FOX News destroys CNN and MSNBC In Ratings

[Gem]

Grump,

My entire post began with this:

If more and more people who pay attention to the news are turning to tv and internet rather than print...the fact that most seem to be getting their news from Fox would be absoultely important and relevant because it means that most people are getting the FoxNews version of news, rather than the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. version of the news.

Hence it was perfectly clear (well...perfectly clear to those who can read) that when I referenced MOST later in the thread I was commenting on Americans who are interested in the news...not the American population as a whole.

Now...if you'd like to discuss the ridiculous number of Americans who are apathetic to the news I'm sure that would be an interesting topic for another thread.

If you'd like to carry on with this conversation that would be great too...as long as you think you can stop misquoting people in order to post stupid little retorts that (like at least one of your previous posts) make no sense because you had to take other people's quotes out of context in order to attempt to make your point - which really wasn't much of a point to begin with. Whatever you choose, I sure hope you do it better than you've been doing so far in this thread...

To everyone else actually engaging in worthwhile debate:

Is anyone else concerned about the fact that Fox is closing out so many others? While I respect Fox News, I worry about what happens when the majority of news watchers only tune in to one source rather than searching for a variety of presentations of the news. In addition, I am troubled by the fact that Fox seems to lean heavily on News Talk/Opinion shows rather than simply news. If most news watchers are getting their "news" from people giving them their opinions on it...what problems will that cause in how we get our information?

 

[Annie]

Grump,

My entire post began with this:


Hence it was perfectly clear (well...perfectly clear to those who can read) that when I referenced MOST later in the thread I was commenting on Americans who are interested in the news...not the American population as a whole.

Now...if you'd like to discuss the ridiculous number of Americans who are apathetic to the news I'm sure that would be an interesting topic for another thread.

If you'd like to carry on with this conversation that would be great too...as long as you think you can stop misquoting people in order to post stupid little retorts that (like at least one of your previous posts) make no sense because you had to take other people's quotes out of context in order to attempt to make your point - which really wasn't much of a point to begin with. Whatever you choose, I sure hope you do it better than you've been doing so far in this thread...

To everyone else actually engaging in worthwhile debate:

Is anyone else concerned about the fact that Fox is closing out so many others? While I respect Fox News, I worry about what happens when the majority of news watchers only tune in to one source rather than searching for a variety of presentations of the news. In addition, I am troubled by the fact that Fox seems to lean heavily on News Talk/Opinion shows rather than simply news. If most news watchers are getting their "news" from people giving them their opinions on it...what problems will that cause in how we get our information?

Thanks Gem, I should have emphasized that, which is what I was referring to. He is purposely being narrow.

 

[CockySOB]

Gem,

The problem with televised news is the fact that they have moved from journalism to news analysis - a move from objectivity to subjectivity. It gets even worse when the analysis is geared to raw emotionalism rather than reason. As one of my favorite bloggers has consistently said, "salaciousness sells."

The phenomena is directly related the "immediate gratification" desires of modern American society. In order to garner viewers, the news channels are pushing drama and destruction, as well as sensationalistic topics and "analysis" which serves to bolster their viewing audiences.

Those of us who claim objectivity must therefore harvest our news from multiple sources to find the objective truth. And it gets more difficult each day.

BTW all, while the Fox News Channel has the highest rated shows of those on the 24-hour cable news networks, CNN still holds a larger viewing audience over the course of a full week. Here's a link to a decent analysis of the competition between CNN and FoxNews, as well as reasons to take the numbers WITHOUT trying to make a sweeping claim to which network is "better."

Disclaimer: Even though I am knocking the claim that FoxNews is blowing the doors off CNN and the like, I am a FoxNews fan myself, and prefer it to the other stations.

 

[Gem]

CockySOB,

It sounds like we are on a similar page. I like FoxNews...in my own personal observation I have found their straight news to be less biased than CNN or MSNBC, both of which I watch frequenty...but Fox's news shows are definetly right-leaning...or at the very least moderately right leaning.

I am more concerned by the fact that it seems like you have to "search" for the truth nowadays rather than whether people are getting their news from tv or newspaper. Case in point, during the last Presidential election Bush would constantly refer to Kerry's voting record for some reason or another...saying something like "Kerry voted against - fill in the blank - " It seemed outrageous that he would have done that...but when you put in the time to search out what actually happened it often was that Kerry had voted against funding some educational program or military program or voted for some tax raise because it was in a much larger bill with a much bigger item attached to it.

I would find this information on a blog or website rather than from the major news organizations...that troubled me.

Are we headed into the Starship Troopers, 1984 style media? Or will the bloggers save us all!

 

[dilloduck]

CockySOB,

It sounds like we are on a similar page. I like FoxNews...in my own personal observation I have found their straight news to be less biased than CNN or MSNBC, both of which I watch frequenty...but Fox's news shows are definetly right-leaning...or at the very least moderately right leaning.

I am more concerned by the fact that it seems like you have to "search" for the truth nowadays rather than whether people are getting their news from tv or newspaper. Case in point, during the last Presidential election Bush would constantly refer to Kerry's voting record for some reason or another...saying something like "Kerry voted against - fill in the blank - " It seemed outrageous that he would have done that...but when you put in the time to search out what actually happened it often was that Kerry had voted against funding some educational program or military program or voted for some tax raise because it was in a much larger bill with a much bigger item attached to it.

I would find this information on a blog or website rather than from the major news organizations...that troubled me.

Are we headed into the Starship Troopers, 1984 style media? Or will the bloggers save us all!

Bloggers are still dependent on "traditional" media sources to spread the word.

 

[manu1959]

HOLY FUCK!!! 1.5 million people watch Fox!!!! That's a whole 0.5% of the US population! That means 99.5% of the population DON'T watch Fox. For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 298,500,000 do NOT listen to Fox! Wow! By comparison a whole 0.3% (approx of course!) watch CNN. That means 99.7% of the population don't watch CNN! For those who ain't the sharpest tools in the shed that means 299,100,00 people DON'T watch CNN. What does this mean? Absolutely NOTHING....

RSR! I hear your Momma calling!

you seem awfully pissed about something that you claim doesn't matter.....

 

[CockySOB]

I think we are on the same page, Gem. But don't expect blogging to supplant traditional news sources entirely - it has the same frailties regarding fact that the traditional media have. In the end, it is up the the concerned citizen to hunt for the truth and to employ critical thinking to discern what is fact and what is fiction.

Here's some food for thought - we live in an informercial world today. Yup, I said "infomercial." "Information" is presented in such a fashion as to "sell" a particular product or ideology, and contradictory information often gets suppressed until someone whose agenda contradicts the informercial can put out there own infomercial. It really boils down to a propoganda war and everyone these days is playing it.

Ain't that a warm and fuzzy thought?

 

[dilloduck]

you seem awfully pissed about something that you claim doesn't matter.....

I think he might be afraid that like Bush, Christians, conservatives, pro-life groups, (and thier ilk ) FOX may threaten his life as he knows it and the personal freedoms of all those poor people in danger of being steam rolled by the neo-cons.
( ie--saving the world)

 

[CockySOB]

I think he might be afraid that like Bush, Christians, conservatives, pro-life groups, (and thier ilk ) FOX may threaten his life as he knows it and the personal freedoms of all those poor people in danger of being steam rolled by the neo-cons.
( ie--saving the world)

As long as sources such as FoxNews exist, the liberal dream of mass thought control remains but a pipe dream. As Sowell said, “Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” Kinda hard to be totalitarian when there's active competition which runs contradictory to the liberal mantras.... So perhaps he's frustrated that the liberal plans for world domination and a New World Order won't come to fruition anytime soon.

I don't see the genie getting put back into the bottle though, which means that the best method to protect our freedoms is to retain BOTH left-wing and right-wing -leaning analysts in the mass media. The only downside is this: how do you instill a desire to probe and question into a society which wants most of its decisions to be made for it? (By this I mean that the majority of American society follows peer influence in nearly all aspects of their lives, whether at the national level or at the local level - how do we break that conditioning?)

 

[Dr Grump]

As I've said to Jillian, it appears you are much brighter than what you post, but the problem is you assume that everyone here that is conservative is dumb. Not a good assumption.

I'd like you to point to the posts that indicate that I assume all conservatives here are dumb. I don't think that at all.

You've 'clipped' Gem's post, some of us notice.

Maybe she needs to be more clear...

Be that as it may, bottom line, FOX has been shown to be more 'fair and balanced' than the networks, CNN, and MSNBC. Not because they are conservative, but because it provides all sides of the stories, the vast majority of the time.

And you can back that up with hard data right (that fact that Fox is fair and balanced)...

With all that said, the topic sucks. Most here, conservatives, watch FOX. The others here, mostly liberal, wouldn't for any reason. So it's moot.

If you feel that way, don't post on the thread...

 

[manu1959]

I'd like you to point to the posts that indicate that I assume all conservatives here are dumb. I don't think that at all.

Maybe she needs to be more clear...

And you can back that up with hard data right (that fact that Fox is fair and balanced)...

If you feel that way, don't post on the thread...

so all conservaties aren't dumb....how open minded of you

you edited her post then quoted it....you need to be more honest

the study was done last year...go find it

like i said you sure seem spun on a topic that you claim is meaningless

 

[Dr Grump]

Grump,

My entire post began with this:

Hence it was perfectly clear (well...perfectly clear to those who can read) that when I referenced MOST later in the thread I was commenting on Americans who are interested in the news...not the American population as a whole.

Ok then, can you prove for a fact that MOST of those who are turning to TV who are interested in news are getting their news from Fox? I doubt you can, so my post stands. I think your assertion is ridiculous. I'd say more and more are getting info from the free-to-air channels.

If you'd like t carry on with this conversation that would be great too...as long as you think you can stop misquoting people in order to post stupid little retorts that (like at least one of your previous posts) make no sense because you had to take other people's quotes out of context in order to attempt to make your point - which really wasn't much of a point to begin with. Whatever you choose, I sure hope you do it better than you've been doing so far in this thread.

You need to be more clear IMO. As far as I'm concerned my posts stands whether I "clipped" it, or you take your original point. Either way, unless you can post stats and figures, your point is moot....

To everyone else actually engaging in worthwhile debate.

I was. You trying to belittle others isn't really conducive to good debate. It is mean-spirited and condescending...but if you want to be that way, so be it...

 

[dilloduck]

As long as sources such as FoxNews exist, the liberal dream of mass thought control remains but a pipe dream. As Sowell said, “Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” Kinda hard to be totalitarian when there's active competition which runs contradictory to the liberal mantras.... So perhaps he's frustrated that the liberal plans for world domination and a New World Order won't come to fruition anytime soon.

I don't see the genie getting put back into the bottle though, which means that the best method to protect our freedoms is to retain BOTH left-wing and right-wing -leaning analysts in the mass media. The only downside is this: how do you instill a desire to probe and question into a society which wants most of its decisions to be made for it? (By this I mean that the majority of American society follows peer influence in nearly all aspects of their lives, whether at the national level or at the local level - how do we break that conditioning?)

That concerns me most of all, the desire to be spoon-fed what to think and do with no concern as to validity of the information.

 

[Dr Grump]

so all conservaties aren't dumb....how open minded of you

Where did I say any conservatives were dumb? You like putting words in peoples' mouths?

you edited her post then quoted it....you need to be more honest

Edited or unedited, the point remains...

the study was done last year...go find it

1) I ain't the one making the claim. If I was, I'd back it up. 2) The above = "I have no idea, so I'll cop out"

like i said you sure seem spun on a topic that you claim is meaningless

I didn't read any of your other posts. Where did I say the topic was meaningless? I said the figures are....

 

[Dr Grump]

Manu..read your original post. I am not pissed at anything, just jawing on a messageboard.

Dillo

I am not afraid of Bush, Christians or Fox...:tongue1:

 

[dilloduck]

Manu..read your original post. I am not pissed at anything, just jawing on a messageboard.

Dillo

I am not afraid of Bush, Christians or Fox...:tongue1:

Just jawing on a messageboard--I heard.

 

[manu1959]

Where did I say any conservatives were dumb? You like putting words in peoples' mouths?

Edited or unedited, the point remains...

1) I ain't the one making the claim. If I was, I'd back it up. 2) The above = "I have no idea, so I'll cop out"

I didn't read any of your other posts. Where did I say the topic was meaningless? I said the figures are....

you said you didn't think they were all dumb....so it would follow that you think some are smart...i complimented you for deing open minded....your words your mouth...don't blame me

her post was clear...you don't need to edit it to try to make a point

your claim was fox is not fair and balanced...back up your claim.

figures are not meaningless, they mean fox has better ratings than cnn....it means fox can sell advertising for more than cnn....it means that fox is a better at business than cnn....

 

[Gem]

Dr Grump Wrote:

I was. You trying to belittle others isn't really conducive to good debate. It is mean-spirited and condescending...but if you want to be that way, so be it...

I'm not trying to belittle other(s), Grumpy. Just you. By clipping my post to inaccurately represent my statements you have proven yourself to be - at best, unable to master the cut-and-paste without drastically changing people's statements or at worst, guilty of deliberately altering someones quote in order to win points in an anonymous message board. Neither speak well of you.

Additionally, by pissing and moaning over little issues like this - you have added absolutely nothing to this thread...making it nothing more than a "Hey look, Dr. Grump is getting incredibly upset over something he claims to care nothing about. So much so that he needs to misquote people to try to prove his point while still adding nothing to the conversation and then whine when they call him on it."

Bottom line, if you think that FoxNews is irrelevant because such a ridiculously small amount of Americans watch it thats great. However a great number of people disagree with that opinion. You might have done better in this thread if you hadn't started out with the condescention and belittling you have claimed to not like. Rather than your first ridiculous thread - where you offerred nothing but sarcasm and derision...you could have explained why you felt the article was silly...or why you do not think that FoxNews gaining viewers over the other news agencies matters. You could have discussed the fact that the number of news-savy individuals in this country is so minute compared to non-news-savy individuals that it really isn't worth the time. Instead, you posted pointlessness and went downhill from there.

 

[Mr.Conley]

My question is why would anyone watch cable news? They all suck. Commercials, flawed analysis, pundits, it's awful. Online is so much better.

 

[Dr Grump]

you said you didn't think they were all dumb....so it would follow that you think some are smart...i complimented you for deing open minded....your words your mouth...don't blame me....

This from the guy telling me to be more honest...how about following your own advice...

your claim was fox is not fair and balanced...back up your claim..

Kathianne claimed it was fair and balanced first...it is hers to prove, not mine...

figures are not meaningless, they mean fox has better ratings than cnn....it means fox can sell advertising for more than cnn....it means that fox is a better at business than cnn....

Which was the point of the thread, right? Again, you tell me to be honest. Go look in the mirror...