Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
VIDEO: Fox News Devoted 12x More Coverage To Anna Nicole Than Walter Reed
thinkprogress.org — Fox News, the "pro-troops" network, devoted more coverage to Anna Nicole than the neglected and wounded U.S. veterans.
pitviper- 312 diggs
- digg it
- remove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I digg Fox's coverage choie. Dead porn stars, err, "cultural icons" are way more important than our veterans, you know.
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10
Anna had bigger boobies... are you really surprised? - thepompano, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Comment deleted for not RTFAing - DIGG ME DOWN YO
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6How much you want to bet they went and grabbed every sound bite where anna nichole was used as a joke, or just an offhand reference and only counted full news stories about Walter Reed.
And thinkprogress is definitely known for it's balanced coverage of fox news. - raynar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Titties = news
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2you people are obsessed with fox news.
its rather cute. - thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is NOT something unique to Fox - it's a sad commentary on the state of ALL of our media, and indeed what the public deems important and interesting. Add the numbers up for MSNBC, CBS, and CNN and I'm sure that they'll be equally skewed.
The whole country spent (and some are _still_ spending) far too much time on this. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@"Fox News sucks, but let's not ignore the reason WHY they spent more time on Anna than Reed; viewers prefer the former."
Given the choice most viewers would prefer free coke and hookers and money from dead people but they won't admit it.
And to be fair the Roman people liked to see Gladiators kill eat other and Christians get eaten by lions and the Emperor of Rome gave it to them because it was what they wanted... But it didn't make it right.
It is both the fault of Fox and the viewers.
Just because you are greedy and have money to make doesn't absolve you of responsibility. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, ***** freedom of the press. You guys can't deal...?
Besides, what does one have to do with the other? I could name dozens of issues that get no coverage on any major network. But I'm not going to cry on Digg about it. Watch CNN if it bothers you. That's your right. - DonWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's a multinational court case that includes paternity tests and determination as to where she should've been buried.
Seeing as how that's extremely unique, I'd deem that news.
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10
- DJShay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21FOX is now officially the TV version of The Enquirer.
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27And, in further developments, water is revealed to be wet...
- drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I applaud CNN for actually mentioning Walter Reed more than Anna Nicole. That's pathetic that I would applaud a news agency for reporting on actual news rather than meaningless gossip. How the hell can Fox News only mention Walter Reed 10 times? If you want to see media bias look no further than this chart.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Now, the interesting thing would be to analyze how many STORIES were done on Anna Nichole(assuming her name was mentioned more than once per story) and Walter Reed. Also, How long was each subsequent story in relation to each keyword.
IF this was only based on the number of times Fox said "Anna Nichole" vs. "Walter Reed", I'd say it was a hatchet job done just for the main stream media and liberal columnists to try and beat up fox with.
Edit: Oh, gee... it's from Thinkprogres..... - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Eh, I would be just as skeptical of anything coming from a left-wing hate site as fox news...though I don't get my info from either one.
- thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Now, the interesting thing would be to analyze how many STORIES were done on Anna Nichole(assuming her name was mentioned more than once per story) and Walter Reed. Also, How long was each subsequent story in relation to each keyword.
- subman697, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Was I the only one who saw the "excuse" for the coverage? "Rating are up nearly 5 fold when we cover the Anna Nicole story. This is what YOU want to see". So their excuse for not covering real news it that the tabloid crowd couldn't get enough from entertainment tonight, and needed all day coverage of this crap, and that is the excuse used.
Next time they say they are a news organization, this reasoning needs to be spit back at them..- sifuchar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. YOU should decide what the masses will see, because they are too ignorant to know it for themselves, eh? John Gibson had a great explanation for this if you care to read his archive about who should decide on stories and why. The news media is responsible to faithfully PRESENT the stories, but the AMOUNT of coverage and repetition comes down to the AUDIENCE. We have plenty of media elitists, thank you.
Also of note ... the Anna Nicole story is certainly less important than the Walter Reed story, but it is a more dynamic one. Where are the twists and turns in the Walter Reed story? New developments keep a story alive, and Anna Nicole's story had/has plenty of them, as well as the interesting characters. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Exactly. Is anyone surprised that a government-run healthcare program sucks ass? Is this really news?
- sifuchar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. YOU should decide what the masses will see, because they are too ignorant to know it for themselves, eh? John Gibson had a great explanation for this if you care to read his archive about who should decide on stories and why. The news media is responsible to faithfully PRESENT the stories, but the AMOUNT of coverage and repetition comes down to the AUDIENCE. We have plenty of media elitists, thank you.
- Incom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2if they had just shown the nude photos ratings would have been even higher... i think they failed.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nude photos on TV in the States???
Yeah, that will go over well. - Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish they finally would. Who determined that seeing a boob was worse than seeing a guy get murdered on law and order or something.
not that i have a problem with either one.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nude photos on TV in the States???
- Ydnar24, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5They are just giving the public what they want.
- jhnewt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The public doesn't know what they want. People are stupid. I'm going to go live alone on an island now...
- mille716, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"They are just giving the public what they want."
Please. They are appealing to their audiences most basic sensationalist qualities. This NOT about ratings *****. A news agency (or one proclaiming over and over to be news) has a responsibility to educate their audience on the whats going on in the world. Anna Nicole is not important, not news and certainly a huge distraction to the public when talked about 10X more than injured soldiers forced to stay in a rat infested *****.
- MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This celebrity worship culture has to stop at some point.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You're right. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to watch the 'American Idol' updates on my local Fox newscast.
- Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why? It has always been this way and probably always will. Even in Roman times they cared more about star athletes then politics.
- NachoBusiness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Didn't one of the Fox News talking heads say that stations that covered things other than Anna Nicole were "snobs"? Apparently caring about the treatment of soldiers is snobbish...
- TozerAptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I don't watch FOX news, but MSNBC and CNN also did a lot of Anna Nicole coverage, too much even. This coincided with my decision to abandon all cable news networks....how strange....
- sdpdt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why single out Fox in this? Every other news network gave Anna Nicole tons of air time as compared to anything else important.
- TootsMutant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's sure as {expletive} true.
Seems to me that there's more to supporting the troops than slapping a decal on your SUV or dead celebrity worship, but clearly the "news" media haven't realized that yet. - KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2They are singling out Fox News for one reason only. And I think most of us know why. For the same reason everyone has gone Ann Coulter crazy and ignoring Bill Mayer comments about wishing Cheney had died.
- mille716, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read the article. Fox news had 10X the coverage for Anna Nicole than a legitimate news story.
I agree CNN and MSNBC gave waaayyy too much time to Anna Nicole but clearly Fox is in a whole other category. - EComni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, show of hands, who RTFA??????
I know it's hard to click a huge hyperlink on a webpage, so I'll post the results here.
(left: Anna Nicole stories)
(right: Walter Reed stories)
FOX NEWS: 121 10
MSNBC: 96 84
CNN: 40 53
It's *not* exactly the same, and you would see that if you read the article. Fox News did exceptionally worse than anyone else.
But regardless, I'm not gonna be selective here. ALL mainstream news is a joke now. Now, news must equal ratings and entertainment. It's truly sad that that's what it's become. Major corporations take a lot of the blame, here but the rest of it truly lies with people who expect their news to be just as entertaining as their shows.
- TootsMutant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's sure as {expletive} true.
- canyoudiggitman, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Fox News could air Micheal Moore movies 24 hours a day and the Liberal Diggers would still get their panties in a bunch over it.
- ebolaworld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You leave my panties out of this!
- Calann, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Fox is the epitome of tabloid news and they are pulling the other news networks down with them. It's a real disgrace.
- chamblah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8So?
I'm sure all other news outlets did the same.
Nothing newsworthy about that - gomezfreak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think it was sickening that her story was worth more than a five minute mention once. Just goes to show what happens when a handful of companies own all the media.
I don't watch the news on TV anymore, hell I feels like I lose brain cells just flipping past their dumb ass channels. - inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4While Fox News and their coverage of ANS was pathetic, they do overtly support the troops FAR more in their reporting than CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Pos....well, you get the idea - do. When was the last time you saw NBC comment on the Bill Arkin controversy? You haven't seen it because they haven't spoke at all on the issue, despite the fact that they hired and presented him as an unbiased analyst and used him regularly. Fox, while definitely holding a right bias, did still rip into Ann Coulter for her 'faggot' comment. In relation to the military, Fox is a VERY supportive network, and overall, are far more so than any other network in America.
- tcquad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Putting a "Support our troops" bump between segments does not constitute actually supporting the troops.
- inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Ok, if you are going to make that statement, then cowboy up and (aside from the Anna Nicole story) please provide an example of Fox News NOT supporting the troops. I can give you plenty of overtly biased stories on the other networks where they failed to offer the pro-troop counter-point. I am not saying Fox offers both sides, i am saying that Fox's side is overtly pro-military - much moreso than any other network. That is an inarguable statement.
- mille716, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WTF? Are you even serious?
News shouldn't be judged by a "which one supports the troops more" fight. They should be judged by REPORTING THE TRUTH! If a news agency is out to give positive stories on soldiers and war, they aren't news then, they're propaganda. - inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I am not disagreeing with you. ***** learn to read. I talk about Fox's bias and never said anything about it being right. I was responding to the claims that Fox News doesnt support the military - claims which are complete and utter *****. you need to pull your bias out of your ass and learn to absorb what you read more correctly. An informed person cannot refute my claim that Fox is far more supportive of the military than any other network. It is a fact.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Breaking news: ONLY Foxnews covered Bill Mahr wishing death to the VP.
- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dick Cheney, being pure evil, cannot die. He will only change form.
- KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Because we all know it is far worse to call someone a "faggot" than it is to wish them dead.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Fire?
- MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Szandor
Funniest quote! That definitely sums up Mr. Dick.
- Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Because Vickie Lynn (Anna Nicole) was the very personification of "Fair and Balanced": Two 500cc implants on one side and two 500cc implants on the other.
- NaFakCha, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Digg Headline should read "CNN, FOXNews, MSNBC and every other News Network Devoted 12x More Coverage To Anna Nicole Than Walter Reed." Talk about bias. Sheesh.
- manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Wow, you kids are absolutely ridiculous. Look at the website where this information is hosted. "Thinkprogressive.com" slightly slanted? ***** yes it is. If this was some conservative website claiming that CNN sucked, you kids would immediately call for us to look to the source. I hate to break it to you, CNBC or CNN is no better. As thcobbs has put it above, its time to abandon all cable news sources, they all act along their respective party lines. Liberals here on digg are just as ridiculous as the conservatives on capital hill, over exaggerating the dumbest *****, just to get "one up" on the other party.
- gomezfreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4KIDS eh? All the networks suck, none of them are better. Do you feel better? I'll say it for you and you can all say it with me.
5 companies own everything.
5 companies own everything
5 companies own everything
If that does scare or ***** you off, I don't know what will. - Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3a bear in my bedroom and no escape!
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Look at the website where this information is hosted. "Thinkprogressive.com" slightly slanted?"
I'm sure the Progressive Learning Center thanks you for leading more people to their site to take advantage of their tutoring services.
- gomezfreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4KIDS eh? All the networks suck, none of them are better. Do you feel better? I'll say it for you and you can all say it with me.
- theblockster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not one to defend fox news, but every network devoted just as much airtime to anna nicole's retarded drama then anything actually important going on during those weeks.. total mindless "NEED MOAR RATINGS" *****
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well as someone who only gets their news from FOX, MSNBC, and CNN I just have to ask, Walter who?
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Digg, as a news site, is far more of an embarrassment than Fox News. Thinkprogress doesn't even deny their bias.
- mrmack00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0strangely enough we find you here....reading/making comments....how embarassing...
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"strangely enough we find you here....reading/making comments....how embarassing..."
I don't use Digg as a news source. I read Digg for my own entertainment. I'm sure Digg has far more Anna Nicole stories than Walter Reed stories as well. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@mrmak00
Well, we can't let our favorite liberal friends go without retort... It's too funny to watch all the dyed-in-the-wool liberals get into a hissy fit whenever we call out their sources and point out the obvious bias...
Especially when they love to bash on LGF and a Thinkprogress story comes up as unbiased.
Biased news is fine in my opinion... you just have to know the bias and find the equally and oppositely biased source to balance your knowledge of a subject.
- adam07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hate Fox as much as the next person but CNN CONSTANTLY had Anna Nicole coverage, too. They were just as bad.
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Silly little child...
YOU may hate FNC, but the ratings don't lie...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
Asshat. Go do your homework and STFU. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@CPU
He was actually saying that, though he was predisposed to dislike Fox, CNN was every bit as guilty of celebrity journalism.
He was not impolite, nor did he mention viewership.
Why be such a condescending dick?
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Silly little child...
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They definitely know their core audience :p
- Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And CNN, MSNBC, and CBS know theirs...
- dampeal, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Oh look! The liberals are out bashing Fox... you people think of any reason to bash things that you don't agree with, this whole thing really has nothing to do with anna nicole and the veterans, it's just a smear against fox plain and simple
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah. One word: Geraldo.
- Jwoey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1read the comments man, many of the liberals here are actually saying that this article is biased, that CNN & MSNBC both had as much coverage of it as Fox did. The article is a smear, yea. But I think most people here realize that.
- keybsnbits, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't know who the poster is quoting when they write that Fox News is 'the "pro-troops" network'. Another example of misuse of quoting on Digg. Learn the English language, and stop making misleading news summaries.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They are not quotation marks indicating attribution to another person. Rather, they are scare quotes which is a way of raising doubt about a concept.
Like this:
Fox News is "fair and balanced". - keybsnbits, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But that is a direct quote... "fair and balanced" is (or used to be) the Fox News slogan. Fox has never called themselves, or been called, 'the "pro-troops" network'. You're blatantly wrong.
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They are not quotation marks indicating attribution to another person. Rather, they are scare quotes which is a way of raising doubt about a concept.
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2FOX is the most watched news network, The O'Reilly Factor is the most watched program on all the news networks. And none of you can take it!
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
They are just giving people what they want, it's a fact.
You guys are pathetic. Perhaps some of you should get jobs?- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"They are just giving people what they want, it's a fact."
What I want are naked porno movies 24-7. Why don't they give us that? I'm sure their ratings will be *MUCH* higher.
Just because a lot of people watch a show doesn't make it 'good' or 'right'. That's like saying American Idol is the best show on TV since it gets the highest ratings, or that Ghost Rider is a better movie than The Departed because it made more money. - Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"They are just giving people what they want"
What people want is sex, love, and money. Everything else is background noise.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"They are just giving people what they want, it's a fact."
- bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, how much more time has NBC, ABC, and CBS spent on Global Warming stories over the past three weeks than "pro-troop" news?
- TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good question, but I bet you don't get a simple answer because you called the ***** bluff.
- KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How many Pro-Troop stories have they done period.
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Maybe her her boobs were Fair and Balanced.
On a serious note. The only Anna Nicole coverage I watched on any station was of that crazy judge down in Florida. - cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
Keep digging me down, but the facts don't lie!!!
You guys can't handle it!!! Go O'Reilly!!!!
The Scoreboard: Friday, March 2
25-54 demographic: (LS)
Total day: FNC: 330 | CNN: 242 | MSNBC: 166 | HLN: 120 | CNBC: 107
Prime: FNC: 472 | CNN: 332 | MSNBC: 195 | HLN: 178 | CNBC: 175
5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC Gibson: Hume: Shep: O'Reilly: H&C: Greta: O'Reilly:
127 304 367 527 440 450 439
CNN Blitzer: Dobbs: Blitzer: Zahn: King: Cooper: Cooper:
269 294 219 174 432 389 313
MSNBC Matthews: Tucker: Matthews: Countdo.: Investig.: Investig.: Investig.:
112 59 170 220 125 239 247
HLN HLN: Prime: Beck: Grace: Beck: Grace: Showbiz:
68/103 155 110 288 96 151 198
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.- FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Comparing the "Scoreboard" you posted to the other "Scoreboards" on the website, it does appear that the Fox News Network's ratings are slowly slipping and every other channel are observing an increase in their ratings. So while they maybe on top now, in a few months or so, the situation will be differen
- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1STFU already. We get your point.
Go outside and get some fresh air. - quantumHobbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That only implies most TV viewers have bad taste. There is no wisdom of the crowds. Read some Kierkegaard, "The crowd is untruth." Guess what? American Idol has bigger numbers than any "news" media. I would never claim that karaoke is more important and truthful than the news would I?
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Slipping, yes, but still on top. I think that if the news media changed their tune a bit, this would be different. Plus, the Anna coverage prolly made many change the channel.
@Szandor: I am just making sure you get completely irritated by the facts.
- TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Blog SPAM
The one thing that the poster fails to realize and thinkprogress.org (liberal as hell) fails to tell anyone is the other stations did the EXACT same thing. - Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Support the troops" is as much of a cliched platitude as: "Our hearts and prayers go out to them." News flash! VA hospitals have been cesspools since WWI. You want to support the troops? Go to the VA hospital and volunteer to empty colostomy bags.
- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But it's so much easier to put the yellow magnets on our SUVs, next to the "Megan" pom-pom and "Dylan" football.
- looseshoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why does Fox (or any other network) consistently show what many people consider trashy or un-newsworthy (probably including their editors)?
They want as many viewers as possible so they can sell commercials for as much money as possible. -$$$- Maybe the answer to about 9.9 out of 10 times a question is asked "why does some company or gov do "? - fibrodenial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know why Walter Reed story didn't get much coverage? Cause the mistreatment of war veterns in America isn't news... it is a common reality. Ask my daddy... he was one of the many soldiers that were spat on upon his return from Viet Nam and despite two tours of duty and first hand accounts of the most gruesome bloodbaths you can imagine, he is still herded through the doors of his local VA like common cattle.
- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who cares? One day´s news viewing. What was it on other days?
Maybe CNN did all their Nicole news the day before or after. - Garageband, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3***** YOU ANNA NICOLE SMITH!
- snotrokit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think this is a pretty grand example of how truly sad American media has become. I don't care if it is Fox, CNN, MSNBC, whatever. American media and news outlets are all biased garbage. One goes this way, the other goes that way. Everything is ratings, or spin, or right or left. Someone is pandering to someone. When A.N., Britney's hair, TomKat'w wedding and Paris' crotch shot of the day trump real issues for the headlines time and again, it is time to look elsewhere for your news.
I personally turn to the web and pull news sources from about 12 different countries to get as close as I can to a real view of the real world.
Where have all of the moderates gone?- looseshoes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree, web-based news is the best (like Digg, etc)...at least while the public at large can still CHOOSE and CREATE CONTENT on their own without scrutiny.
- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Where have all of the moderates gone?"
The "silent" majority is still around, they're just watching the extremists make complete asses of themselves.
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You guys keep me laughing, thanks!
So, how many Anna stories compared to Walter Reed did Digg have on the front page?
Here it is again, because the liberals cannot handle the facts....
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, now you're blocked.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So, how many Anna stories compared to Walter Reed did Digg have on the front page"
I was curious.
A quick search of unburied stories shows 1 ANS story announcing her death, 1 Walter Reed story and 3 about how media coverage of serious issues got shafted by the ANS death.
A search of buried stories shows 5 about ANS, 3 on Walter Reed and 6 on the news coverage of ANS taking away from serious issues. - Spiritcatcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cpuenvy: You tell us we don't have jobs and you lurk and troll the page posting the same worthless link at least twice that I've seen. There are 300 million people in America. Fox covers the globe. I'd venture to say that one lock step, drink the koolaide, TV tabloid sink hole owning a couple million viewers is neither impressive nor of a profound impact.
- JazonBladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Marked as inaccurate because it doesn't reflect the whole story. It wasn't just Fox News that gave more attention to Anna Nicole than Walter Reed, the rest of the media followed suit as well. Fox is just a bigger target because of the sheer hate towards it from the left.
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually it references FOX, MSNBC, and CNN's coverage as well. Fox simply showed--BY FAR--the greatest disparity between the two.
But what does that matter?
- Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually it references FOX, MSNBC, and CNN's coverage as well. Fox simply showed--BY FAR--the greatest disparity between the two.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by