FOX News Trashed ATT Wireless

Been There wrote:
>>>>Yeah well, that's Faux News for ya. All opinion, no facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's the problem with the media in the United States.
>>
> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!

You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox News
"continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that, but CNN
will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And, isn't CNN
available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?

==AD

---

› See More: FOX News Trashed ATT Wireless

Been There wrote:
>>>>Yeah well, that's Faux News for ya. All opinion, no facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's the problem with the media in the United States.
>>
> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!

You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox News
"continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that, but CNN
will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And, isn't CNN
available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?

==AD

Aboutdakota wrote:

>> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!

> You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox
> News "continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that,
> but CNN will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And,
> isn't CNN available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?

You might want to Google before waxing indignant. The first link
returned for the query

ratings OR rated "fox news" cnn

was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :

The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.

There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.

Yes, CNN has better overseas coverage.

The only way to get a truly "fair and balanced" overview is to get your
news from multiple sources (be it newspapers or TV). It's easy to get
into a "Fox rocks, CNN sucks" or vice versa mindset, but the best
approach is to diss them all -- and watch them all.

--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

Aboutdakota wrote:

>> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!

> You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox
> News "continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that,
> but CNN will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And,
> isn't CNN available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?

You might want to Google before waxing indignant. The first link
returned for the query

ratings OR rated "fox news" cnn

was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :

The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.

There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.

Yes, CNN has better overseas coverage.

The only way to get a truly "fair and balanced" overview is to get your
news from multiple sources (be it newspapers or TV). It's easy to get
into a "Fox rocks, CNN sucks" or vice versa mindset, but the best
approach is to diss them all -- and watch them all.

--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

Donkey Agony wrote:

> Aboutdakota wrote:
>
>>> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!
>
>> You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox
>> News "continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that,
>> but CNN will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And,
>> isn't CNN available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?
>
> You might want to Google before waxing indignant. The first link
> returned for the query
>
> ratings OR rated "fox news" cnn
>
> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>
> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>
> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.


All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what they
are supposed to think.


--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Donkey Agony wrote:

> Aboutdakota wrote:
>
>>> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!
>
>> You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox
>> News "continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that,
>> but CNN will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And,
>> isn't CNN available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?
>
> You might want to Google before waxing indignant. The first link
> returned for the query
>
> ratings OR rated "fox news" cnn
>
> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>
> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>
> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.


All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what they
are supposed to think.


--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> > Aboutdakota wrote:
> >
> >>> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!
> >
> >> You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox
> >> News "continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that,
> >> but CNN will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And,
> >> isn't CNN available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?
> >
> > You might want to Google before waxing indignant. The first link
> > returned for the query
> >
> > ratings OR rated "fox news" cnn
> >
> > was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >
> > The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> > CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >
> > There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> > returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
>
>
> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what they
> are supposed to think.
> --
> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Well, if broad, generalizing, biased statements like that are supposed to
represent the opposite viewpoint, you're not really much better off.. are
you?

--
Jason G
Marlins Win. The Gods of Baseball Smite Me Again.
Remove 'WINNER' to reply.

"Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donkey Agony wrote:
>
> > Aboutdakota wrote:
> >
> >>> You want facts? Fact is Fox News continues to kick CNNs butt!
> >
> >> You are speaking of facts. Do you have an unbiased source that Fox
> >> News "continues to kick CNNs butt"? I know Fox News will claim that,
> >> but CNN will also claim that they are better than Fox News. And,
> >> isn't CNN available in a multitude of countries that Fox News is not?
> >
> > You might want to Google before waxing indignant. The first link
> > returned for the query
> >
> > ratings OR rated "fox news" cnn
> >
> > was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
> >
> > The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
> > CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
> >
> > There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
> > returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
>
>
> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what they
> are supposed to think.
> --
> Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Well, if broad, generalizing, biased statements like that are supposed to
represent the opposite viewpoint, you're not really much better off.. are
you?

--
Jason G
Marlins Win. The Gods of Baseball Smite Me Again.
Remove 'WINNER' to reply.

Harry Krause wrote:

>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.

> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> they are supposed to think.

Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)

So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?


Conservative, n. One who favors limited government and total war. ...
One who is against exercise because Jane Fonda is for it. As Franklin
Roosevelt said, "A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs
who, however, has never learned to walk." Of course, Roosevelt forgot
to add that a Liberal is a cripple who wants to force somebody else to
pay for his wheelchair.


--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

Harry Krause wrote:

>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.

> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
> they are supposed to think.

Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)

So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?


Conservative, n. One who favors limited government and total war. ...
One who is against exercise because Jane Fonda is for it. As Franklin
Roosevelt said, "A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs
who, however, has never learned to walk." Of course, Roosevelt forgot
to add that a Liberal is a cripple who wants to force somebody else to
pay for his wheelchair.


--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.

"CK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Jgoyb.17135$o9.1662@fed1read07...
> Melee-
> I think that a great deal of the consensus is that AT&T DID have good
> coverage, technology and customer service. You said you dropped them in
> 2000. That was then, this is now. They are steadily getting worse and
> loosing long time customers. The guy in the Forbes on Fox segment was a
> customer for over 7 years before dropping. Obvioulsy it worked well for
him
> in the past, but no longer. When I lived in Oak Harbor, WA the AT&T
> coverage was horrible.
>
>
I tried AT&T in California, southern to be exact, and they were miserable.
(They seemingly only pushed GSM coverage, and getting them to activate a
TDMA account is next to impossible here)

I dumped them and ran back to Sprint, and wasted no time in doing it.

Data on ATT is astronomically priced, as is everything else about them.

Frankly, I'll stay with Sprint, thank you very much.

Verizon? Don't get me started on their billing!

"CK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Jgoyb.17135$o9.1662@fed1read07...
> Melee-
> I think that a great deal of the consensus is that AT&T DID have good
> coverage, technology and customer service. You said you dropped them in
> 2000. That was then, this is now. They are steadily getting worse and
> loosing long time customers. The guy in the Forbes on Fox segment was a
> customer for over 7 years before dropping. Obvioulsy it worked well for
him
> in the past, but no longer. When I lived in Oak Harbor, WA the AT&T
> coverage was horrible.
>
>
I tried AT&T in California, southern to be exact, and they were miserable.
(They seemingly only pushed GSM coverage, and getting them to activate a
TDMA account is next to impossible here)

I dumped them and ran back to Sprint, and wasted no time in doing it.

Data on ATT is astronomically priced, as is everything else about them.

Frankly, I'll stay with Sprint, thank you very much.

Verizon? Don't get me started on their billing!

Donkey Agony wrote:

> Harry Krause wrote:
>
>>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
>>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
>>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
>
>> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
>> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
>> they are supposed to think.
>
> Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
> stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
>
> So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
>
Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered up.




--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Donkey Agony wrote:

> Harry Krause wrote:
>
>>> was http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/apr03/133295.asp :
>>> The average audience for Fox News is 3.4 million households,
>>> CNN's is 2.7 million and MSNBC's is 1.3.
>>> There were many similar links. According to some of the other links
>>> returned, Fox overtook CNN in January 2002 c.e.
>
>> All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
>> United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what
>> they are supposed to think.
>
> Or maybe it's because Fox offered some excitement contrasted with CNN's
> stale fare. (Though CNN seems to have improved lately in that regard.)
>
> So what is *your* news source that gives you such smug enlightenment
> which distinguishes you from the unwashed masses?
>
Faux News is obviously right-wing in its slant and in its rah-rah
approach to the Bush Administration. It is the most irresponsible
presentation of news on cable. It is the Rush Limbaugh approach to news:
rabble-rousing, snide, and rarely factual. But the righties who watch it
love it; it's sort of like watching a football game while you're beered up.




--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:35:52 GMT, "Karen" <[email protected]> posted
in alt.cellular.verizon:

>They said that Nextel was making money and although
>Verizon had $30 billion in debt

That number is meaningless without knowing how much cash and income
they have to cover it. If they have $40 billion available they're a
good investment. If, like Sprint, they have almost nothing to cover
their debt, they're in trouble.