Fox News Continues To Thrash The Competition

[The Remnant]

August 12, 2009

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 895,000 viewers
CNN – 232,000 viewers
MSNBC –334,000 viewers
CNBC – 60,000 viewers
HLN – 193,000 viewers


Damn.

[LosAngelesSooner]

In other news, the more uneducated you are, the more likely you are to get your news from television.

;)

[olevetonahill]

In other news, the more uneducated you are, the more likely you are to get your news from television.

;)

Dayum skippy
I get Mine right cher !:cool:

[soonerscuba]

Abba has sold more records than Pink Floyd, what's your point?

[The Remnant]

Just call me an uneducated ABBA loving fool.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Abba has sold more records than Pink Floyd, what's your point?He*l, Maobama got more votes than the old guy. WTF?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Not that I think it really matters anyway, but FOX is winning prime time against the likes of Larry King and Anderson Cooper. The overall number of viewers in a day has CNN on top.

I prefer to watch a bit of all the news coverage from all the networks and follow up with net news and my own further research online to find the real truth in the jumbled mess that is "news".

[CrimsonJim]

Ahhhh nostalgia. Don't ya miss the good ole days when you could watch the evening news and actually believe what they were reporting?

[soonerhubs]

Ahhhh nostalgia. Don't ya miss the good ole days when you could watch the evening news and actually believe what they were reporting?

Honestly, in this era of post positivism, I think we're better off recognizing the subjectivity that has pervaded the media for years since it first came about. Scrutiny is where it's at.

[yermom]

my response to this is:

Nickelback
American Idol
Survivor
Notre Dame
NASCAR

[soonervegas]

I am suprised that MSNBC is beating CNN.

I do think alot of that has to do with Larry King. (unwatchable)

[JohnnyMack]

Abba has sold more records than Pink Floyd, what's your point?

IBSSC

[Veritas]

My (probably flawed) take is that these numbers are not significant. Fox has positioned itself as the only network with a right-leaning bias where the other are pretty liberal (regardless of whether or not they're honest about their bias is another issue). So they've captured one audience segment and left CNN et al to compete for another.

[oumartin]

Yep, I agree. Add up the other networks and compare them to Fox.

It's pretty even then. 4 liberal networks against one even fair and balanced network who doesn't play toward one side or the other.

[Veritas]

fair and balanced network who doesn't play toward one side or the other.
C'mon now. I watch Fox News because I'm conservative and it has a conservative slant, but you can't have guys like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as big names on your network and pretend to not play toward a side.

It's a right/Rebublican friendly network and it's left/Democrat unfriendly.

[oumartin]

well maybe, I prefer to think of it as right vs wrong. Good vs Evil.

Fox being the right and good.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's a right/Rebublican friendly network and it's left/Democrat unfriendly.Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, regulars that are left-leaners, with Greta Van Sustern slightly left, and O'Reilly not conservative economically. None of the other networks even attempt any conservative commentary, or are even non-hostile to conservatives, IMHO..

[soonerscuba]

If you actually believe that unbiased cable news exists, you will believe pretty much anything than comes into your purview.

As said earlier, at least the Daily Show makes no attempt to hide the fact they are liberal, and makes an attempt to treat countering view with a very healthy dose of respect in the name of entertaining discourse. That is why Jon Stewart has transformed himself into a player in the national media.

[GottaHavePride]

My (probably flawed) take is that these numbers are not significant.

They're not significant because they're prime-time numbers. No one watches the news channels during prime-time except the tinfoil-hat-wearing members of BOTH parties. At that time of day normal people are watching American Idol, or something.

;)

[GottaHavePride]

As said earlier, at least the Daily Show makes no attempt to hide the fact they are liberal, and makes an attempt to treat countering view with a very healthy dose of respect in the name of entertaining discourse. That is why Jon Stewart has transformed himself into a player in the national media.

And they're back-to-back with the Colbert Report, which offers an oppositely-slanted take. Think Colbert's insignificant? He broadcast a week from Baghdad and guest-edited Time magazine back a month or two ago...

If you watch both those shows you're probably getting closer to an "unbiased" take on the news than you'll get from ANY of the cable news networks.

No, I'm not kidding.

[Scott D]

I think the more telling number is that in a country of over 300 million, less than 2 million watch the tripe those networks show as their main programming.

[King Crimson]

the funny/more interesting thing is how the idea of majority is used without consistency and with utter rhetorical plasticity in American political language. mob rule one day, and pure democratic legitimation the other.

Limbaugh does this: one show he's the voice of the oppressed majority suffering at the hands of the Liberal Elites....and week later, he's characterizing his version of "True Conservatism" as the persecuted few and an intellectual road seldom traveled by the multitude and made of too hearty a stuff for the sheepish liberal conformists who have bullied their way through sheer numbers and brainless star/mass appeal to seize and despoil the American Heritage.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think the more telling number is that in a country of over 300 million, less than 2 million watch the tripe those networks show as their main programming.Obviously this is a crisis we need to address immediately.

Obama should instruct Nancy Pelosi to come up with another bill making people watch the news, every night, right away. Here are my suggestions:

1. If you're in the 55-75 demo, you will be required to visit with a government representative to determine your "TV viewing future". (We can't be wasting those valuable ratings on old folks who don't buy anything and fall asleep at 5:pm)
2. Free TVs for illegal aliens. (How else will they know how to vote??)
3. The "Public Option": If you don't watch PBS at your federally mandated hours, then you get taxed. Oh, and PBS will be "free". Cause a tax supported under priced government product will help drive private sector competition.
4. Viewing Credits: For the environment and stuff.

I'm putting the price tag on this at about $2.4 trillion. I would say Billion, but Democrats can't count that low.

[badger]

Can't fault a network for playing to its audience. I am not sure how a left-leaning channel on cable would fare, but I've heard left-leaning talk radio channel... what's it called, Air American? ...anyways, I've heard it really don't do that well.

[OklahomaTuba]

I am not sure how a left-leaning channel on cable would fare, but I've heard left-leaning talk radio channel... what's it called, Air American? ...anyways, I've heard it really don't do that well.Its called MSMBC. Its actually kind of fun to watch, knowing your the only one actually watching it in the entire time zone.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Obviously this is a crisis we need to address immediately.

Obama should instruct Nancy Pelosi to come up with another bill making people watch the news, every night, right away. Here are my suggestions:

1. If you're in the 55-75 demo, you will be required to visit with a government representative to determine your "TV viewing future". (We can't be wasting those valuable ratings on old folks who don't buy anything and fall asleep at 5:pm)
2. Free TVs for illegal aliens. (How else will they know how to vote??)
3. The "Public Option": If you don't watch PBS at your federally mandated hours, then you get taxed. Oh, and PBS will be "free". Cause a tax supported under priced government product will help drive private sector competition.
4. Viewing Credits: For the environment and stuff.

I'm putting the price tag on this at about $2.4 trillion. I would say Billion, but Democrats can't count that low.Have you started receiving emails from the White house yet?(from Axelrod, I think)

[OklahomaTuba]

Have you started receiving emails from the White house yet?(from Axelrod, I think)No, not yet. I'm sure its only a matter of time before myself and the other "evil-mongers" start getting some love from the snitch office in the whitehouse.

[King Crimson]

Can't fault a network for playing to its audience..

that's Murdoch's business model. he's supported Labor in the UK in the past with his media holdings. he's very up front that his purpose is to make money and none of the lofty public commitment and serving the public good nonsense.

[OklahomaTuba]

he's very up front that his purpose is to make money How DARE he....

[King Crimson]

How DARE he....

that's not what i'm saying (that's its bad)....it's just that his political commitments are secondary to profit. a lot of "right wingers" think FOX is speaking truth to power or has some holy mission to subvert the MSM as the ideological antidote....but, one audience is the same as another to Rup.

[OklahomaTuba]

that's not what i'm saying (that's its bad)....it's just that his political commitments are secondary to profit.I'm thinking thats true of a lot of people.

Al Gore certainly comes to mind as someone who fits into that category, although he hides it a lot better.

[King Crimson]

I'm thinking thats true of a lot of people.

Al Gore certainly comes to mind as someone who fits into that category, although he hides it a lot better.

that's a political comparison, which i'm not making. my point is that Rup is out to make money in the media industry and in the past news divisions were protected from the demands of the market (back in the old days). since that is no longer the case across the board at ABC, CBS, NBC, whoever.....what makes money in media is ratings and selling ad space and audiences to advertisers. what makes ratings is sensationalism, splashy pablum, cleavage and infotainment. news is subordinate to those things....and begins to resemble them.

and Rupert does that better and with more courage than anyone else. and that's why FOX is what it is. not any ideological commitment to be the anecdote to Liberal Bias.

[badger]

I'm not sure anyone can fault Rupert for trying to make money via the media... I mean, with the exception of public television and public radio, all media is for-profit and a lot of it is conglomerates that control not just a single newspaper or television station or radio station or Web site, but many... and not just a single market, but across the country.

[King Crimson]

media are for profit, yes....but "news" didn't used to be within the larger corporate media structure. All in the Family or MASH paid for the network news division...which was given an independent budget so that it could remain neutral and separate from the pressures of the market.

the media landscape, then, was much different from today. access to media was a broadcast model and quite limited and less the user/interactive/customizable one today. the break-through in this regard was cable TV in the 70's.

i'm not faulting anyone, i'm just saying that's how it is/was. i personally have no problem with partisan media...it's much older as a form than the "objective" model of news. opposition by it's nature from the earliest newspapers and political broadsheets of the 17th Century...is the "ken" of political media. journalism which has as it's purpose to buttress the state or the imperatives of a sovereign...is simple propaganda. that's where the 4th Estate idea of journalism has it's social roots....in the watchdog/oppositional role afforded to newspapers of the 18th Century in the US and Europe. where if your party holds a majority in parliament and the "official" means of communication and law-making availed to the state apparatus, my party of opposition gains voice in public media like the newspapers and we wrangle for public opinion. and therefore play a primary role in the foundation of Western Constitutional Republics/Democracies.....or the revolutionary ideals of colonists as in the US.

the question today is: to what extent does conglomerate ownership compromise those values. are those values even worth caring about in a "consumer-first"/totally for profit media model....where does "news" fit in?

do newish communication technologies enable people to self-select "news" to such a degree that the market (and bandwidth) will provide an adequate set of unrestricted avenues for representative ideas across the political spectrum to compete in the public sphere (this has been the FCC argument since the 1996 Telecom Act).

[OklahomaTuba]

that's a political comparison, which i'm not making.
NM, I saw your last post.

It could be worse, we could have something like the BBC here. now THAT is an objective news outfit.

[KC//CRIMSON]

my response to this is:

Nickelback
American Idol
Survivor
Notre Dame
NASCAR


The Remnant, RLIMC, and Tuba are Creed fans.

[yermom]

Nickelback is the new Creed