Push back hard against news stories that are either inaccurate or unflattering.
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
Depends on who's numbers you trust.
I don't trust your numbers.
I do trust the people I know who were there though, and they continue to insist the numbers were significantly higher than tens of thousands.
Though the NY Times did provide very flattering coverage in the A section of their paper for it
And it wasn't hostile like the limited tea party coverage, nor did it call the group "radical leftists" or liberals, despite all the socialist groups that turned up.
I don't see any reason why you would exclude them...
And I will repeat, that the Fox News journalist are the most fair and objective in the industry.
But you tell me, what is the political agenda of Chris Wallace or Bret Baier?
Again, I disagree.
The NEWS division, the journalists, are the most fair and objective of organization on television. If you think that they are far right, then that demonstrates how radically left the rest of the industry consistently is.
Fox is further differentiated because they have COMMENTATORS on in the evening that unabashedly express a philosophy that is contrary to the one that Obama and his administration are advancing.
You watched them ONCE last week.
And they ran promos for their prime time broadcasts.....
That's your smoking gun? That's how you want to validate this ridiculous political attack from the White House on the ONLY network that dares report news critical of them?
No, I was talking about MSNBC using their commentators to cover significant campaign events in the role of journalists. Olberman and Mathews covering the news....
Rebuttal? If the program has a panel, it will usually consist of 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
If you aren't aware of this, you've demonstrated that you don't know anything about the network or it's programing and that despite your aggressive enthusiasm to demonize and delegitimize dishonestly.
Off the top of my head, it'll be Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Mort Kondracke, and I can't think of all the "Democrat Strategists" that routinely make their way through D.C. and do the network rounds.
As for who specifically appeared on TV during the DNC convention... which day, which show, and why would I even know or remember that?
The possibility to obfuscate with a data dump of numbers presented itself and you couldn't resist the temptation.....
Probably? Did you add that qualifier in so no one would call you liar, you could just plead ignorance?
If that were the case- then the combine ratings of the other news networks would at least EQUAL that of Fox News in the evening, wouldn't it? That's what you're clearly implying there.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work out like that, does it.
Let's get some ratings information from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html]the Huffington Post:
O'Reilly averaged 3.295 million viewers in Q3 of 2009. (up 12% from previous year)
Hannity averaged 2.603 million (up 9% from the previous year)
Greta van Susteren (is she a conservative Republican too?) averaged 2.150 (Up 16%)
Special Report with Bret Baier averaged 1.99 million viewers. (Up 20%)
and at 5 PM, Glenn Beck has averaged 2.403 million viewers. (up 85%- this is a figure from Huffington, so I'm not sure where it comes from if that's compared to his old HLN ratings or the old show at 5PM on Fox)
(I don't know if those viewership numbers include the rebroadcasts later in the night, but since they're all coming from the Huffington Post, the comparison should certainly be fair to MSNBC and CNN)
And all of those programs showed strong growth in their audience size.
The same can't be said for either CNN or MSNBC.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year
"The Rachel Maddow Show" averaged 996,000 total viewers (Maddow began the program in September 2008, so a comparison for the quarter would be inaccurate; compared to September 2008, though, Maddow's September 2009 total viewer average is down 40%).
At CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17%
"Lou Dobbs" averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%.
Larry King and Campbell Brown were both down just slightly in total viewers.
But lets take a snapshot and compare all the ratings.
As I stated, IF YOU ADD UP THE VIEWERS OF ALL THREE NEWS NETWORKS, including headline news, YOU STILL DO NOT EQUAL THE RATINGS OF FOX NEWS.
And- Fox News is experiencing a surge in viewership while the other networks are LOSING viewers.
So, you're probably a liar or just wrong...
Why would they do that?
Then they'd have the White House trying to destroy them.
Rahm Emanuel and David Axlerod made that abundantly clear this weekend.
Isolate it, delegitimize it or ridicule it, and make it an example to any other network that has the integrity to challenge this administration.
YouTube - Rahm Emanuel on White House's War with Fox News
But, what you're saying is that you think it's appropriate for this White House to seek to destroy and damage the ONLY voice in News that is displaying any objectivity and criticism towards the them. That's a very dangerous position to take.
Last edited by a moderator:
And I trust someone I know who was there and has seen 70,000 people on the mall in the past, he has seen 250,000 people on the mall, he has seen 500,000 people on the mall, he has seen over a million people on the mall. When he states 70,000 to 100,000 I believe him. You keep saying Cal that your friends haven’t been part of protests before. They don’t know what 100,000 people look like on the Mall – they haven't been part of protests before that involve tens of thousands of people or perhaps even 100,000 people. If you don’t have experience with those numbers – then how can you accurately gauge?
And guess what CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC all covered the gay protest with approximately the same amount of air time they did with the 9-12 protest. That is who is in the ad cal – not NYT. Who is playing favorites? Fox gave the gay protest 3 minutes – next day – with borrowed footage. Who covers all the news - obviously not Fox. Fox covers the news that they think will be appealing to their viewers. Gay protests aren't appealing to their viewers so it gets 3 minutes, next day, buried. 9-12 protests gets tons of coverage - it gets marketing before the event - lots and lots of it, it gets a huge amount of coverage after the event, including a full page ad. Fox marketed the protest like a professional PR firm... Because that is what they are for the 9-12 movement-they are the PR firm behind it.
And you can be the most fair reporter in the industry – but, when the stories you are allowed to read on the air deal with flash point issues, or if every other commercial on your broadcast is for right wing pundits, then your playground is skewed. Fox is skewed because 1 hour is devoted to news and 8 hours is devoted to right wing pundits… One good teacher does not make for a good school.
And those commentators – the amount of them, their obvious right wing bent, and the amount of publicity that they generate, along with the amount of additional air time they get within the 'news' hour (such as commercials, using them as talking heads during broadcasts, etc), skew the station Cal. If I had Wallace and Baier on MSNBC and surrounded them with Olberman, Harry Smith, and the like – and ran commercials during their news broadcast that touted those pundits over and over and over again, my station would be considered ‘left’, and correctly so.
I could watch Baier, but to watch him on Fox is painful – to watch those annoying commercials for Beck over and over again. Perhaps I should tivo him and then fast forward during the commercials.
Sweetheart – you brought up a point that Fox out shines all its competitors combined – well, they don’t. They don’t even come close – I had numbers – you didn’t. Sorry if the cookie didn’t crumble like you said it did. Talk about obfuscation… anyone can claim anything cal – show me the numbers…
Really-
CBS News – 5.7 million
ABC News – 7.6 million
NBC News – 8.3 million
FOX News - 1.9 million
You keep adding the big 3 to your discussion – I even asked you in the beginning if you wanted to do that – you did.
So, lets play with the big boys Cal.
Three times as many people watch lowly CBC (Katie Couric sweetheart) than Fox –
People have a choice cal – they still chose broadcast news over alternative news – they continue to tune into the big three in spite of the options given to them on cable/satellite/web. And those are liberal – all 3 of them.
Cry foul, cry cable news only – no it isn’t cable news only Cal – wake up – you need to compare apples to apples. When ESPN can garner 21 million viewers for a football game (Monday Night Football), and broadcast (NBCs Sunday Night Football) gets 20 million – they are now apples and apples.
MSNBC doesn't get as many viewers because people watch NBC instead... CNN doesn't get as many viewers because people watch CBS instead.
Fox is a small player – they will continue to be a small player because of their right wing skew. They are the only player on that side of the field. Once someone else takes up that format, they will become even a smaller player. There are only so many people who want to watch their news in that type of format – if another station wants a piece of the pie – all the pieces get smaller, not bigger. Fox has grown over the last 2 years, but is now leveling off – they might see a bit of resurgence as the 2010 elections heat up – but, they need an event like that to complement their numbers…
Fox News is right wing – it is how they are marketed, it is how they are presented, it is how the entire network colors itself. Fox now has to take the good with the bad. Some success, but people see the entire station, including their news as right wing. That is their decision, they now live with the consequences.
And I know people that were there that have seen large crowds on the wall as well, they vehemently dispute the number provided by your friends. And among the people I'm relying upon are democrat DC attorneys.
So, as credible as your claim may (or may not) be, I'm going to simply have to disagree with you.
Regarding yet another Gay Pride event, even if you want to pretend the turn out was equal- which I dispute.... I don't think the 9/12 Rally people had room for a big gay line dancing stage, gay marching bands, or room for those guys to ride around on roller skates wearing a g-string with sparkly wings and roller skates.
But disregarding the turn out, the nature of the event was vastly different. I've never seen tens of hundreds of thousands of non-activists, regular middle-Americans show up to peacefully assemble at the capital to politely ask for more responsible government before. That's significant. That's a story, and a story that continues to develop.
Regarding the coverage, Fox did report on the event both leading up to and the day of. However, it wasn't just a rally, it was a series of events. Fox spent more of their time covering the President's involvement speaking at the big gay dinner that evening rather than the gay line dancing, or the marching militant homosexual socialists strutting about.
If you think that the annual, touring Gay Pride event in D.C. was as significant as the 9/12 Rally, then we'll have to disagree.
So, you've now lowered the bar so low that merely running a commerical promoting a later broadcast that YOU disagree with justifies your efforts to demonize and delegitimize it.
I disagree with your ratio completely.
Fox News has news until 5 PM, when Glenn Beck airs. He's certainly not a friend of the GOP. Then straight news from 6PM (Shep Smith) and 7PM (Bret Baier). 8PM O'Reilly- who has an opinion, but certainly gives both sides a hearing. As seems to be the policy at Fox News, guest present both sides of an argument. For example, one pro, one con. One democrat strategist, one republican strategist.
Hannity at 9PM, same policy.
Greta Van Sustren at 10PM. She's not a Republican or a conservative at all.
And that's the prime time line up.
So where's the 8 to 1 ratio you speak of? It doesn't exist, you're simply repeating lies in an effort to win your point. There's really no depth that you won't sink.
Again, thanks for confirming, the NEWS on the network is quality and fair, you just don't like the opposing commentary.
I did... Fox News competes against the other CABLE NEWS NETWORKS.
Would you like me to repeat them.
I'll gladly do that....
And I responded with this:
Probably? Did you add that qualifier in so no one would call you liar, you could just plead ignorance?
If that were the case- then the combine ratings of the other news networks would at least EQUAL that of Fox News in the evening, wouldn't it? That's what you're clearly implying there.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work out like that, does it.
Let's get some ratings information from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...uffington Post:
O'Reilly averaged 3.295 million viewers in Q3 of 2009. (up 12% from previous year)
Hannity averaged 2.603 million (up 9% from the previous year)
Greta van Susteren (is she a conservative Republican too?) averaged 2.150 (Up 16%)
Special Report with Bret Baier averaged 1.99 million viewers. (Up 20%)
and at 5 PM, Glenn Beck has averaged 2.403 million viewers. (up 85%- this is a figure from Huffington, so I'm not sure where it comes from if that's compared to his old HLN ratings or the old show at 5PM on Fox)
(I don't know if those viewership numbers include the rebroadcasts later in the night, but since they're all coming from the Huffington Post, the comparison should certainly be fair to MSNBC and CNN)
And all of those programs showed strong growth in their audience size.
The same can't be said for either CNN or MSNBC.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year
"The Rachel Maddow Show" averaged 996,000 total viewers (Maddow began the program in September 2008, so a comparison for the quarter would be inaccurate; compared to September 2008, though, Maddow's September 2009 total viewer average is down 40%).
At CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17%
"Lou Dobbs" averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%.
Larry King and Campbell Brown were both down just slightly in total viewers.
But lets take a snapshot and compare all the ratings.
As I stated, IF YOU ADD UP THE VIEWERS OF ALL THREE NEWS NETWORKS, including headline news, YOU STILL DO NOT EQUAL THE RATINGS OF FOX NEWS.
And- Fox News is experiencing a surge in viewership while the other networks are LOSING viewers.
So, you're probably a liar or just wrong...
But let me amend that... you're probably just a liar.
When we were discussing the tone of their coverage.
Network news programs are institutions with much greater exposure and access into homes. But you note that all 3 of them are liberal, but do they present themselves as such? Or do they continue to lie to the public as they insist that they are fair and objective?
Additionally, if you really want to view this with a market perspective, which way are their ratings trending right now?
The network news is experiencing a steep decline in viewership while Fox News continues to gain audience.
If they're such a small player with such small, ideological audience, why is the White House investing so much attention and political capitol in attacking them? That doesn't make much sense, does it?
You slipped earlier and acknowledged that the NEWS coverage on Fox was in fact fair and objective. And we both agree that Fox is the ONLY network that showcases opinions that challenge this White House. You just said that clearly, "they are the only player on that side of the field."
So, according to you, FOX is the ONLY network that presents a critical voice of the government in the television media. Yet, you embrace the efforts to have them targeted and destroyed for purely political reasons?
And those consequences are what, exactly?
"Targeted and Made to Pay" as you've stated earlier?
They should be used as an example, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's chief political advisor David Axlerod stated during interviews this weekend. They clearly expressed a threat to other news organizations to not start asking them hard questions lest they will be targeted and punished as they seek to do to Fox.
It would seem that you and the Obama administration only like "free speech" when it agrees with you. When it obstructs or exposes your agenda, to quote you, they become a "target" and have to "pay the price".
Why doesn't the administration simply answer the questions being asked?
Why not confront the charges and challenges being made? So far, all of those "lies" have turned out to be accurate.
And day after day, foxpaws, you demonstrate you're utter unwillingness to address any of these issues with a shred of honesty or integrity. You've unintentionally revealed more about yourself in this thread than I think you wanted too...
But if you run into Mark Rudd at another social affair, tell him all of us at LVC say "hi."
Last edited by a moderator:
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
57% approve of the job the president is doing and the same percentage now want a public option included in the national health care bill.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
It's my personal estimate. I'm perfectly in tune with the people.
so, you simply make up numbers and assert them as fact...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I have to agree with Shag. That was pure PWNAGE by Cal.
So, we won't go with an ex-attorney for the RNC (my source) on the numbers for the 9-12 protest - that is fine... we will continue to disagree on this Cal - but certainly the pictures also show about 70,000-100,000 people...
9-12 was a protest - just because it was people who don't normally protest, should it get extra coverage - you seem to think it should, I don't think that should elevate them above others... you would, because you agree with them - your opinion gets in the way.
And if they treated all things equal than a tiny protest (100 people) about children singing songs about the president - 1 month after the children sang the song, that wasn't even happening by the time the reporters for Fox got there, wouldn't have gotten 3 times the air time as the gay protest - Fox skews.
You can put your head in the sand about this Cal - but all those people are conservative/right - they aren't middle of the road... and it does color the perception you get on their newscasts.
And yes - some of the news is interesting, and I think fair - but, the surrounding atmosphere colors the broadcast cal - i will watch Brian Williams any day of the week over Fox News... I don't need to be bombarded with right wing commercials, I'd rather look at Crest...
Ah - now you say 'cable news networks' you didn't state that before - and no longer does cable live in a vacuum - you have to compare all news against each other - broadcast included... I thought you knew that..
All your charts show is that there is sliding numbers for everyone but fox - and the reason for most of that slide - the internet and dvr type recording - not Fox... Fox is rising, yes, how long will the trend last - hard to tell - but they won't hit even the number of the lowest broadcast, CBS, for years. Everyone who looks at numbers now combines cable with broadcast - it is how America is now viewing TV...
And Cal - you haven't a clue on how to look at numbers - it is my job. MSNBC and CNN and Headline don't get viewership because they take from broadcast news - they are the same skew. Fox doesn't take much from broadcast news - it isn't their skew.
You can't compare just msnbc, cnn, and headline against Fox - because it doesn't work that way - especially with the nightly news - which is what we have been talking about - the nightly news.
Commentary you could compare - and that does show that Fox is fairing much better - not surprising with the amount of PR they put behind their commentary - and the fact the right does support this - they have shown this same tendency with talk radio - it is what the right does... actively support their media outlets. Good for them... It keeps their viewpoint front and center.
Where does America still go for it's nightly news - it isn't Fox... That is what we were comparing numbers for cal - suddenly you threw in all the commentators - we want to throw those out - don't we?
In one instance you want to keep the commentators, and the next instance you want to throw them out. In one place you want to include the big boys, in the next breath, you don't include them...
Cal, I know the numbers, i know what them mean, and I know how to compare Fox's nightly news with the rest.
Not that much greater Cal - as i pointed out with my ESPN example - cable does draw numbers as big as broadcast - and it is being included in the mix when looking at ratings. Alternate TV is getting close enough in market penetration that the numbers are weighted only lightly - if at all.
And the big 3 don't say they are liberal - once again, and I say this over and over again - they should. I can't make them Cal, sorry...
I know how all of TV is trending - and I know why Cal - it is my job. Alternate, internet and dvr is changing how we watch TV. Fox will rise a little - I expect them too - but they won't come close to liberal TV News sources for a long, long time.
Because they are a loud voice - they are very, very good at PR - look at the 9-12 protest - not big - but lots of noise... it is very good PR, but it is nonetheless PR...
I don't think that the white house wants to destroy Fox News - they want to point out how their commentators should be viewed as opinion - I am not sure how they are going to do this Cal - they haven't shown how they are going to go about this - once I see how then I will have a better idea if they are out to target and destroy just fox - or if it is a genuine desire to stand up for their side of the issues.
I haven't seen what Emanuel and Axlerod talked about this weekend - I don't watch everything Cal - I don't have time... I'll try to catch it - but, all news and no syfy makes for a boring dinner date... And I have to find time to actually go out and make a difference in my community... what a concept.
That is again what I have stated in the past - the white house has the right to challenge anyone on their facts, and their opinions. Let's see how they do this, unless Cal, you have some insider info on how they plan on handling this, or can see into the future.
And Cal, you continue to point at me as though I have some amazing inside information on how the white house works with this administration - I don't. But, if Fox's commentators put forth wrong information - or just 'opinion' then the white house certainly can challenge them...
I will stand up for the white house going out publicly against media that misrepresents their policies and agenda - I wouldn't be for them going blanket-ly against any media source. If they really go after Fox like that - I would be against it.
Well welcome to my psyche Cal - I am glad I have been so revealing...
It will be much easier to say hi to Ann McLaughlin Korologos when I see her next month... I haven't seen Rudd in years, he probably wouldn't even remember me, and I certainly don't think I'll see him in the foreseeable future... But I have a variety of dinner companions that are far more interesting, who do know my name... Should I give you a list Cal - since you seem to be very interested in who my friends are.
Perhaps you are living vicariously through me - that is fine...Want menus too? A short rundown of what we discussed? Type of hostess gifts? Wine list? Cigars smoked?
9-12 was a protest - just because it was people who don't normally protest, should it get extra coverage - you seem to think it should, I don't think that should elevate them above others... you would, because you agree with them - your opinion gets in the way.
And if they treated all things equal than a tiny protest (100 people) about children singing songs about the president - 1 month after the children sang the song, that wasn't even happening by the time the reporters for Fox got there, wouldn't have gotten 3 times the air time as the gay protest - Fox skews.
Beck is conservative/right - he doesn't have to be GOP - he is conservative/right... O'Reilly - conservative/right, Hannity - conservative/right, Van Sustren - conservative/right, so - about 4 to 1... sorry, I was wrong - but their news is surrounded by right wing commentators...
You can put your head in the sand about this Cal - but all those people are conservative/right - they aren't middle of the road... and it does color the perception you get on their newscasts.
And yes - some of the news is interesting, and I think fair - but, the surrounding atmosphere colors the broadcast cal - i will watch Brian Williams any day of the week over Fox News... I don't need to be bombarded with right wing commercials, I'd rather look at Crest...
Ah - now you say 'cable news networks' you didn't state that before - and no longer does cable live in a vacuum - you have to compare all news against each other - broadcast included... I thought you knew that..
All your charts show is that there is sliding numbers for everyone but fox - and the reason for most of that slide - the internet and dvr type recording - not Fox... Fox is rising, yes, how long will the trend last - hard to tell - but they won't hit even the number of the lowest broadcast, CBS, for years. Everyone who looks at numbers now combines cable with broadcast - it is how America is now viewing TV...
And Cal - you haven't a clue on how to look at numbers - it is my job. MSNBC and CNN and Headline don't get viewership because they take from broadcast news - they are the same skew. Fox doesn't take much from broadcast news - it isn't their skew.
You can't compare just msnbc, cnn, and headline against Fox - because it doesn't work that way - especially with the nightly news - which is what we have been talking about - the nightly news.
Commentary you could compare - and that does show that Fox is fairing much better - not surprising with the amount of PR they put behind their commentary - and the fact the right does support this - they have shown this same tendency with talk radio - it is what the right does... actively support their media outlets. Good for them... It keeps their viewpoint front and center.
Where does America still go for it's nightly news - it isn't Fox... That is what we were comparing numbers for cal - suddenly you threw in all the commentators - we want to throw those out - don't we?
In one instance you want to keep the commentators, and the next instance you want to throw them out. In one place you want to include the big boys, in the next breath, you don't include them...
Cal, I know the numbers, i know what them mean, and I know how to compare Fox's nightly news with the rest.
Not that much greater Cal - as i pointed out with my ESPN example - cable does draw numbers as big as broadcast - and it is being included in the mix when looking at ratings. Alternate TV is getting close enough in market penetration that the numbers are weighted only lightly - if at all.
And the big 3 don't say they are liberal - once again, and I say this over and over again - they should. I can't make them Cal, sorry...
I know how all of TV is trending - and I know why Cal - it is my job. Alternate, internet and dvr is changing how we watch TV. Fox will rise a little - I expect them too - but they won't come close to liberal TV News sources for a long, long time.
Because they are a loud voice - they are very, very good at PR - look at the 9-12 protest - not big - but lots of noise... it is very good PR, but it is nonetheless PR...
I don't think that the white house wants to destroy Fox News - they want to point out how their commentators should be viewed as opinion - I am not sure how they are going to do this Cal - they haven't shown how they are going to go about this - once I see how then I will have a better idea if they are out to target and destroy just fox - or if it is a genuine desire to stand up for their side of the issues.
I haven't seen what Emanuel and Axlerod talked about this weekend - I don't watch everything Cal - I don't have time... I'll try to catch it - but, all news and no syfy makes for a boring dinner date... And I have to find time to actually go out and make a difference in my community... what a concept.
That is again what I have stated in the past - the white house has the right to challenge anyone on their facts, and their opinions. Let's see how they do this, unless Cal, you have some insider info on how they plan on handling this, or can see into the future.
And Cal, you continue to point at me as though I have some amazing inside information on how the white house works with this administration - I don't. But, if Fox's commentators put forth wrong information - or just 'opinion' then the white house certainly can challenge them...
I will stand up for the white house going out publicly against media that misrepresents their policies and agenda - I wouldn't be for them going blanket-ly against any media source. If they really go after Fox like that - I would be against it.
Well welcome to my psyche Cal - I am glad I have been so revealing...
It will be much easier to say hi to Ann McLaughlin Korologos when I see her next month... I haven't seen Rudd in years, he probably wouldn't even remember me, and I certainly don't think I'll see him in the foreseeable future... But I have a variety of dinner companions that are far more interesting, who do know my name... Should I give you a list Cal - since you seem to be very interested in who my friends are.
Perhaps you are living vicariously through me - that is fine...Want menus too? A short rundown of what we discussed? Type of hostess gifts? Wine list? Cigars smoked?
I don't have any interest in what you do with a cigar around a person like Rudd.
Does he smoke - I don't know Cal... again I met him at a couple of gallery shows...
Your interest in Rudd fascinates me though - He is an old man, and didn't seem very interesting. I would have liked to find out more about him, his past - but 'hi, isn't this piece interesting, and how do you know the artist' doesn't really lend itself to 'how do you feel about bombing innocent Americans', over cheese and crackers...
Your interest in Rudd fascinates me though - He is an old man, and didn't seem very interesting. I would have liked to find out more about him, his past - but 'hi, isn't this piece interesting, and how do you know the artist' doesn't really lend itself to 'how do you feel about bombing innocent Americans', over cheese and crackers...