Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

America’s Trust In FOX News Dwindles

January 25, 2011 by  

America's Trust In FOX News DwindlesA new poll reveals that Americans trust PBS more than any other American network, while FOX News' credibility is on the decline.

According to Public Policy Polling's second annual TV News Trust survey, approximately 46 percent of respondents said that they didn't trust FOX News, which was 9 percentage points higher than last year. PBS, which wasn't included in the 2010 poll, received the most favorable response, with 50 percent saying that the network is trustworthy.

Although FOX News had the sharpest decline in credibility among the public, it also was the most trusted behind PBS — a total of 42 percent said that they trusted Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable news network.

Approximately 40 percent of respondents said that they trusted Ted Turner-owned CNN, while 43 percent said they did not trust the self-proclaimed "worldwide leader in news." Of the three major networks, NBC was the most trusted, followed by CBS and ABC.

According to the New York Post, both FOX News and CNN are talking with former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele about becoming a paid contributor. Last week, Steele was ousted from his leadership post by Reince Priebus, the former GOP leader in Wisconsin.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “America’s Trust In FOX News Dwindles”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • JeffH

    Personally, I’ve never heard of them. Public Policy Polling is an American Democratic Party affiliated polling firm founded by a progressive businessman named Dean Debnam based in Raleigh, NC.
    “Debnam business offers progressive candidates an inexpensive way to do polling, targeting, mailing lists and telephone canvasses.”

    • Robert Smith

      Actually Jeff, they are extremely accurate. That is the ultimate goal of polling, not just simply getting answers to slanted questions.

      You can check it out at:

      They must be asking the right questions to see who is going to win.


      • kate8

        Robert S – Says you? Where do you get your authority to speak on the accuracy of any polls?

        I wouldn’t believe in them. All polls are for is to influence politicians and the people, too.

        • Ray

          Unless YOU agree with the results it must be suspicious. Give me a frickin’ break.

    • EddieW

      Therefore they will skew the results to show what they want them to show!! CNN trustworthy…since when?? They lost about 30,000 viewers in one day because of their lies!!! I know FOX don’t tell all the news!! Especially important news that their advertisers wouldn’t like…gets scratched!!! They follow the money!!! Greed does that to people!!! It is now official…Obaba was not born in Hawaii, yet no liberal will believe it!!! Which news org will publish this? All Barracjk Channel(ABC) sure won’t!!!

  • http://deleted Claire

    I have watched PBS news. I don’t have a problem with them. Polls are polls. It always depends on who/what is conducting these polls.

    • Jana

      Exactly Clair,
      The proof is in the ratings.

  • jessica

    I like Fox. They hit both sides of the news pretty well.

    • Norm

      By both sides do you mean the extreme right and the other extreme right?
      Hannity, Oreilly, Beck, Stossel, Napalitano, Wallace, Hume, — now that’s balance!

      • Brad

        You bedt Normy,

        Fox news hits it from both the left and the right. Fox news interviews from the extreme right to include commentary from the extreme left, so what’s your point!

        That’s right you don’t have one, the only thing you know how to do is bash someone’s post, next time bring something worth while to the site.

        • Dope

          Brad wheres your evidence? how do you know thats true??
          Unlike you, there are many articles….including New Yorks Time….that state that Fox news only hit the extreme right and doesnt even bother to notice the extreme left.

          • Robert Morrow

            To Dope; I have 82 years in my life and have not trusted any news media in years. Especially the New York Times. It seems that none ever get the stories straight. I read, listen and hear what is going on, then I research to find the difficult, to find the truth. Most all News Media only show what they want you to see and only the worse of the happening. Watch carefully and some time they slip and scan outside the area of focus and show some of the truths. Personally I think that Fox does a pretty good job and better then most, yet I do not fully trust. If the story is not big it will not be covered. Hell they cannot even get the weather correct. I have a story that is never covered. The FDA. I will give you a quote covering the FDA. A statement by Herbert Ley, M.D., Former FDA Commissioner. Quote,”THE THING THAT BUGS ME IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THE FDA IS PROTECTING THEM. IT ISN’T. THE FDA IS PROTECTING THE PROFITS OF THE CORPORATIONS THAT PAY US AND THE POLITICIANS!”. Where is the news media, your corrupted elected official or newly elected Messiah on this subject? No where, as they are to busy getting their 30 pieces of Silver and allow FDA to approve poison drugs and food toxic that murder 200,000 a year. So, let question a government Agency FDA, FTC and the like and ask just why your corrupt Senators just increased the dictatorial powers to increase the PROFITS of the Pharmaceutical. There is more but space it limited, but if you want to do something useful stop the killing for profit.

      • The Blue Collar Man

        We have a gun fight going on. And you brought what???

    • kate8

      jessica – Like I’ve said many times before, it’s not what FoxN reports. It’s what they DON’T report on. There are issues and topics that are off-limits for all news outlets, including Fox. That only proves that they are all equally controlled.

      That being said, Fox does offer views from both sides, in spite of what the libs contend. But then, they prefer the solidly leftist MSM.

    • Peter

      Jessica, with apologies to no-one, and a very clear statement that I am neither GOP nor Dem, let me point out as kindly as I can that there is not one honest, unbiased journalist reporting on matters emanating from either house or the Whitehouse, or on any other matter of public interest! Nor is there an honest politician in either house!
      Fact: In any business, the owner never employs anyone who doesn’t agree with their ethos, therefore, liberal media owners (like CNN) employ liberal trained ‘journalists’ (I use the term very lightly), who are well trained in putting a liberal bent on every story, while appearing to present both sides. Conservative media (like Fox) employ conservative ‘journalists’ to do the same thing from the other side of the coin.
      Like the politicians, there is not one honest, unbiased ‘journalist’ reporting anything these days. No journalist presents an open, honest appraisal of both sides of any issue. By simple but devious acts of emphasis or omission, they all subtly convince the public that their presentation of the issue is ‘correct’.
      It then falls to you and me, the public, to display our own integrity by searching out the truth for ourselves. By that I mean not just reading or viewing material from one side, but investigating every available source of information on a subject, so you can find the real truth somewhere in the middle of all the spin and hype.
      Fact: All politicians receive donations from either the corporate world, the unions or both. The donors don’t do so for nothing, they want a serious return on their investment. BO has disappointed many, so guess what? Millions of dollars is pouring into GOP campaign coffers from corporate & insurance interests. In the US it’s called donations. In any other situation it would be called what it is – bribery and corruption. On both sides of politics folks, America is for sale to the highest bidder. None of them are honest.
      Folks, both sides rely heavily on the fact most Americans won’t bother to do their own research. Most citizens act more like sheep than intelligent human beings unfortunately. An old adage says, “2% of people think; 3% of people think they think, and 95% of people would rather die than think”. This is what politicians and the media (all of it) rely on.

  • Warrior

    Glenn Beck still ROCKS!

    • Dwayne

      Yes! Rock on Glenn Beck, I love FOX “KKK” network LOL

      • Dagney

        KKK? Why are you referencing a Democrat party group when mentioning FOX? Yes, Fox does give equal time but they have nothing to do with a group that was formulated to intimidate and threaten black people to vote Democrat. So, where is the connection?

        • eddie47d

          That’s old news Dagney;The liberal Kennedys drove the KKK out of the Democrat Party 50 some years ago. Good Riddance to that bunch of hooligans.

          • JUKEBOX

            I guess that’s why the late Robert Byrd died as a democrat.

        • LeRoy Z.

          Dagney…you’re saying the KKK was formed to get blacks to vote Democrat???!!!

          • Karolyn

            Whoa! That sure is out in left field, huh? The KKK was formed to keep the black man down and out of the picture.

          • kate8

            Karolyn – True, it was. It is also true that it was made of of southern Democrats who were angered by the freeing of slaves.

            Check history. The Republican party was formed FOR the freed slaves, and they were all Republican until JFK hijacked their votes by making a deal with MLK. Pure opportunism.

            And how far the democrat party has fallen since the days of JFK and MLK. They simply resurrected slavery in a new form.

          • libertytrain

            “The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee by veterans of the Confederate Army. Although it never had an organizational structure above the local level, similar groups across the South adopted the name and methods. Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States As a secret vigilante group, the Klan focused its anger reacted against Radical Republicans and sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing Republican voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.”

          • JeffH

            Thanks kate8 and libertytrain. Sometimes it is important to refresh the history of America and get it right.

        • Bill

          Anybody that can get Barry angry enough to ban them, is okay in my book. Fox tells it like it is, that is why they are targeted by the current administration.They do not kowtow to Barry, like their competitors. Keep up the good work FOX!

      • http://Persoanllibertydigest Jim

        Comments like that prove you are a nut, and truly fit into a category of people who want to inject hate not fact into every discussion– Glen Beck is an honorable man and you sir are not

    • Kinetic1

      Glen Beck is not news. Beck, just like O’Reilly, Hannity and the rest is a commentator and as such is not limited to reporting facts. News broadcasts are supposed to refrain from reporting anything other than the facts of a case, unless they specifically announce that they are offering opinion on a subject. I wish shows like Beck’s or Ed Schultz’s would start with a disclaimer reminding people of this fact.

    • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

      hahaha…yeah, I would have to imagine that Glenn Beck *does* rock…

      …slowly, back and forth, while sitting at home alone in his basement, clutching a stuffed toy from his childhood, and wearing a tin-foil hat, as he coos like a pigeon in between maniacal cackling…

      Yup, the FAUX ‘news’ empire is beginning to crumble, and I’m sure their ‘establishment’ overlords are not happy about this.

      What FAUX ‘news’ needs now is a scandal or crisis that they can try to blame on Barack HUSSEIN Obama, in hopes that the sheeples will come back to listen again.

      • JeffH

        Dogma, I see you’re still drinking that Marxist holy water.

      • Robert Smith

        Dogma says: “I would have to imagine that Glenn Beck *does* rock…”

        I actually saw Huckabe playing with the Ventures on TV one night. His politics suck, but he can play.


      • JUKEBOX

        The 50% that trust PBS are the same myrmidons that believe every lie that Obama tells them. The only true things Obama has said is that he is going to spread the wealth around, to his friends and supporters, and that he is going to fundamentally transform America, for the worse.

    • Norm

      I’m afraid that Beck is off his rocker.

      • Brad

        Norm I’d sujest you fact check your comment’s, you might find Beck is right, all the time!

        • Norm

          Count your cards. You’re not playing with a full deck.

          • smilee

            with rocks for brains he probably can’t count cards either but if he could he would be missing a few

        • Bill


          He is, they just can’t stand to be called out on the carpet,or have their messiah exposed for the fraud that he is.

    • Ray

      You’re right. He Rocks…back and forth in his delusional stupor.

    • barbm

      glenn beck sucks. he sabotaged the tea party pick for texas gubernatorial candidate, debra medina. i’ll never listen to him or trust him or palin again. they both threw their support behind rino rick perry.

      • http://deleted Claire

        barbm—I have friends in Texas, they have told me the exact same thing.

    • http://deleted Claire

      He rocks alright, with a few stones thrown in for balance.

    • mythbusting
    • mythbusting

      Just think “WWF”. It’s fake. Take the good guy and the bad guy and pit them against each other in the spotlight. Spend your time, energy and money watching them battle it out. When it’s over, you’re lighter in the pockets, cannot get back the time spent “doing useless things”, and the two in the ring–or on the “news”–go sit down to dinner and talk about how to make it look better next time to convince even more mindless lemmings.

      All that you needed to know to fight to regain this Constitutional Republic happened leading up to April 19th, 1775. Keeping a Republic is exhausting, and the media is more than happy to distract all of us from even caring about what is necessary and our absolute responsibility to KEEP our Republic.

      Go attend an AppleSeed one weekend; get into a Badnarik class on the Constitution; read “Paul Revere’s Ride”, “1776″, and “Leave Us Alone”; educate yourselves on Isaac Davis, Samuel Whittemore, Hezekiah Wyman, Samuel Prescott, David Lamson, John Parker for starters.

  • Ron

    If PBS has the most credibility we are truly doomed, as common sense left town a long time ago.

    • lbw6303

      Roger That!! Talk about left leaning and biased, they don’t even fake it very well any more.

      • Harold Olsen

        They don’t fake it at all. They are openly biased. That is the ONLY nice thing I will EVER say about PBS. It’s Fox, CNN and MSNBC who pretend NOT to be biased, not to mention the three broadcast networks. Of them, Fox is the only one I ever watch and even that is rarely.

  • http://google SUNBUM

    Sorry, after 76 years of seeing what democrats and unions have done to this country, I have no respect for what they say or do. this would include any survey they might run. I can say this. the only thing stopping them from taking over our country is fox news, And the Internet.

    • smilee

      Your hatred of Democrats and Union sure has damaged you thought processing abilities, hate will do that to a person you know

      • JeffH

        There’s that hate word being used over and over again by a liberal. It’s very obvious that you liberals have cornered the market on hate. I didn’t see SUNBUM make any references about hate, but he did say he had lost respect…lets see, hmmm…not even close!

        Definition for hate
        - dislike somebody or something intensely: to dislike somebody or something intensely, often in a way that evokes feeli…
        - have strong distaste for something: to have strong distaste or aversion for something, somebody, or something that ha…
        - feeling of intense hostility: a feeling of intense hostility toward somebody or something

        -Lack of respect, esteem, or courteous regard.

  • jimmy joe

    If you have watched shows like bill o’reilly in the last two years,shepherd smith,round table discussion shows with those like charles krauthammer.And we can’t leave out geraldo che’rivera.All have literlly become more like msnbc.when it comes to brownnosing president obama.Especially O’reilly,and krauthammer.Who seem like slobbering groupies when it comes to this president of every country but america,and israel.At the same time liberal republicans who pose as conservatives.spend every broadcast trying to destroy the credibility.Of true constitutional conservatives such as sarah palin.I never heard the same animosity,and mocking.when the community organizer was running for president.John”Patti hearst”McCain,Hillary”I rode my husbands coattails to the top”Clinton,Al sharpton,Carol mosely braun,Dennis kucinich,John edwards,Al gore,John”I’m just a Gigalo,Who sided with communist viet cong,against our military,and america”Kerry.These might be some of the reasons for the decline of fox news.Why hasn’t there been an investigation of this whitehouse trying to intimidate roger ailes to fire glen beck,and sean hannity.Because the republicans in congress are spineless.As well obama zombie lapdogs as well.Especially the senate republicans.Minus a few like jim demint.

  • Gene

    PBS does not tell both sides. They only say what they are being told to say by those who pay them. Kinda like NPR. Polls are always slanted in the direction of those who pay for the polling data.

    • home boy


    • Karolyn

      Do you ever listen to NPR? I listen every day at work and in my car and always hear people from both sides of any issue being interviewed. Today was really good because they had people calling from all political persuasions regarding the State of the Union Address, including a woman who is a mucky muck with the Tea Party Patriots. I get the best conservative information on NPR from people who sound like they know what their talking about, not like many conservatives here who can only blast everybody else.

      • kate8

        Karolyn – Hold on there, now. The only blasting I see here is in response to the nasty comments from the Left.

        In fact, the only reason for Leftys to even post on this site is to blast the writers and posters, who tend toward conservative.

        But then, we’ve had this discussion before.

        • Karolyn

          Kate – You can’t tell me you haven’t seen the foul language despicable language that comes out of some of these people’s mouths. And I’m not talkin’ about the childish stuff. Recently there was one guy who had patriot in his name who was out and out totally vulgar and disgusting.

          • kate8

            Karolyn – I don’t see any reason for vulgarity ever, from Left, Right or Middle. If someone engages in crudeness, it damages credibility and only speaks to that person’s lack of taste and class.

            The issue, though, was your claims of blasting from the Right. You didn’t mention degrees of such blasting. All I was saying was that, since most of us generally agree with the journalists here, the blasting comes first from your camp. What comes from the Right is in response.

  • Larry Alexander

    I have coffee cup proof of PBS and NPR contributions,until Cokie Roberts left and the interminable anti Bush rants started ,with no retort.
    Then they drove out the pseudo conservative brought in to provide some journalistic balance ,and I quit them.
    They can’t handle the facts ,absent distortion or re definition.
    They still have the best music!That’s something.

  • Raggs

    Polls… HUH.. Just yet another tatic of the progressive to silence ANY opposition. It’s called propaganda / lies.

    • eddie47d

      So are Republican polls honest? I’ve seen several that have come through the mail and they are dishonest/biased to the core.

      • JeffH

        eddie, polls are generally designed to get certain results,Republican or Democrat. Pointed questions get pointed answers. Dishonest? Maybe! Biased? Most Certainly.

        I believe that Rassmussen is probably the most honest, unbiased and accurate polling firm out there today.

        • http://deleted Claire

          JeffH– I am not being a smart ass but exactly who is behind Rasmussen polls? The guy himself?

          • JeffH

            Claire, From Wikpedia: Rasmussen Reports serves a large, well-informed and engaged audience that continues to grow. We have the largest online audience for public opinion data and a growing social media presence, with tens of thousands of Twitter followers and Facebook friends. During 2009, we passed Gallup to become the most searched-for source of public opinion information on Google.

            Scott W. Rasmussen is the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports. He is an American political analyst, author, speaker and independent public opinion pollster. Earlier in his professional life he co-founded the sports network ESPN, and is currently president of the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, where he resides. The Washington Post referred to him as “a driving force in American politics.” and the Wall Street Journal called him “America’s insurgent pollster”.

            Rasmussen’s 2010 book In Search of Self-Governance seems written from a personal viewpoint, including quotes like “Americans don’t want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. They want to govern themselves.” Rather than citing polling data, Rasmussen makes a case that America’s “historic commitment to self-governance is under assault by a governing clique revolving around Washington, D.C. and Wall Street” and argues that “unfortunately, even after more than 200 years of success, there is an urgent need to defend this most basic of American values.”

  • http://yahoo jowolo

    PBS is a joke and should not receive any public funding. If people dont recognize that FOX news gives the least biased news reporting, we are in a lot more trouble than I realize.

    • smilee

      I have noticed most closed minded people say that

  • tim

    PBS is biased and should have nothing to do with politics. All funding by us, the gov’t should be cut off until the political BS stops!! Soros throws all kinds of money into PBS and the crap starts all over. Get rid of gov’t funding!!!

    • Karolyn

      When will you guys get it that the budgets of PBS and NPR are primarily composed of private donations and grants. A very small postion comes from the gov.

      • independant thinker

        If a very small portion comes from the government then lets drop government support because they obviously do not need it. That money, while a comparitively small amount, can be used towards balancing the budget. Ya gotta start somewhere.

      • barbm

        25% to 30% of their budget comes from tax payers in one form or another. in 25005, their budget was $120 million, so we paid $30 million to $36 million. i get sick of hearing people say it’s “only.” how much does it have to be before it’s not “only” any more? our reps have been throwing around more zeroes than we can count til we’ve now accepted their throwing away of our dollars as “only.”

        • barbm

          2005!! :)

      • http://deleted Claire

        Karolyn—I don’t know anything about NPR but I DO KNOW that PBS is funded by donations. I watch Channel 12 Champaign/Urbana, Illinois—they are having telethons all the time, asking for donations for their PBS channel. PBS is not government funded to my knowledge. They are supported by public donations. I know this for a fact because I have donated before.

        • barbm

          from the huffington post, “PASADENA, Calif. — PBS chief Paula Kerger (KUR’-gur) says budget numbers tell the tale of how public TV is faring under the Obama administration, compared to that of former President George W. Bush.

          Kerger said that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s $430 million budget for this year was left intact by President Barack Obama, in contrast to the Bush administration’s repeated bids to reduce or eliminate the federal subsidy. Kerger says Congress countered Bush’s actions.

          The president and CEO of PBS told the Television Critics Association on Sunday, “I guess that says something,” adding that she’s hoping for $450 million next year.

          Federal money makes up about 15 percent of public broadcasting’s funding, with other sources including corporations and viewers.”

        • Karolyn

          Claire – All nonprofits get their money wherever they can – memberships, gov’t grants, private grants, private donations, etc. To my knowledge, PBS does receive government money via grants, meaning they have to apply every year.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Karolyn–Okay. I do know they have a lot of wealthy people that donate to their broadcasting. I like a lot of the animal-related documentaries, history, etc. And I watch their news on occasion.

      • LeRoy Z.

        Has anyone ever heard the adage, “It’s the principle of the thing”? Never mind the amount or size or whatever, it still rankles when I hear the ranting and raving of these idiots and know that I’m helping to fund their idiocy. It’s not right, the funding should stop.

      • smilee

        Thanks for telling them the truth, problem is they are not capable of recognizing the truth, their biases are to deeply ingrained

  • home boy

    i find it funny that beck is put down alot yet he is the only one that has down enough investagation and report all the communist working with obama. but maybe americans don’t care who is giving guidence to their president.

  • Jerry

    Fox is no longer fair and balanced and like the other networks has become a propaganda news agency. Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Batchelor and Erich Muller, to name a few, are the only sources of reliable news left in the United States.

    “Chinese Air Force Could Overwhelm Opponents”

    This, from David Fulghum of Aviation Week:

    War gaming, including an extensive simulation by Rand, has shown that the U.S. would generate a 6-1 kill ratio over Chinese aircraft, but the Americans would lose. Even if every U.S. missile destroyed an opponent, there would still be enough surviving attackers to shred U.S. tankers, command and control and intelligence-gathering aircraft, says Andrew Davies, program director for operations and capabilities, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in an interview with Aviation Week.

    “The reason [the U.S.] lost was because the Chinese sortie rates and persistence carried the day,” Davies says. “Any American aircraft was operating out of Guam or Okinawa because the airfields in Taiwan were taken out in the first half hour [of the conflict]. So [U.S.] time on station over the Strait is quite limited.”

    Another issue is where U.S. Navy aircraft would be based. “The issue that the U.S. has is, can the aircraft carrier get close enough to the fight?” Davies says. “The Chinese have been working since the [Taiwan] Strait crises of 1995-6 to deny the approaches to China to a carrier battle group.

    One other very interesting comment jumped off the page.

    Boosters of modern airpower hold up operations in Kosovo and Iraq as examples of how successful advanced technology is. But Davies questions whether pitting a handful of modern aircraft against minor military powers is a fair test.

    “That’s an awful lot of money being spent to be able to kick around third-rate countries,” he says. “The silver-bullet platforms are fantastic . . . where a small number of them can completely overwhelm a relatively small power. ”

    But when up against China, a small, high-tech force suddenly does not look as great.

    Uh huh. Quantity having a quality all its own, apparently. Who knew? The lack of land bases affects our ability to protect our allies and interests in the Western Pacific, how we could perhaps project power ashore to establish those bases, and whether or not we will be willing to risk our smallish number of CVNs to penetrate the Chinese ASBM envelope to get at the enemy. Sound familiar? Well, it should.

    What was it Mark Twain said? “History doesn’t really repeat itself. But it sure does rhyme.

    Are those in the Congress as concerned as we are of the potential threat the PRC posses to “To Overwhelm Opponents” in their quest for Asian military dominance and possibly world military dominance? Are these same politicians aware of the ability, capability or inability of the PRC’s principal opponent to deter, counter and defeat the PRC ambition/dream should they act on their ambitions? Rest assured should or when this occurs, the PRC’s comrades to the North, East and for a short distance Northwest, will eventually combine forces with the PLA in their crusade to overwhelm opponents.

    If our leaders are aware of the threat, why has the number of U.S. Navy combatants been allowed to decline to the lowest levels since the second decade of the 20th century? Why does the Secretary of Defense believe the United States Marine Corps operates under an antiquated amphibious doctrine with a proposal to eliminate the Marine Corps amphibious force thus allowing a reduction in force of over 20,000 Marines. Ludicrous.

    What our leaders should be concerned with, for example, are programs like the F-35 that far exceeds projected cost. Unacceptable, is the 382 billion dollars for 2,443 aircraft. The 2,443 F-35′s are very much needed in our military, what is not needed, is appalling and a disgrace and unacceptable is the 382 billion dollar price tag now placing the F-35 project in jeopardy of being jettisoned because of cost overrun.

    Responsible programs management within DOD is a must and those Admirals and Generals who fail to provide responsible leadership management must be held accountable for their failure to the service they lead and to the country whom they serve. We must, for every weapons platform retired or surveyed, have a replacement that exceeds the technology of that it replaced at a more efficient overall cost. If our leaders do not do this, we stand the risk of becoming “Overwhelmed By Our Opponents”.

    Not to put to fine a point on it, but lets remember that RAND is, for all intents, a USAF mouthpiece. Since said USAF really wants a future long range bomber, naturally the scenarios and assumptions they choose tend to lead to a real need for a future long range bomber.

    A few points to remember.

    In any cross strait scenario, the Taiwanese and, presumably any US forces, will be on the defensive, conducting sea and air denial, not sea or air control. So continuous control of the air and sea around Taiwan will not be required, at least initially. Only enough to deter and or stop the Chinese. How does this change things? Well for one, you can stand off at longer ranges and use pulses of power to deny the Chinese control of the sky, which is required for a successful attack, and eradicate them. Instead of reacting to waves of Chinese fighters, which they get to time, by standing and dying when you run out of ammo like in the RAND war game, you can role them back (using waves of US fighters), and then leave until the next time. Tough on the Taiwanese, but it works.

    Second, US Submarines get to sink Chinese invasion ships in droves. While you can argue that Chinese subs may be able to avoid detection, when we are on the offense, it would be a stretch to think that we can not find and sink surface ships when we are on the defense. They have to come to us, not the other way around. Even 5 or 6 SSNs could have a field day with the Chinese Navy. Given a few weeks, we could have far more than that available.

    While being somewhat like Plan Orange (which assumed the Philippines would fall and we would have to fight across the Pacific to retake it, it is far more like the initial defense of the Philippines with a few significant differences.
    1. The ability of the Asiatic fleet is operatically better, with dramatically more effective submarines against any invasion force. Additionally, the Taiwanese Navy has significant capabilities itself in sea denial.
    2. The USAF forces are both stronger compared to the threat and have the ability to be reinforced dramatically faster (as in we can reinforce them as opposed to 1941 when we could not).
    3. We have the ability to hold at risk the nation wanting to attack. While we may not want to or plan to, the US could easily deliver multiple thousands of cruise missiles if required in a very short period of time against virtually every military facility across the entirety of the China.
    4. Taiwan has a significant retaliatory ability of their own to hold the Chinese mainland at risk through missile attack, and it appears to be increasing. Given that most cross straight scenarios assume that China will attack Taiwanese air bases with massive missile attacks, you can figure the Taiwanese will be happy to fire back.

    So not to put to fine a point on it, it does not come down solely to a force on force air fight, as much as RAND would like to think it does. Nor is it a Navy versus Navy battle, a sub versus sub battle, or whatever.

    Look at it from China’s viewpoint.

    1. Taiwan has a pretty effective military that they have to neutralize.
    2. Taiwan has an unknown retaliatory capability that they could use against China. Would they attack military targets or economic and political targets?
    3. How would a Taiwan attack play to my neighbors, such as Japan? South Korea? Russia? India? others?
    4. How can I protect myself against a economic blockade which can be imposed with ease by the US?
    5. What would be the result of attacking Guam and other US bases in the area? Would the US retaliate by attacking bases (or even key infrastructure) throughout China?
    6. Are my cool plans to deploy “assassin’s mace” weapons going to work? Can I reliably predict what the enemy will do?
    7. Am I willing to lose my Air Force and Navy to take Taiwan?
    8. What will be the effect of forcibly reintegrating Taiwan on my own population?
    9. How will my troops fight? Last time I tried in 1978 it didn’t work out real well for me.

    And I could go on. Basically, there are a lot of known unknowns and probably quiet a few unknown unknowns. We face similar challenges, but we have the advantage of being on the defensive. We only have to deter the Chinese to accept the status quo.

    The whole arguments about a possible war with China remind me of the Soviet Admiral who was asked about how easy it was to not have to worry about protecting Aircraft Carriers. He responded, and I paraphrase, “The only thing more difficult to protecting a carrier is protecting against a carrier”.

    • Vigilant

      Please tell us all, in the name of sanity, exactly WHY you inserted that off-subject piece that has nothing to do with the thread of discussion?

      • JeffH

        …Vigilant, only his mother knows for sure…been wondering that myself…

        • Jerry

          JeffH and Vigilant you both are drones and are in dire need of an education. Only a mother could love two communist such as you two morons.

          • JeffH

            Jerry, are you just high or are you drunk?

          • Jerry

            JeffH are you retarded, an idiot stupid or all three? You moron.

          • JeffH

            Jerry, I see that you’re just another frustrated liberal.

  • Maranatha! Mark

    If PBS is gaining credibility as a “fair and unbias”, Obama truly has a chance at being re-elected in 2012. This country truly deserves Obama, the destruction his policies are about to plunge this country into.

  • David in Ma.

    I think this poll was taken at PBS, other people are too smart to say something like that.
    PBS is a government subsidized broadcasting network which is way past it’s time, all it is now is a government broadcasting system to spread the socialist propergander.
    Defund it and shut it down!

  • trp878

    I would take Fox over PBS anytime. PBS is govt. funded and is extremely Bias. After all even an animal knows “not to bite the hand that feeds them”.

    • Robert Smith

      Yup, don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

      For Fox that hand is corporate America, Big Pharma, and all the other nasty profiteers who have been stealing from Americans for decades.

      Why do you as one of the sheeple support such an outrage?


      • JeffH

        “Yup, don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

        For Fox that hand is corporate America, Big Pharma, and all the other nasty profiteers who have been stealing from Americans for decades.

        Why do you as one of the sheeple support such an outrage?”

        Rob, hate to say it but your position might be a bit backwards in regards of who are and are not the sheeple.

        Legislators in Washington are the nasty profiteers of corporate America and Big Pharma. It’s a well oiled machine not affected by different years and different administrations, they have all managed to reap their rewards from the corporate lobbyists. Just so we are clear, legislators make the laws and are comprised of Democrats, Republicans and all 3rd party legislators.

        According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2005 there were 2,326 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists. That amounts to 4.3 lobbyists for every member of Congress, and the drug companies spent $146,783,853 on their efforts. And the Center for Public Integrity reports that between 1998 and 2005, the industry spent over $675 million on federal lobbying — with the top twenty corporations and trade groups accounting for 70 percent of that spending.

        Throw in another $133 million in federal and state campaign contributions during that time period and some key jobs offered to members and their staffs, and it’s easy to see how Big Pharma gets such a stellar return on its lobbying investment (i.e. tens of billions of dollars in additional profits; a ban on the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada; and barring Medicare from negotiating bulk drug prices for seniors.) This is great news for them, and god-awful news for the rest of us who’d like to see a sane drug policy.

        They cannot do this without the blessings of Big Government.

      • JeffH

        RS, more recent info to digest…Since 1998, the pharmaceutical and health products industry industry has spent more than $1.6 billion on federal lobbying. Last year alone, it spent more than $234 million — a sum that translates into roughly $125,000 every hour that Congress was actually in session. Furthermore, in the first three months of 2009, it spent more than $66.5 million on these politicking efforts — or about $1.2 million a day that Congress has been open for business. And these figures are just a portion of their overall expenditures. They also spend big on advertising, research, polling and other efforts that don’t get classified as lobbying.

        In 2008 alone, they employed some 1,814 lobbyists — and 1,309 are on their payrolls through March. That is, 12 percent of all lobbyists perform work on behalf of pharmaceutical and health product companies.

        Moreover, one in five lobbyists employed by the pharmaceutical industry have morphed from public servant to private lobbyist through Washington’s “revolving door.” Thus, not only do these individuals bring with them strong advocacy skills, but many also boast thick Rolodexes, filled with connections from previous employment in the chambers of government itself. Former chiefs of staff, legislative directors, counsels, aides and even members of Congress often make compelling cases to government officials with whom they have relationships. And these relationships can also be crucial in obtaining a slice of a policymaker’s precious time to begin with.

        Remember the deal between the White House and Big Pharma during the Health Care debacle? Where was the transparency that was promised.

        “A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.” The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

        It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

        Again, if you want to toss some blame around remember that it is Big Government that is to blame. They(government)have the power to put a stop to all of this(corporate lobbying), but as long as there is corruption and greed in Washington it ain’t gonna happen.

  • Jim in TN

    I question the number of people that were polled (less that 1,000), and the sampling (Race and political leaning). They are a set-up to make their propaganda look good. They are misleading the American people.

    • Harold Olsen

      I’m curious as to who participated in this poll. It would not surprise me if they were PBS subscribers.


    Libs do struggle to tell you about everything thry don’t know….I am surprised these blowhards are not down on the street corners with megaphones expelling CO2 and polluting the air.

  • jimster

    I was going to comment but realized I had not watched PBS news for so long that I was not qualified to comment.

    • smilee

      Go ahead comment, I suspect few who criticize PBS on here ever listen to them either

  • Winnie

    I’ve always wondered about Fox news. I only watch the Sunday morning news with Chris something or other and he stinks. His round table people, especially the one sitting at the head of the table by the lady is such an arrogant guy. After watching the comedy show I watch Meet the Press and get some fresh air from tv land. I also enjoy the documentaries and Nature shows that PBS airs. I think I’ll start watching their political news if they have one.

  • http://mikekakish@remaxwest mkakish

    fox news is still the best news in usa,not cnn or other news

    • Ray

      NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

  • Daniel from TN

    I used to be a school math teacher. While studying statistics I explained to my students why polls are ineffective and, for the most part, should be ignored.
    Polls will say whatever the poll taker wants it to say. The question can be worded in a way to get a certain response. Poll takers know who to contact to get a specific response. The number of people polled is also a factor. Ex. “4 out of 5 people agree that product XYZ is must have product for your home.” Q. How many people were polled? A. 5. Q. Who were the people polled? A. Employees of the manufacturer.
    Another factor for the uselessness of polls is how the information is reported. The following example actually happened. During the early 1990′s there was a deep concern about balancing the federal budget. A survey was taken of senior citizens. The question was “Do you believe the federal government should balance the budget by eliminating all COLA increases for seniors and freeze spending for Medicare for the next ten years?” Who wouldn”t say no to that? However, when the results of the poll were announced it read “Senior citizens opposed to balancing the budget.”
    Need I say more?

  • http://com i41

    What smucks did they poll the mental wards of the Nazi Soros Socialist salon? Soros just gave a million plus to hire “reporters”, sounds like more socialist buying of the media. If you wantto get an advanced plan of the Soros Socialists Slubs planning watch NPR, they usally send an advanced b–l s–t story before they react to a preceived problem. Just like watching the ears on a horse or cow for plan reaction, on socialists lips are moving they are lying and plan to screw the public.

  • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

    “…FOX News’ credibility is on the decline.”

    haha…and this surprises you…?

    See, that’s the problem with actual *unbiased* news, that comes from places like Wikileaks, and the like. When the actual TRUTH comes out, it makes the fake ‘news’ channels like FOX, look extremely bad, since their Republican party bias becomes exposed.

    • independant thinker

      I see dogma free is still spreading the leftest dogma he is so full of.

    • JeffH

      Now Dogma, have you heard that FOX News Channel(FNC) has the top 12 highest rated broadcasts and the highest rated year in cable network history?

      FNC saw double-digit gains for all of its programs. Year-to-year, Glenn Beck is up 96% among total viewers (2.3 million) and 148% in the demo (612,000). Special Report with Bret Baier posted gains of 25% among total viewers (2 million) and 33% in the demo (454,000). The O’Reilly Factor is up 13% among total viewers (3.3 million) and 27% (801,000) in the demo, marking its tenth consecutive year as the No. 1 cable news program.

      Somebody must be watching.

      • Marlene

        Your comment is certainly truer than any post by a leftie.

    • Marlene

      I hate to tell you this, Dogma, but PBS is so left-leaning it’s left side is all bruised from tilting so far it falls on that side. Owie….does it hurt yet?

      • smilee

        And just how often to you watch PBS???

  • Bus

    this is a classic example of spin, another way of stating the results would be to say “Fox News remains the second most trusted news station in America” Its the little things that show the bias.

    • Vigilant

      Bus, you are correct! Here is the actual take from their website: actual

      “Tuesday, January 26, 2010

      Fox leads for trust

      Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

      Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

      CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.”

      That’s certainly a different slant than what we find in this Personal Liberty News Desk lead article. I wonder why PL is going out of its way to make Fox look bad.

  • Jack Hensley

    Polls polls polls………Mark Twain had it right when he said “Statistics are like ladies of the evening; once you get them down you can do anything you waht to with them.”

    All things change but remain the same!

  • http://none GhostWalker

    This is straight from their website and you have your top paragraph wrong.Here is their article fro m their site.

    >>>>Tuesday, January 26, 2010
    Fox leads for trust Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.

    Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

    CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

    Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don’t trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

    For Democrats the numbers are a complete opposite- a majority trust all of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC while only 30% have faith in Fox News. Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

    NBC is the most popular choice among Democrats at a 62/17 spread. Although ‘NBC News’ was the entity named in the question it’s possible respondents could have been lumping MSNBC in with it given the good numbers on the left. At a 17/69 spread CBS was the least popular with Republicans, perhaps indicating residual unhappiness from the Dan Rather days. CNN finished second among Democrats, Republicans, and independents suggesting that it may be the least polarizing of the major tv news operations.

    These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed.<<<<<

    Next time get your facts right and there won't be any humbug.


    • Vigilant

      My apologies, GhostWalker. I posted the reference just before I noticed you had already done so.

      I must repeat, why is Personal Liberty newsdesk trying to make Fox look bad?

  • Norm

    Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
    By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003

    On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

    On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station’s pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was “a false, distorted, or slanted” story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

    The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

    The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

    In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict.

    • Vigilant

      Another biased attempt to make Fox look bad. What is your point? If deception were punishable, the lamestream media would have been gone long ago.

      I suppose you don’t remember a guy named Dan Rather?

    • JeffH

      Normy…and your point is??? Can you say “they all put some twists and turns” in. Can you say “they’re all biased in one way or another”? FOX News has come a long way in the 14 years since, biased ya think? Isn’t it up to the listener to “authenticate” what they read and hear and not just accept what is broadcast? Try it, you might like it. FOX is reaping huge profits…there must be a better reason than their listeners are “just a bunch of right wingers”.

      • Ray

        There you go with your typical crap comments when someone has a different view on a topic. You evidently have a low maturity level, if you have to word your comments in the manner you do. I usually laugh at them anyway. They’re so ridicules.

        • JeffH

          Ray, you either laugh or ignore because there isn’t much else for you to do is there. There weren’t any trick questions or answers in my comment, so what is it that annoys you? That I might be right? If I’m wrong, point it out…otherwise you might want to get some cheese and crackers to go with your whine!

          • Vigilant


            No need to tell you that’s the typical Alinski tactic he tried. Long on gratuitous insult, bereft of any factual rejoinder.

      • libertytrain

        Jeff – he’s the same guy that complained about someone not putting in punctuation at the end of a sentence – however his spelling or whatever he was trying to say – needed to be read before he posted it. “They’re so ridicules.”

        • JeffH

          libertytrain, he’s just a frustrated liberal.

          • libertytrain

            the usual – it’s hard for them cause they just get so hostile when they can’t “knock their sense into us.” :D

    • Norm

      I think the article is quite clear and needs no further explanation for people with normal intelligence.
      If you have something of substance to add or a sane comment to make I’d like to hear it.

      • smilee

        Many who quit FOX have said publicly what this jury found to be true is true and many who quit said they did it because they could not live with themselves knowing they were lying to the public.

  • Antonio

    You know what? I liked Fox news and 820am. They always tell you the truth about how a bill is bad or good. They tell you the truth about how printing money causes inflation. They tell you the truth about how somebody killed somebody else last night. BUT they NEVER tell you the REAL truth about what the government is REALLY doing do they?? They never talk about the north american union being established do they? They never talk about the new world order do they? they never tell you who the president really works for (illuminati) do they. Glen Beck lied to you when he told you that FEMA camps were not real didn’t he? They know when to shut their mouths i suppose, but that does not tell the people the truth. You want the truth people ??? The truth is that the government owns Fox too. Their job is to keep you playing their little political games. While you vote R or D the illuminati stills wins. Let that soak in real good people. The one and only one reason you have news and tv and radio is to condition your way of thinking (brainwashing).
    God Bless you

    • Vigilant

      I’ll say to you what I say to everyone who spouts these half-baked conspiracy theories: tell me what your solutions are. Until you do, you are no better than those who would tear down everything without offering a constructive replacement.

      • JeffH

        Vigilant, the nice thing is, in America, we’re still able to have these “half baked conspieracy” theoriies. In defense of Antonio, something that is a “half baked” conspiracy theory is also a “half done” truth. There is a lot of evidence to support some of these theories, but that is another subject all together.

      • Antonio

        Just watch my videos that i made for ignorant people like you. Buy i really don’t think you will be to understand these things because of 1 a lank of knowlegde, and 2 the inability to face reality.
        My channel is
        look for my series of 13 videos titled “the 2012 nwo agenda” and watch in order and i probably wouldnt hurt you to watch them multiple times
        God Bless You

        • kate8

          Antonio – I’m with you. There are many unanswered quesions and unadressed issues that Fox avoids just like all the rest.

          We have the right to question what government is doing. We have the right to answers. There are so many who jump to discredit anything not openly reported in the media, ridiculing “conspiracy theories” and those who dare doubt the corporate media. Well, in my mind, those who marginalize people who dare to question are among the rest of the sheep, and they enable the PTB to further their agenda.

          What would America be if we never had those who posed questions, who never stepped out of the matrix and demanded answers? Sure, we may be right and we may be wrong, but, at least, we are not simply led.

          Sometimes we need to dare to risk being wrong. Sooner or later, the truth will be revealed, but only if we refuse to accept deception.

          BTW, what is a bigger issue than whether Obama is a legitimate citizen? Hawaii has now admitted that they have no BC. How is this not news?

          • JeffH

            kate8, the new governor was all gung ho about shutting up the “birthers” wasn’t he. I hear he’s singing a different tune now.

          • Vigilant

            Allow me to repeat, “tell me what your solutions are.”

            We are only being exposed to these theories, the bottom line of which imply, “it’s too big, powerful and secret for us to do anything about.”

            If that’s the case, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, why all this fuss and energy wasted on discussing the Constitution and individual freedom, rule of law, etc.? They are down the toilet, permanently, if I’m to believe the claims of the NWO.

            I may be an ignorant fool, but if I didn’t think there was any hope for a restoration of the Constitution, I wouldn’t even need to discuss principles. I have faith, albeit with skepticism, that the wonderful experiment starting with the Constitution, and that made us the best country in the world, can be restored to its rightful place as the law of the land. I’m being told I’m farting in the wind.

            Additionally, if the claims of the 9-11 and NWO conspiracists are true, there should be no higher priority in these theorists lives than yelling to the rafters that such is the case. No, I don’t mean armchair discussions or web surfing to discover new “facts,” I mean being a serious Chicken Little and expending most if not all of your energy to get the word out. It’s just this lack of serious effort that makes me think this is just shock jockeying and nothing more serious.

    • Ray

      Glenn Beck is overpaid and he is not in his right mind. Or maybe, he’s a great actor and a talent at manipulating his audience. Either way, it’s sad and scary.

      • http://deleted Claire

        Ray—I am inclined to agree with you. There is something about Beck that makes me very cautious and I follow my good old gut feelings. I don’t care what anyone else thinks, to me Beck is not what he seems.

      • independant thinker

        I have heard Beck maybe two or three times. What I got from him was very briefly “both the dem’s and rep’s as a party are corrupt and need to be thrown out of Washington then replaced with people who will give us a balanced budget, start paying down the national debt and cut the asize of government.

        • kate8

          In spite of his limitations, Beck has exposed a great deal that would have otherwise been ignored. He’s brought attention to things we really need to know.

          We can’t expect anyone to be a hero that we can look to for all answers. What we get are bits and pieces from here and there. We need to learn to rely on ourselves, on our own discernment, and to be responsible for where our own minds take us, just like Beck and everyone else does.

          We are caught up in a war for our minds. Everyone in media has an agenda, or at least a bias. That’s just how it is.

      • Warrior


        “Overpaid” Sounds like more jealousy here!

        • Ray

          Your use of Jealousy is totally incorrect.

          Jealousy is an emotion and typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, such as a relationship, friendship, or love. Jealousy often consists of a combination of emotions such as anger, sadness, and disgust. It is not to be confused with envy.

          By the way, there is no envy either. I feel Glenn Beck, for what he does, is way overpaid. He made $32 million last year. As I stated: Overpaid!

          • Vigilant

            Your definition of “jealousy” precisely defines the attitude of the left when it comes to Glenn Beck. They fear him because he threatens their socialist agenda, and because he’s very effective at doing what he does.

            To parody your comment, the leftists experience “fear and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, such as the redistribution of wealth.”

            “Overpaid” is a concept I would expect the socialists to foster. In this capitalist system, it’s a matter of supply and demand. Beck’s audiences have vastly increased since he came to Fox because he supplies sincerity and truth, and is passionate about it, as opposed to the likes of Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, et. al., who supply falsehoods and propaganda and are passionate about it.

            $32 million? I don’t care if it’s $320 million!

  • Marlene

    I don’t have cable so have never watched FOX except when I was hospitalized. At that point in time, even though I was ill, I enjoyed their reporting and found it well-balanced. PBS, on the other hand, was so left-leaning I found it to be nauseating and stopped watching their news and many of their other programs because they were too biased. The only programs they aired that I enjoyed were the cooking ones and Bob Ross. The rest are well qualified for a trash compactor..

  • Sam

    Bullshit! PBS, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC are all in the liberal tank. They, unapologetically I might add, give you their version of selected news stories.

    • Ray

      Even Walter Cronkite didn’t like or respect Fox News.

      • JeffH

        So? Your point?

        • smilee

          He valued truth and he did not find it from FOX but he was also disappointed with the other cable and network news but that FOX was the worst

          • JeffH

            That makes four of you who don’t like FOX…You, Ray, Olbermann and Cronkite…whoopie!

        • Ray

          Walter Cronkite = respected journalist
          Fox News = less respected, more crap

          • Vigilant

            That “respected journalist” of yours was an admitted leftie, and was shown to report the news in a biased fashion. I suppose you would call Dan Rather a “respected journalist” as well.

  • chuckb

    fox news is the only outlet giving news to the public that isn’t biased. the newscasters sometime slip in a liberal tid bit or two, all in all they seem to be fairly straight.
    the news commentators like o’reilly, hannity and greta van susteren are the best in the business, keeping people informed on the more political news without the liberal bias.
    walter kronkite and dan rather on cbs started the liberal bias in the news and continued for many years, kronkite the so called “father of journalism” should have been called the father of the liberal democratic party and dan rather as a puppet. both these guys in my estimation should have been thrown in jail for the jeopardy they placed our troops in vietnam, they gave aid to the enemy and did their best to destroy the public’s support of our fighting troops, if i were a vietnam vet i would spit on them as well as jane fonda.

  • chuckb

    i must correct on endorsement i made about for news commentator bill o’reilly, i know he tries to make people believe he is an independent, i feel he is more of a conservative democrat hiding behind the independent label and does favor barry too much, i wonder?

    • JeffH

      chuckb, I’ve found O’reilly has become my favorite show with Hannity #2. He’s not into making blatant comments without a strong defense. I have heard him refer to Obama as a Marxist, even the Democrats pushing for socialism. It took me awhile to understand what his “game” was and know that I understand where he is coming from, the “proofs in the pudding” as is said. Just because he is more balanced, doesn’t make him a liberal or a Democrat.
      There is a reason for his 10 years of #1 ratings on cable TV.

      • Ray

        O’reilly is an egomaniac. The weak minded follow what he has to say.

        • Vigilant

          Subsitute “Olbermann” for “O’Reilly” and you’ve hit it just right.

      • Ray

        I forgot to add that he has blatantly lied on air. He was interviewing a woman from a supposedly Canadian Magazine that did not even exist. It was totally scripted and reported as news. What a bunch of crap!

        • JeffH

          Ray, are you talking about the O’Reilly interview With a real Canadian journalist named Rondi Adamson in 2005? I can’t seem to find anything else.
          It’s very easy to make pointed remarks towards someone you don’t care for but perhaps you can provide some “proof”, or a link to the fake interview?

          • Ray

            I wasn’t speaking of that interview. It was one I watched and I knew he was lying. The person he was interviewing was from Canadian Business Review they we’re slamming something unnecessarily. There is no such magazine – The Canadian Business Review. It doesn’t exist.

            Another O’reilly lie in his own words: “I’ll tell you what. I’ve been in combat. I’ve seen it, I’ve been close to it… and if my unit is danger, and I’ve got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I’m looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That’s all I’m gonna tell you. The guy better tell me. If it’s life or death, he’s going first.” O’Reilly was never in the military. He is misleading the audience by implying he was in the military.

          • JeffH

            Ray, we don’t even know you. Maybe you could give us more than your word as back up to your allegations. I’d be interested to see some proof as it would build some trust and show a little maturity on your part to post it.

          • JeffH

            Ray, apparently the “Canadian Business Review” was a real magazine. From what I can find, they published business news articles between March 1989 thru September of 1996. Here’s the link to ease you mind a bit.

            Canadian Business Review articles
            335 total articles

  • Ray

    Fox News has good packaging, but to me that’s about all.

  • chuckb


    what really riles you anti fox people is the fact they have better looking gals, you can’t say much for those on the communist news networks, cnn, nbc, abc and pbs doesn’t even come close.

    • Ray

      News is not based on how pretty the on air talent is, it’s about content. What channel is the communist news networks? The only time I’ve ever heard of that is from a low I.Q. sign holder at a Tea Party rally.

      • JeffH

        Ray, now you’ve just assumed the sign holder had a low IQ, you don’t really know one way or another. Unlike your comment above regarding a “fake” interview by O’Reilly, I’m sure you can provide a source that will support your claim other than your obvious bias towards the Tea Party and FOX’s O’Reilly.

        • Ray

          I also assume your I.Q. is lower that the sign holder.

          • Vigilant

            C’mon, Ray, how about a legitimate source? Can’t provide one?

            The Alinsky answer doesn’t impress.

      • chuckb

        how could you tell? can you read

        • Ray

          You said – “how could you tell? can you read”
          I could tell. And yes, I can read. I also end a sentence with punctuation. Try it sometime.

      • Vigilant

        Most, if not all, of Fox’s female talent is very well credentialed. The liberals hate good looking, smart women.

  • Ron

    For anyone that has ever listened to Glenn Beck, he is the first to say that he is a commentator and not a news person. In other words everything he says is his opinion and not that of fox news or murdock. Now, when someone is out front and says that what I am about to say is my opinion, when you listen you are obviously accepting what they have to say or at least not is great opposition or you would have changed the channel. He is also the first to say that violence is not accepted or the answer.

    • JeffH

      Ron, pretty accurate I’d say. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there disclaimers posted to the effect that “opinions presented” aren’t necessarily those of the FOX News channel, it’s management and it’s affiliates?

      • Vigilant

        I respewct Beck for continually saying words to the effect of “don’t trust my take on this. Research and question everything. Do your own investigations.”

        I’d love to hear that said on the lamestream media, but I’d be waiting for a long time.

        • Vigilant

          Apologies for the typo, since Ray places more importance on form than substance.

    • Ray

      Glenn Beck is dangerous for the feeble minded who watch him and believe everything he says as if he’s a news caster.

      • JeffH

        Ooooh, you really do dislike FOX don’t you.

        • smilee

          Thats because we have seen what it has done for you and we hate that

          • JeffH

            smilee, not to worry though, I completely understand that hate is just a natural feeling for you liberals.

        • Ray


      • Vigilant

        Ray says, “Glenn Beck is dangerous for the feeble minded who watch him and believe everything he says as if he’s a news caster.”

        Ray, since you’re such a stickler for proper English, “feeble minded” is hyphenated and “news caster” is one word, not two.

        Nothing funnier than a feeble-minded person attempting to correct someone else’s English.

  • chuckb

    ron, when you get right down to the facts, these liberal newscasters are really nothing more than commentators, they cast the news in their own bias and opinion, abc news is one of the masters at broadcasting the news by tone of voice and very opinionated, so you might say they and cbs, cnn and nbc are nothing more than commentators with a very liberal bias.

    • Ray

      One definition of the word liberal: giving freely; generous; large or plentiful; ample; abundant:

      That’s how I like my news – when nothing is held back or slanted to the network’s political views. That why I don’t like Fox News. They think they are so special.

      • chuckb

        ray, gay used to mean happy, same difference.

        • http://deleted Claire

          chuckb–You are correct. I named my daughter Julia Gaye. Julia means young and silken haired, Gaye means happy and merry. Now my daughter depises the name “Gaye.”

      • Warrior


        “They think they are so special”???? Sounds like you have a serious problem with jealousy.

        • Ray

          As I stated before: Your use of Jealousy is totally incorrect.

          Jealousy is an emotion and typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, such as a relationship, friendship, or love. Jealousy often consists of a combination of emotions such as anger, sadness, and disgust. It is not to be confused with envy.

          • Vigilant

            And I’ll repeat what I said before: Your definition of “jealousy” precisely defines the attitude of the left when it comes to Glenn Beck. They fear him because he threatens their socialist agenda, and because he’s very effective at doing what he does.

            To parody your comment, the leftists experience “fear and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, such as the redistribution of wealth.”

      • Vigilant

        Ray says, “One definition of the word liberal: giving freely; generous; large or plentiful; ample; abundant.”

        And where is the word “truth” in that definition?

  • Iam

    You can make your poll numbers as favorable as you want as long as you ask only a targeted sample, in this case liberals.

  • JimH

    In Feb of 2004 the polls were sure Howard Dean was going to be the Dem candidate for president. Then the people voted in the primaries. (oops) That is how accurate polls are. As far as Fox being fair and ballanced I watch as both a Dem and Rep senator were on at the same time discussing an issue on Fox. They could both state their case and refute the others case. Later that evening on PBS, only the Dem senator was interviewed, with no one else there to call him on his lies. People only heard what the Dems wanted them to hear. The political COMMONTATORS on FOX tend to be conservative, but the regular news reports are accurate.

    • Warrior

      Could Howard Dean take Olberman’s job? I bet absolutely.

      • Vigilant

        They’d have to turn down the volume in case he blurted out one of his primal screams.

  • Raggs

    I think even a blind man can find his way home :)
    The ones to the likes of NPR do thier best to throw rose peddles in the path to gain a support that they feel is not capable of seeing things for what they are.

  • Anthony

    Robert Smith is the “pet”, for this website –

    I do, however, agree that FOXNEWS has finally ‘outed’ themselves as the puppets for the website I list, above.

    Hannity has never, nor will he ever… discuss the illegality of The Federal Reserve. You do realize who the REAL criminals in America are… yes? Mr. Smith??

    Rush Limbaugh – while being an extremely good entertainer – is STILL on the side of those who control the money … THE FED. Like the poster said: Not bite the hand that feeds you…?

    Know this – and learn to breathe it every day ….

    NO ONE is ever allowed to gain national prominence in the Media – Hollywood or otherwise – without the express permission of those WHO CONTROL said Media. Remember? …follow the money…? Like they say – the real Actors never go to Hollywood.

    Mark Levin might be the real deal, but he is still beholdin to those that got him where he is today… so the question becomes: Is he trying to ride the middle, just in case. He’s not young any more, so the point may be mute. Still, I do like his books and they ARE full of truths you should be aware of.

    NO ONE should be saying that anyone in the Media expanse should be ignored – KNOW THY ENEMY. Remember? The Art of War ? As the Sicilians would do – keep your friends close, but your enemies, closer?

    I research what I read, online. Google may be owned by the Banksters… but, for now, it’s still a useful tool for the Freedom Fighters. It’s when Obama shuts it all off, that you’d better already be prepared to demand back the Right to Free Speech … cuz shutting down the Web is tha factual Death of the 1st Amendment. Whether you have the balls to realize it, is quite a different discussion. And, yes… Obama does have that right.. as we speak. Maybe you don’t read Executive orders…. I do.

  • michael

    Well, they didn’t poll me on this. I remember for one thing that Wallbuilders special on Fox that exposed 1913, the year of the income tax & the devil’s year at that.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady

    Wiselady says;

    I use to follow PBS for years until they went over to the other side with Bill Moyers becoming their darling spokes person.

    Public Policy Polling is so biased when they do their polling, that I quit responding to their questions. I know because I was called to submit my views on their polling about four years ago. I requuested that they not calll me anymore. I much prefer the Wall Street Journal.

    • smilee

      Bill Moyers retired quite a while back and he was not on their newshour when he was there, he had his own show that he alone was responsible for. PBS show shows from all points of view of which he was only one.

  • Robert Laity

    I used to trust FOX more than any other news media. I didn’t know that PBS had news except for the BBC perhaps. In any event,FOX’s
    failure to take the Obama CertifiGate issue seriously ,making extreme light of it actually,has SOURED my reliance on what Beck,Smith,Kelly,Hannity or O’Reilly Says.

    There is no President Obama:

  • http://GOGGLE vaksal

    FROM;vaksal,personaly news reporting has changed like night and day,these days the news is not reported it is sold,hype,sold by people that want to sell their version of the thruth,and as many rubber nickels that those folks in reporting have given the american public,a person only needs to fall down and they would bounce to the moon,as far as trust,thruthfuly who can we trust,more than only our selfs,strange times on one side the left wing liberal communist,and on the other side the self serving robber barons,and in the middle the american public getting robbed from both sides,the point is wheres the justice? and what comes into my mind is what is not being done in thruth,and the silence in reporting is deafing on what not is reported. just a personal opinion and veiw.

  • jopa

    Jeffh In your explanation of the Rassmussen poll you failed to mention they leaned towards the conservative side and Scott Rassmussen was an advisor for President Bush.OOOps your bad.At least they will poll in favor of what you like for an outcome.They are as bad as the rest.If you want truth and reality give me a call.1-800 GO SUCK AN EGG.

    • Ray

      There is good and bad on both sides. Too bad the JeffH is on the bad side. Why doesn’t he use his powers for good instead of evil.

    • Vigilant

      jopa, you can’t knock the numbers. Rasmussen and Gallup both are more accurate in their predictions of outcome than almost any other polling organizations.

      The proof is in the pudding, whether you like it or not. Just because you don’t like the results of the poll, there’s no need to adopt the Alinsky tactic of demeaning it.

  • Ray


    1. “This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture….I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” –on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his FOX News show, July 28, 2009 (Source)

    2. “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. … No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” –responding to the question “What would people do for $50 million?”, “The Glenn Beck Program,” May 17, 2005 (Source)

    3. “When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” Sept. 9, 2005 (Source)

    4. “The only [Katrina victims] we’re seeing on television are the scumbags.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” Sept. 9, 2005 (Source)

    5. “I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.” –on why people who lost their homes in forest fires in California had it coming, “The Glenn Beck Program,” Oct. 22, 2007 (Source)

    6. “I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. … And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.” –interviewing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim U.S. congressman, Glen Beck’s show on CNN’s Headline News, Nov. 14, 2006 (Source)

    7. “Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization…And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did. That’s what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” May 1, 2007 (Source)

    8. “So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research. … Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. … The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening.” –”The Glenn Beck Program,” March 9, 2009 (Source)

    9. “You have the artwork of Mussolini there, here in New York at Rockefeller Plaza.” –analyzing the artwork decorating Rockefeller Plaza, which he said contained a hammer and sickle, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel, Sept. 2, 2009 (Source)

    10. “O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y.” –misspelling “oligarchy” on his chalk board while claiming he had deciphered a secret code that he said was proof President Obama was trying to create an “Oligarhy,” Aug. 27, 2009, Glenn Beck show on FOX News Channel (Source)

  • Hubertp

    Many times bias is shown not so much by whether representatives of both sides are brought in to the discussion as by the descriptors that the program hosts use to describe one or the other side of a topic.

    When the descriptors (adverbs and adjectives) used for one side are pejorative while the descriptors for the other side are lacking, neutral or positive, then the commentator is showing a bias.

    If the commentator is a reporter on a news program, then the inclusion of pejoratives when reporting on a person or idea from one side while not using them when mentioning the other side is no longer reporting but commenting, or editorializing.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.