Murdoch: ‘If we weren’t fair and balanced, we wouldn’t have the number one network in news.’

[_Simpson_ 250]

It doesn't. But that wasn't my comment.

I just think a lot of people are stupid when it comes to politics.

But you agreed with it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did I?

I recall saying that it didn't apply exclusively to right wingers.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Confessing Error: Some People Do Prefer Defeat to Victory

Author Reese Schonfeld is a television journalist and co-founder of CNN and the Food Network. And a whiny liberal.

Nine years ago, when FoxNews sprinted past CNN to become America's number one news network, I attributed its ratings gains to the election of George Bush and the triumph of Fox-watching conservatives. I figured conservatives would be savoring their victory while liberals were averting their eyes in disgust. For the next eight years, I measured political sentiment in the United States by comparing the size of the FoxNews audience with the combined size of the CNN/MSNBC audience. In this space, I even predicted, with reasonable accuracy, the percent by which Barack Obama won the election based on the split in the news audience.

Now, seven months after Barack Obama's victory, CNN's ratings have gone down the drain. From May of last year to May of this year, CNN lost 22% of its total primetime audience. MSNBC was down 2%, while FoxNews was up 24%. In the key advertising demographic (25-54), Fox was up 31%, CNN was down 37% and MSNBC was down 26%. In hard numbers, Fox had 109,000 more viewers than last year while CNN lost 113,000. CNN averaged fewer than 200,000 25-54 viewers in primetime. Even MSNBC averaged more viewers than that.

Total day was nearly as bad, with Fox up 24% and CNN down 7%. MSNBC was down 2% in total viewing. Fox is beating CNN almost two-to-one in most categories.

There's no need to throw any more numbers at you--Fox is gaining, CNN is wilting. Why is this happening when the country still seems about 58-42 in favor of Obama? My best guess is the passion of those who detest Democrats, liberals, and in particular, Barack Obama.

Conservatives seem so angry at their loss, so ready to blame Obama for all their problems that almost 400,000 more of them are watching FoxNews this year than they did last year. I think they turn to Fox for comfort and confirmation. They need to hear the ranters and ravers tell them that it's not their fault, it's all because of those "Socialist Democrats." I have believed for years that it's "comfort and confirmation" that drove conservatives to talk radio. Now it's television, too.

I had thought better of the television audience, particularly younger viewers who tended to watch CNN and MSNBC. But even that's gone now--Fox leads in 18-49 year-olds.

Here are the best excuses I can think of: maybe a lot of middle-of-the-roaders have just tuned out on all the cable news noise. Maybe other people have better things to do with their lives than listen to pandering pundits. Maybe more generous souls accept that Obama's doing the best he can in a very tough job, and they don't want to hear the details because they know the stars are not shining on America right now.

But, then again, maybe all of the above are wrong. Maybe it's simply the need for an enemy, the desire to detest is greater than the power to tolerate; maybe it's the need to blame somebody else for the bad things that are happening in our lives that drives viewers to Fox. Perhaps those viewers are the next generation of the rich socialites in the old New Yorker cartoon, who dressed up to go to the newsreel theatre and hiss FDR. Only now they can do it at home, watching FoxNews. Maybe the joy of defeat is underestimated.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonf...o_b_211018.html

Edited June 9, 2009 by Barza Woman

[_Simpson_ 250]

Did I?

I recall saying that it didn't apply exclusively to right wingers.

Its accurate though, but it isn't just true of the right wing, but anyone who tries to defend a ###### corporate TV network as some sort of political bastion. The very idea is idiotic.

Thats what you said, "its accurate". Sure you gave yourself a out by mentioning the right but nevertheless it is as you described it earlier with the adult/child comparison.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think he's partially right. Right Wingers, in general, are not the ones you'll find in libraries or universities reading volumes of academic books. They like their TV and their cheap beer...and news shows that will take complex issues and dumb them down to emotional soundbites so it's clear which team to root for and which one to boo at.

Wow would you mind getting off your pedestal and coming down here so I can share my cheap beer with you, I think you will like it.

It was a generalization and I stated it as such. Deal with it.

Yes you did state that, I dont think it has to do with right wingers in general being stupid(that is pretty much what you said) I think it has to do with the outlets that are available, not many on the right side.

why aren't there more?

not really the fault of the left side that there aren't more right side news channels...

I am not saying it is the fault of the left I was just disagreeing with Steven by saying its has more to do with outlets than the reasons he gave.

[Heracles 417]

Generally speaking again...most Right Wingers are under-educated and on the lower end of income.

I wish I had the luxury of generalizing but we know that I would be attacked by the mob, in a heat beat.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Generally speaking again...most Right Wingers are under-educated and on the lower end of income.

...

That's why they call being educated, elitism.

Leftists call education elitist. You're confused by all the over educated welfare moms and trailer park elitist Right Winger Obama voters you hang out with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did I?

I recall saying that it didn't apply exclusively to right wingers.

Its accurate though, but it isn't just true of the right wing, but anyone who tries to defend a ###### corporate TV network as some sort of political bastion. The very idea is idiotic.

Thats what you said, "its accurate". Sure you gave yourself a out by mentioning the right but nevertheless it is as you described it earlier with the adult/child comparison.

It is true though. If it weren't why are people treating fox news as though it were some sort of sacred cow?

The attitude isn't restricted to the right. It is however pretty typical of how this country frames political discourses.

[scandal 951]

TV news is shitty news source though.

For the most part, yes. For political commentary, there are some good programs with interesting guests. But for solid news coverage, network news is mediocre at best. By design, they cannot delve into issues with the depth needed, on a 30 minute newscast....21 minutes when you subtract the commercials.

But Steve - the networks you have been discussing here - Fox News, MSNBC, CNN - are in fact not "network news" - they are the 24X7 cable news stations which began their history with Ted Turners' original concept of CNN back in the 1980s as hard-hitting, facts based journalism. There was once upon a time when CNN really had journalistic integrity to rival the NY Times or Edward R. Murrow's CBS News organization. (Here's a quiz for all you young pups so enamored with Cavuto and O'Reilley and that crowd... do you even know who Edward R. Murrow was, and the impact he had on American broadcast journalism?).

But I digress.

The point I actually would make is that today all of the 24X7 cable "news" are just a wasteland. To me it's not a question of right vs. left. It's a question of is it journalism and facts-based reporting, or is it just mush. It's mostly just repetitive loops of human interest stories interspersed with shouting heads (not talking heads, mind you). So I just steer clear, and rarely do more than channel skip by them.

However, I do watch copious amounts of TV broadcast news. On the broadcast networks. I'll usually watch NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams - which is pretty cheesy and has too much fluff, but I have a DVR and zip past the crud.

More importantly - The Jim Lehrer Newshour. I have a crush on Gwen Ifill and appreciate the in depth reporting and research done by the reporting crew. I love the Friday night Shields/Brooks segment.

And of course -the network Sunday shows - Meet The Press, Face The Nation, This Week.

For those who want quality news information on the ####### tube, it exists.

For those who want it on the airwaves, it exists as well. Thank goodness for NPR and PRI!!! WBEZ Chicago is your friend at 91.5 on your dial.

[nowhereman 1]

popularity isn't really a good gauge for quality.

no sh!t look who running the country.....until the next election cycle anyway.

Mike, although Obama is incredibly popular, he also ran on a populist agenda. As much as it irks the Right Wingers, Obama won because of his position on healthcare, the environment, Iraq war, economy, etc., jived with the majority of Americans.

Steven, thats where we're going to disagree. he WAS so popular because the media kept pumping him 24/7. it was like a 6 month campaign commercial. Obama getting elected was a knee jerk reaction plain & simple. if he had not run for the dem nomination, Hillary would be president right now. we will see another knee jerk reaction during the next elections

Obama's approval ratings nationwide: Over 60%

Obama's approval ratings on VJ: 6%

Conclusion: There's a whole lot of right wingers on VJ!

[_Simpson_ 250]

It is true though. If it weren't why are people treating fox news as though it were some sort of sacred cow?

The attitude isn't restricted to the right. It is however pretty typical of how this country frames political discourses.

I have never thought of them as a sacred cow (not saying you have acussed me of that). I have in this forum pointed out what it is I think that doesnt make them fair and balanced, that said I dont think fox news is as biased as many liberals here would say there are but nevertheless fox understands that the right wingers are there bread and butter and often choose stories that will peak there interest. We have little options when it comes to the media.

[Peikko 1,575]

I know NPR but what is PRI?

It is true though. If it weren't why are people treating fox news as though it were some sort of sacred cow?

The attitude isn't restricted to the right. It is however pretty typical of how this country frames political discourses.

I have never thought of them as a sacred cow (not saying you have acussed me of that). I have in this forum pointed out what it is I think that doesnt make them fair and balanced, that said I dont think fox news is as biased as many liberals here would say there are but nevertheless fox understands that the right wingers are there bread and butter and often choose stories that will peak there interest. We have little options when it comes to the media.

Not really true. Although the US is losing a portion of its newsheets, there are still a lot of quality newspapers out there and the vast majority have online versions. It just requires the ability to read for more than 30 seconds at any one time.

[Ban Hammer 14,003]

Obama's approval ratings nationwide: Over 60%

Obama's approval ratings on VJ: 6%

Conclusion: There's a whole lot of right wingers on VJ!

link?

[_Simpson_ 250]

I know NPR but what is PRI?

It is true though. If it weren't why are people treating fox news as though it were some sort of sacred cow?

The attitude isn't restricted to the right. It is however pretty typical of how this country frames political discourses.

I have never thought of them as a sacred cow (not saying you have acussed me of that). I have in this forum pointed out what it is I think that doesnt make them fair and balanced, that said I dont think fox news is as biased as many liberals here would say there are but nevertheless fox understands that the right wingers are there bread and butter and often choose stories that will peak there interest. We have little options when it comes to the media.

Not really true. Although the US is losing a portion of its newsheets, there are still a lot of quality newspapers out there and the vast majority have online versions. It just requires the ability to read for more than 30 seconds at any one time.

I meant tv media, thats what we were talking about. As far as other media, yes we do have plenty of outlets. Are you implying that right wingers are not capable of reading for more than 30 seconds.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

popularity isn't really a good gauge for quality.

no sh!t look who running the country.....until the next election cycle anyway.

Mike, although Obama is incredibly popular, he also ran on a populist agenda. As much as it irks the Right Wingers, Obama won because of his position on healthcare, the environment, Iraq war, economy, etc., jived with the majority of Americans.

Steven, thats where we're going to disagree. he WAS so popular because the media kept pumping him 24/7. it was like a 6 month campaign commercial. Obama getting elected was a knee jerk reaction plain & simple. if he had not run for the dem nomination, Hillary would be president right now. we will see another knee jerk reaction during the next elections

Obama's approval ratings nationwide: Over 60%

Obama's approval ratings on VJ: 6%

Conclusion: There's a whole lot of right wingers on VJ!

The Silent Majority lives!