Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns

[alan1]

For you, Zona, since you are so obsessed with FOX News.
Note that this is from NPR.

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns : NPR

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns​

by Mike Gonzalez

October 20, 2009

The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.

"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.

Less debatable is the fact that Fox's mix of immediacy and opinionated commentary has proved a fantastically popular business model. And, in a capitalist system, that means a profitable model. Not surprisingly, it's a formula that others are now striving to copy.

Immediacy and opinion may seem to be at war, but they actually go hand in hand. The technology that brought us the first makes the second necessary.

With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.

Raw news is now the stuff of cell phone cameras, text messaging and Twitter. It has been commoditized and is being taken away from journalists. Neda Soltan's murder in Tehran this summer was captured by someone who probably couldn't tell you who Joseph Pulitzer was, but he or she had a cell phone. This may be a calamity for legacy media, but it's not a national tragedy. Rest assured, we are better informed today — or at least have the means to be — than when we sat around the national hearth and got the news from one source, Uncle Walter.


Mike Gonzalez is vice president of communications at The Heritage Foundation. He most recently directed corporate affairs for a solar energy company.

I spent a few hours this summer at Off the Record, a watering hole for journalists near the White House, trying to convince a newly arrived British correspondent for a major outlet that his gig was up. He couldn't compete with millions of Bangladeshis, Bolivians and Californians armed with $10 hand-held electronic devices, I said. He agreed, but argued vehemently that what journalists must provide now is context.

He's right. With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.

Now, my friend's "context" is by definition subjective. So is Fox's. Unlike most of its competitors, Fox's "context" is conservative, which means it has a huge audience that was previously being neglected. Other major papers and networks trend left because their journalists trend left. Fox has half the nation to itself!

No wonder Anita Dunn and David Axelrod are crying foul and, in the latter's case, pleading with other journalists to bar Fox from their playground.

Government, of course, has an awesome power, if it decided to be rough. The administration has a panoply of tools, including the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. But it wouldn't be doing the nation or democracy any favors by depriving it of the only national television outlet that breaks the left's monopoly on news. It would also be fighting the only workable media business model in sight.

 

[WillowTree]

It's like when yer mama tells you to stop seeing that guy!

 

[Zona]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

 

[Zona]

American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.

Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.

 

[goldcatt]

American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.

Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.

Who said anything about winning an election? We're talking about a news channel here. One I don't personally watch, but it's a free country. And a free press.

 

[Sherry]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.

Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.

Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??

 

[Midnight Marauder]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters.... ~snip~ Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me).

The demographic they are consistently winning is the most coveted 25-54 age group. If you have a credible source for your claims of "white, old and uneducated" please feel free to post it with a source link.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.

Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.

Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??

VERY good!

 

[alan1]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters.... ~snip~ Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me).

The demographic they are consistently winning is the most coveted 25-54 age group. If you have a credible source for your claims of "white, old and uneducated" please feel free to post it with a source link.

He'd just rather spew partisan bullshit than facts.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters.... ~snip~ Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me).

The demographic they are consistently winning is the most coveted 25-54 age group. If you have a credible source for your claims of "white, old and uneducated" please feel free to post it with a source link.

He'd just rather spew partisan bullshit than facts.

That's why I ding his rep each and every time I see him do it.

 

[alan1]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

Not going to address the points in the article, are you?
It's so much easier for you to vomit your partisan opinion, isn't it?
You made some claims, how about some proof?

 

[Zona]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.

Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.

Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??

They dont, they said the truth, Fox (who lies) are shills for the republicans...whats wrong with that?

The white house said, Fox is a shill for the righty's, fox news is not news, tey are opinions. What is the problem? Its the truth.

 

[Zona]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

Not going to address the points in the article, are you?
It's so much easier for you to vomit your partisan opinion, isn't it?
You made some claims, how about some proof?

Boobie, I did address the article. I dont believe in personal attacks without at least addressing the subject at hand.

You must be a fox viewer...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Boobie, I did address the article. I dont believe in personal attacks without at least addressing the subject at hand.

 

[xotoxi]

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns

So does NASCAR.

It's all just further evidence of the lack of intelligence of the general population.

 

[Dr.House]

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns

So does NASCAR.

It's all just further evidence of the lack of intelligence of the general population.

That certainly explains the election of Barry 0bama...

 

[Sherry]

They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?


They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?

American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.

Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.

Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??

They dont, they said the truth, Fox (who lies) are shills for the republicans...whats wrong with that?

The white house said, Fox is a shill for the righty's, fox news is not news, tey are opinions. What is the problem? Its the truth.

If they weren't threatened, then they'd just ignore them. If conservatives were the only viewers, it wouldn't matter to them since they wouldn't have their vote anyway. They know the audience is much wider though. In their all out frontal attack, they are also indicating to other organizations not to report on similar topics, such as ACORN or Jones, or else they will fall out of grace with the WH. ANY American, regardless of party affiliation, should be concerned about the government trying to control the media in such a matter. Obama is Commander in Chief, not Editor in Chief. For his administration to devote such attention to any program, newspaper, internet site, etc. clearly demonstrates how threatened they feel.

 

[geauxtohell]

For you, Zona, since you are so obsessed with FOX News.
Note that this is from NPR.

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns : NPR

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns​

by Mike Gonzalez

October 20, 2009

The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.

"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.

Less debatable is the fact that Fox's mix of immediacy and opinionated commentary has proved a fantastically popular business model. And, in a capitalist system, that means a profitable model. Not surprisingly, it's a formula that others are now striving to copy.

Immediacy and opinion may seem to be at war, but they actually go hand in hand. The technology that brought us the first makes the second necessary.

With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.

Raw news is now the stuff of cell phone cameras, text messaging and Twitter. It has been commoditized and is being taken away from journalists. Neda Soltan's murder in Tehran this summer was captured by someone who probably couldn't tell you who Joseph Pulitzer was, but he or she had a cell phone. This may be a calamity for legacy media, but it's not a national tragedy. Rest assured, we are better informed today — or at least have the means to be — than when we sat around the national hearth and got the news from one source, Uncle Walter.


Mike Gonzalez is vice president of communications at The Heritage Foundation. He most recently directed corporate affairs for a solar energy company.

I spent a few hours this summer at Off the Record, a watering hole for journalists near the White House, trying to convince a newly arrived British correspondent for a major outlet that his gig was up. He couldn't compete with millions of Bangladeshis, Bolivians and Californians armed with $10 hand-held electronic devices, I said. He agreed, but argued vehemently that what journalists must provide now is context.

He's right. With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.

Now, my friend's "context" is by definition subjective. So is Fox's. Unlike most of its competitors, Fox's "context" is conservative, which means it has a huge audience that was previously being neglected. Other major papers and networks trend left because their journalists trend left. Fox has half the nation to itself!

No wonder Anita Dunn and David Axelrod are crying foul and, in the latter's case, pleading with other journalists to bar Fox from their playground.

Government, of course, has an awesome power, if it decided to be rough. The administration has a panoply of tools, including the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. But it wouldn't be doing the nation or democracy any favors by depriving it of the only national television outlet that breaks the left's monopoly on news. It would also be fighting the only workable media business model in sight.

I am not attacking at all. CNN blows with their "Ireport" bullshit.

Newflash to the newsmen at CNN:

We watch you for your reporting. Not "Johny I have a digital camera and took a picture of the warehouse fire".

 

[Sidestreamer]

For you, Zona, since you are so obsessed with FOX News.
Note that this is from NPR.

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns : NPR

Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns​

by Mike Gonzalez

October 20, 2009

The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.

"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.

Less debatable is the fact that Fox's mix of immediacy and opinionated commentary has proved a fantastically popular business model. And, in a capitalist system, that means a profitable model. Not surprisingly, it's a formula that others are now striving to copy.

Immediacy and opinion may seem to be at war, but they actually go hand in hand. The technology that brought us the first makes the second necessary.

With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.

Raw news is now the stuff of cell phone cameras, text messaging and Twitter. It has been commoditized and is being taken away from journalists. Neda Soltan's murder in Tehran this summer was captured by someone who probably couldn't tell you who Joseph Pulitzer was, but he or she had a cell phone. This may be a calamity for legacy media, but it's not a national tragedy. Rest assured, we are better informed today — or at least have the means to be — than when we sat around the national hearth and got the news from one source, Uncle Walter.


Mike Gonzalez is vice president of communications at The Heritage Foundation. He most recently directed corporate affairs for a solar energy company.

I spent a few hours this summer at Off the Record, a watering hole for journalists near the White House, trying to convince a newly arrived British correspondent for a major outlet that his gig was up. He couldn't compete with millions of Bangladeshis, Bolivians and Californians armed with $10 hand-held electronic devices, I said. He agreed, but argued vehemently that what journalists must provide now is context.

He's right. With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.

Now, my friend's "context" is by definition subjective. So is Fox's. Unlike most of its competitors, Fox's "context" is conservative, which means it has a huge audience that was previously being neglected. Other major papers and networks trend left because their journalists trend left. Fox has half the nation to itself!

No wonder Anita Dunn and David Axelrod are crying foul and, in the latter's case, pleading with other journalists to bar Fox from their playground.

Government, of course, has an awesome power, if it decided to be rough. The administration has a panoply of tools, including the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. But it wouldn't be doing the nation or democracy any favors by depriving it of the only national television outlet that breaks the left's monopoly on news. It would also be fighting the only workable media business model in sight.

Fox is definitely opinionated and they feel "immediate," but they actually aren't that great at breaking non-political news. The author's right though: cell phones and Twitter's replacing those reporters who used to report the straight-up facts. Then again, any journalist who can't analyze their facts and interpret them is nothing more than a human tape recorder.

Still, Fox is a successful business enterprise but I question its status as a journalistic network. During prime time only two hours are dedicated to news programs while 4 p.m., 5 p.m., 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. are taken up by opinion shows, ALL OF WHICH ARE CONSERVATIVE. I repeat this point a lot but when that much of your programming is opinion instead of news, "Fox News Channel" is as almost as much of a misnomer as "Music Television."

 

[paperview]

FNC is more a Talk Radio Network than anything else, with a little news thrown in.