[Reply]
Easy 6 05:56 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
JW targets liberals with lawsuits, so it's not exactly like MM.

As for similar media watchdogs on the right, a little Googling led me to Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media.
You’re skipping right past the point, Jim

No one is trying to shut down liberal media outlets, the same can’t be said in reverse
[Reply]
Jim Hammer 09:17 AM 04-13-2019
Originally Posted by Easy 6:
You’re skipping right past the point, Jim

No one is trying to shut down liberal media outlets, the same can’t be said in reverse
Those examples I gave do the exact same thing as Media Matters.
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 09:46 AM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
It's one sided and it's not even close.

Fox mentions Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 42 days running – 3,181 times

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...&ICID=ref_fark
Doesn't even come close to the "Stalin 6"(CNN,MSNBC,NBC,ABC,CBS,NPR) going after Trump for collusion(with no evidence btw) for 2 1/2 years. How many times did they mention Trump's guilt that still is going on?? It will be an infinite number!!:-):-)
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 09:57 AM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
Those examples I gave do the exact same thing as Media Matters.
Conservatives do not have "on call" call centers on a moment's notice to immediately burn the phone lines up when a progressive politician or heck even a progressive citizen for that matter crosses the political line threatening their conservative agenda in hopes to shut their free speech UNLIKE your Progressive Dems WHO DO!! Truth be known you don't even have to speak as a conservative, you just give a particular facial look and you are toast! Just ask Nick Sandmann !!
[Reply]
Chiefshrink 10:01 AM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
Were you unaware of his own words?



Now shut the **** up.
So you are going to Alinsky Up here, huh????:-)
[Reply]
Easy 6 03:17 PM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Jim Hammer:
Those examples I gave do the exact same thing as Media Matters.
Those links don’t say anything about organizing boycotts of liberal media, conducting online harassment campaigns, or sending protesters outside their HQ

They point out what they believe to be bias, but do not seek to shut down those outlets or their various personalities, at least according to those links
[Reply]
WhiteWhale 07:07 PM 04-14-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
It's one sided and it's not even close.

Fox mentions Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 42 days running – 3,181 times

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...&ICID=ref_fark
Yeah, and if I want objective journalism I'm going to a british based communist rag like the ****ing guardian that cites media matters... an organization that literally does nothing but bitch about Fox News. I read the guardian specifically to know what radical left wing loons are talking about. I read it a lot. It's horrific.

1. It makes no mention how much she's referenced by any other media, so in terms of volume this proves nothing. This isn't surprising, as MM pretty much only polices one side.

2. Yeah, I'm not shocked that the AOC coverage from FOX is largely negative. It's crazy that an openly socialist nitwit is not praised by the right wing media arm. She's the poster child for idiots like you and they're going to treat her poorly.

So you're a ****ing retard. You cite a partisan rag using a partisan think tank to cry about negative coverage from an opposite side partisan TV network.

It's like you have no idea how worthless this is. You think it proves something.
[Reply]
Page 5 of 6
< 12345 6 >
Up