[quote]chrisrock wrote:
Fact is people like what they see on fox more then the other networks. That’s my point. :-)[/quote]
Indeed, I think this IS the point – the entertainment value of FOX supercedes its journalistic objectivism and/or integrity, and this leads to better ratings.
However, hasn’t FOX’s grip on the cable news market dropped some in recent years? I’m not sure, but this seems right.
RSU,
You wrote:
“Indeed, I think this IS the point – the entertainment value of FOX supercedes its journalistic objectivism and/or integrity, and this leads to better ratings.”
How exactly did you make that leap?
What if more people think they are trully “fair and balanced.” You could make a pretty convincing case for it.
If you throw out Bill O’Reilly/Sean Hannity, you have to also throw in Coombs/NPR (Mia…/Juan Williams), every single (not literally, but close) Clinton cabinet member and substaffer, etc…
You may not believe this, but I was brought up on CBS/NBC and later CNN. In the past one year I’ve begun to watch far more Fox. This is primarily due to the comments from people like yourself.
The liberals’ constant harping on FOX caused me to wonder whether this might be the station for me. Liberals will commonly attack sources that come close to the truth. They attack the messenger.
One can use the most left-leaning liberals as a compass.
If you don’t like it, it must be good.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
RSU,
You wrote:
“Indeed, I think this IS the point – the entertainment value of FOX supercedes its journalistic objectivism and/or integrity, and this leads to better ratings.”
How exactly did you make that leap?
What if more people think they are trully “fair and balanced.” You could make a pretty convincing case for it.
[/quote]
Good point, actually, JeffR. It just MIGHT be true that more people actually think it is fair and balanced, however, this doesn’t actually mean it is fair and balanced.
I still contend that more people watch because it is “entertaining.” Also, I think it’s the old Howard Stern rule – the people that like FOX watch because they like the rightward leanings, and the people that dislike FOX watch it because they CAN’T STAND what they’re seeing!
RSU,
True.
However, I would like you to spend some time watching it. There are plenty of liberals getting air-time. It is also unique because there are strong Conservative voices. CNN has Bob Novak/Tucker Carlson. I like both of them, but they are no match for the shouting/finger-waving Begala/Carville.
The latter are much better politicos.
In case it isn’t obvious, CNN has made me quite angry lately. Their anchors and political commentators are too obvious in their liberal leanings. Please tell me if you agree with this assessment.
JeffR
[quote]chrisrock wrote:
Fact is people like what they see on fox more then the other networks. That’s my point. :-)[/quote]
Get a grip guys. Fox News’s share of viewers is puny compared to the major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC).
People mostly watch FoxNews because it reinforces their conservative views. They won’t get mad watching Fox, like they do when they watch other channels that most SENSIBLE people consider mainstream and fairly neutral.
Yesterday FoxNews was embarrassed when chief politicqal correspondent Carl Cameron ran a fake story with fake quotes from John Kerry that were intended to make Kerry look stupid and effeminate (isn’t my manicure great?). Fox blamed the mistake on “fatigue”. Ummm “fatigue”? When they get tired over at Fox News, I guess they write elaborate fake stories designed to tear down the other candidate? If Carl Cameron is so fatigued, maybe he should take a vacation until the election is over?
The latest embarrassment for Fox News is that their post-debate coverage included a phony group called “Communists for Kerry” which is a Republican “parody” organization. Except Fox News presented the group as legitimate and serious, and never said the group was a joke. Even though the “Communists for Kerry” website clearly says they are a Republican group, Fox News never revealed that during their story. Thirty seconds of fact-checking would have revealed that the group was a Republican “satire” organization.
What if somebody started a “joke” organization called “Nazis for Bush”? What if (for example) Dan Rather interviewed the group and acted like they were a legitimate serious organization, and didn’t reveal that they were a “parody” group? Wouldn’t you guys be screaming that Dan Rather should be fired?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
RSU,
True.
However, I would like you to spend some time watching it.[/quote]
I do.
You might see it that way. I posted some stats on the political leanings of the FOX guests. I think Outfoxed quotes it as something like 70% Republican and 30% Democrat. Is this fair and balanced?
[quote] It is also unique because there are strong Conservative voices. CNN has Bob Novak/Tucker Carlson. I like both of them, but they are no match for the shouting/finger-waving Begala/Carville.
The latter are much better politicos.
[/quote]
I don’t know about that. While I like Carville, he has his moments of insanity it seems!
Dustin,
O’Reilly was one of the main people pushing for the suit against Franken for his book criticizing fox and in particular O’Reilly. On top of that fox also sued the makers of outfox in another attempt to intimidate people from criticizing the network.
As for fox’s right wing bias, there are internal company memos telling journalists what the story of the day is going to be and how to report it. Journalists were forced to sign confidentiality agreements and have been disciplined or removed for not stating the “official” story.
While the mainstream media does have a liberal tilt, nothing compares to fox news.
oh yes, check out this link for a laugh.
doesn’t really prove my point or anything but funny regardless
I think there is a significant minority, if not a majority, who makes up Fox viewership who finds the partisanship somewhat refreshing compared with the pseudo-unbiased yet obviously biased stuff slathered out by a lot of other news sources. Seriously, the pretensions of impartiality of CBS or the New York Times insult the intelligence of their customers. I count myself in that group. Additionally, it seems that Fox attracts some liberal viewers who like to hear positions argued – at least if you judge by the emails they read (which of course is likely not a representative sample).
With Fox, you might be getting a bias, but at least you’re not getting BS’d – and, in general, they do put on a lot of left/right counterpoint stuff. As to the stat, in watching their weekend shows I’m not surprised if it is 70/30 or some approximation thereof, depending on how you count certain of the people – but all those shows do include both viewpoints, even if the liberals tend to be outnumbered.
Historically, before media was dominated by “The Big 3” television networks, most news sources were biased, and you knew that your facts were being spun, and you knew how each newspaper had the reputation of spinning them.
Now, I’m not saying that an aspiration to impartiality is a bad thing. I would love to see it actually aspired to by some of the big media sources. Lately the Washington Post has been close to this, as has the USA Today, IMHO. But just pretending to be without bias while actually spinning partisan stuff is ridiculous, and those who perceive this are insulted.
Lumpy is right – the networks dominate viewership… at least for now. When the old Walter Cronkite fans start passing on (Old people watch lots of TV - especially evening news that no one else is home to watch), the networks will see their viewership decline dramatically as the old FDR voters who trusted the guy in the anchor seat are replaced by far more cynical generations.