Fox News Network, Tops the World

[Lumpy 1]

I was just reading up on Fox Broadcasting Company and was amazed at what they have produced over the years, just a tidbit would be the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, King of the Hill, Cosby Show, Beverly Hills 90210, X Files, Melrose Place, American Idol, Super Bowls and NFL programming. Like I said just a tidbit....

Fox Broadcasting Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that if the Fox Broadcasting Company used their power for evil, instead of fair and balanced, they could probably influence the public and squish Obama and the Democrats like bugs. (ah, something to mull over)....

The 1%ers watch Hannity - Fox only preaches to the converted but obviously its programming outside of the shock jocks is sufficient to garner revenue and that's all Murdoch is interested in. Its political influence is overrated, even the great Rush Limbaugh couldn't whip up sufficient support for a GOP presidential candidate to be elected. You must think Americans are stupid or something.

Ah my friend , this post seems to have put a bee in your normally cool and calm bonnet..

It would seem you have a problem with Murdoch's entrepreneurial spirit and derived success. In fact, it sounds almost personal. Who knows, maybe it's just capitalism you disdain.

(You must think Americans are stupid or something.....)

Ok ya got me... I'm suspect, with the advantage of a look at present conditions and a retrospective look back at the election of Obama and the Democratic Parties hold on the House and Senate, even you, my friend must at least ....wonder....

I believe elections come down to the candidates, their personal appeal (star power) and their opponents lack of the same. Throw in party affiliations, media approval, dirty tricks, the general attitudes of the public and polices, .

 

[Diuretic]

I was just reading up on Fox Broadcasting Company and was amazed at what they have produced over the years, just a tidbit would be the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, King of the Hill, Cosby Show, Beverly Hills 90210, X Files, Melrose Place, American Idol, Super Bowls and NFL programming. Like I said just a tidbit....

Fox Broadcasting Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that if the Fox Broadcasting Company used their power for evil, instead of fair and balanced, they could probably influence the public and squish Obama and the Democrats like bugs. (ah, something to mull over)....

The 1%ers watch Hannity - Fox only preaches to the converted but obviously its programming outside of the shock jocks is sufficient to garner revenue and that's all Murdoch is interested in. Its political influence is overrated, even the great Rush Limbaugh couldn't whip up sufficient support for a GOP presidential candidate to be elected. You must think Americans are stupid or something.

I agree that the media giants such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al have limited influence. If they had the power some seem to assign to them, Bill Clinton would never have been elected - twice, John McCain would never have been the GOP nominee in 2008, and Barack Obama would not now be President of the USA.

Nevertheless they provide an important voice for those of us out in fly over country who otherwise have no voice. The mainstream media are not fair or honest in their reports of the Tea Parties, taxpayer protests, etc., and aid and abet the current administration in trashing any independent voices raised. Conservative talk radio and television is not successful because it influences people. It is successful because it is the only place in the media that many of us can hear what we already think. And it does keep those who care informed in ways that the mainstream media refuses to do.

As for those much maligned ratings, Wiki needs to do a lot of editing on this, but does provide the gist of how it works:

Ratings/share and total viewers

The most commonly cited Nielsen results are reported in two measurements: ratings points and share, usually reported as: "ratings points/share". As of September 1, 2009, there are an estimated 114.9 million television households in the United States. A single national ratings point represents one percent of the total number, or 1,149,000 households for the 2009–10 season.

Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to the program. For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning that on average 9.2 percent of all television-equipped households were tuned in to that program at any given moment, while 15 percent of households watching TV were tuned into the program during this time slot. (Nielsen re-estimates the number of TV-equipped households each August for the upcoming television season.) The difference between rating and share is that a rating reflects the percentage of the total population of televisions tuned to a particular program while share reflects the percentage of televisions actually in use. [2]

Because ratings are based on samples, it is possible for shows to get 0.0 share, despite having an audience; the CNBC talk show McEnroe was one notable example.[3] Another example is The CW Television Network show, CW Now, which received two 0.0 ratings in the same season.
Nielsen ratings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What the raw ratings don't show is how many different people are exposed to a program over the course of a week or month. For instance, Limbaugh may be running in the background here because he is on our local #1 news/talk station in our area (which is true in most areas) but I actually listen to most of his program at most a very few times a month. The same goes for Hannity and Beck. I get O'Reilly slightly more often because he is generally on during the dinner hour (prep and meal).

The point is that the ratings reflect the average viewership at any given time, but not the total number of people exposed over a month's time. And more importantly, people who tune in to radio or television programs like that are people who are most likely to actually get out and vote.

And another and the most important thing is that these program deserve to be aired and deserve to be heard for otherwise the only voice on the airways will be that of people who will provide one and only one point of view and that may not be in our best interest. We are truly informed only if we get both sides of the issues that will affect our lives.

Nevertheless they provide an important voice for those of us out in fly over country who otherwise have no voice. This point - and others but particularly this one - I take.

 

[Diuretic]

I was just reading up on Fox Broadcasting Company and was amazed at what they have produced over the years, just a tidbit would be the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, King of the Hill, Cosby Show, Beverly Hills 90210, X Files, Melrose Place, American Idol, Super Bowls and NFL programming. Like I said just a tidbit....

Fox Broadcasting Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say that if the Fox Broadcasting Company used their power for evil, instead of fair and balanced, they could probably influence the public and squish Obama and the Democrats like bugs. (ah, something to mull over)....

The 1%ers watch Hannity - Fox only preaches to the converted but obviously its programming outside of the shock jocks is sufficient to garner revenue and that's all Murdoch is interested in. Its political influence is overrated, even the great Rush Limbaugh couldn't whip up sufficient support for a GOP presidential candidate to be elected. You must think Americans are stupid or something.

Ah my friend , this post seems to have put a bee in your normally cool and calm bonnet..

It would seem you have a problem with Murdoch's entrepreneurial spirit and derived success. In fact, it sounds almost personal. Who knows, maybe it's just capitalism you disdain.

(You must think Americans are stupid or something.....)

Ok ya got me... I'm suspect, with the advantage of a look at present conditions and a retrospective look back at the election of Obama and the Democratic Parties hold on the House and Senate, even you, my friend must at least ....wonder....

I believe elections come down to the candidates, their personal appeal (star power) and their opponents lack of the same. Throw in party affiliations, media approval, dirty tricks, the general attitudes of the public and polices, .

It's the coffee, honest!

I actually don't have a problem with Murdoch's enterpreneural spirit, he's provided a lot of employment for people. I don't have a problem with capitalism either. Murdoch is somewhat apolitical but he is a micro-manager and directly influences his editors. I don't think his media empire has the influence in the US that it does here in Australia, his country of birth and the origin of his empire. So I am definitely looking at him from a particular viewpoint. Murdoch's media in my country - and this is my explaining my viewpoint - can make or break a government. Indeed he is alleged to have helped Labor (centre right party) into power in 1972 for the first time in many years by a single editorial in his national newspaper. But he did so because he knew the incumbent government was useless and it was in his company's interests to inject some new thinking into government. As I said, somewhat apolitical.

And on your final point - democracy is a dirty business isn't it?

 

[Modbert]

Obama "right of center"?????

what you smoking today?

Obama is more right of center since taking office. He may still have a slight slant to the left but he has not been a Liberal since taking office. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Oh, and the rest of the world sees Obama as more of a Centrist.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your premise, or maybe it is O'Reilly's...hard to tell, is flawed.

You could say that FOX talk shows out perform other cable talk shows and you'd be correct.

But in the actual News category, the broadcast networks outperform Fox on a regular basis (it's not clear to me if Fox has an actual news broadcast).

[SIZE=+1]Spotlight: Evening news and talk[/SIZE] Network

Viewers (millions)​

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

8.8​

ABC World News with Charles Gibson

7.7​

CBS Evening News with Katie Couric

5.9​

Cable

The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News)

3.4​

Hannity (Fox News)

2.4​

Special Report with Bret Baier (Fox News)

2.4​

The Fox Report with Shepard Smith (Fox News)

2.0​

On the Record with Greta van Sustern (Fox News

1.8​

Nielsen ratings for week of Oct. 12 - USATODAY.com

Not everyone has cable/satellite, either.

So Hannity has 3.4 million people watching him...?

lets do the math...3.4 million divided by 300 million is less than 1% correct?

So, 99% of Americans dont watch him, correct?


Seriously, in the big picture, these people are irrelavant. If you dont believe this, look at the election last year.

Agree?

If it's such a small viewership then why is the WH so afraid?

White House steps up attacks on Fox News

 

[Lumpy 1]

Obama "right of center"?????

what you smoking today?

Obama is more right of center since taking office. He may still have a slight slant to the left but he has not been a Liberal since taking office. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Oh, and the rest of the world sees Obama as more of a Centrist.

Oh Dogbert, you must be going to an extremely left leaning college, poor sad fellow (save yourself before it's too late).

Obama without a doubt is a leftist, far to the left of center, ever wonder why conservatives vehemently reject his policies. right of center...sheezz

 

[Yurt]

its a pretty weak argument to use the percengate when the liberal network news gets a whopping 2%....

so 98% don't watch liberal news

 

[Lumpy 1]

its a pretty weak argument to use the percengate when the liberal network news gets a whopping 2%....

so 98% don't watch liberal news

Great observation.......