On Feb 24, 5:35*am, dpb wrote:
On 2/23/2012 9:51 PM, wrote:
...

Factually incorrect "fill" doesn't do anyone any good. *The problem is that
the reporters don't know the difference. *They're scientifically illiterate.

Commentators/interviewers aren't being paid to think; they're there
simply as actors to read the script/follow the interview outline to have
something to put out over the air so the advertisers can be billed for
their air time.

....and that's a good thing?

...

You miss the whole point--the point isn't to do anything good or bad;
it's simply to have a time slot for the broadcasters can charge advertisers.

The concept of "good" or "bad" never enters into it; only whether they
can continue to sell advertising.

--

I think he believes the viewer should be able to draw some benifit
from watchingTV. Clearly not in this case, the exact opposite in
fact.

It's obvious the that "Fox News" is accustomed to trotting out drivel,
easily provable in this case to anyone with the slightest education.

One can conclude that other stuff they come up with is also drivel
though not so easily proved/disproved.

Best not to watch it. Lowered viewing rates is the best way to punish
them.

And the creepy kid needs to be put down to prevent him from spreading
his genes.