"Sorry, Yukon Jack, numbers donít mean a thing. Numbers are meaningless. Thus National Enquirer has a much bigger circulation than say Globe and Mail. But I will believe what Globe and Mail says in a heartbeat, I wouldnít believe anything I read in the Enquirer.
So donít confuse popularity with reputation. There are plenty of right wing extremists in USA, they watch FOX news. That means squat. CNN has a much better reputation, is much more highly regarded that FOX news. FOX news is really a mouthpiece of the Republican Party, nothing more.
Numbers you quote only say that more people (right wing extremists) watch FOX than CNN, it say nothing about how reputable the sources are. CNN is much more highly reputed than FOX."
Numbers don't mean a thing, of course. Numbers don't mean squat. Numbers are meaningless. So you say. Especially (or perhaps ONLY) when those numbers prove you wrong, since they don't agree with your point of view. But they are a pretty good indication as to whom the public - and make no mistake not just your favourite scapegoats, the "right-wing extremists" - place their trust for fair and balanced news coverage.
So, maybe Obama's alleged high approval rating numbers don't mean a thing. After all, using your logic and condescending smear and name-calling in reverse, there are enough left-wing extremists in the U.S.A. to give a pass to Obama.
You once again use your favourite tactic of comparing apples to oranges by comparing the National Enquirer to the Globe and Mail. Mind you, had you compared the Enquirer to the New York Times, I would agree with you.
You never watched FOXNews, yet you "KNOW" that it is a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. In a very gullible and close-minded way you believe left-wing extremist Democrat Party mouth piece such as CNN, aka Clinton News Network, aka Communist Nonsense Network, but categorically reject any other news source just by "reputation".
I DO watch CNN. I am not opposed to give the other side a chance to be heard and listened to. I have a mind of my own for not having to rely on opinions and "reputation" formulated by someone else. I prefer checking things for myself and not stubburnly and blindly parrot one side only.
Based on this post of yours, I feel my previous reference to concrete was quite appropriate.