fox news ratings tank

[Trajan]

Beats me. What does it tell you?

As far as ideologies and media, I've toyed with the question of whether there's a reason the media that tends to work for the "right" tends to be based on confrontation (e.g. Limbaugh, O'Reilly) while what works for the "left" tends to be based on comedy and satire (as above). That thought came up in talk radio comparisons.

Think about the reverse -- do we know a left-leaning media production based on confrontation that works? Or a right-leaning one based on comedy? Why would this be?

Just a thought for contemplation.

"confrontation" , as in O'reilly vs Stewart or Letterman? do you really think those are valid objects for comparison? seriously?


maybe if you checked on liberal penchants for/of behavior ala real comparative mediums- Meet the Depressed or This Weak....Gregory for example is a walking/talking advertisement for passive aggressive behavior.....



hopefully you can comprehend this? is it grammatically correct (enuff) and acceptable to you?

I think the varying use of styles is a valid comparison, yes. Or am I not allowed to raise that question either? Look, if you have an opinion , share it; if not, just let it go. It's just a question to ponder.

We're not communicating here Trajan. You haven't gotten my points, and once again I don't know what you're talking about here with "Gregory" and "passive aggressive". Presumably you didn't get the gist of my observation, since you're mixing elements that have nothing to do with each other. We should probably just drop all this because at least on this end, nothing's happening.

you can raise any question you like, am I not allowed to respond?

you just made a remark as to comparative styles and I gave you an example of what I happen to think, that is my opinion, of passive aggressive interview engagement and you don't know what I am talking about? Do I need to insert a definition of passive aggressive?

for god sakes, I am not speaking speaking in riddles, but I am a step ahead of you, and I will eventually show you how

 

[Trajan]

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

who are the "some of you"? exactly, thx.


and please show me exactly what you used to draw that inference/conclusion.......thx.

hello?

 

[Trajan]

Once again -- wtf does that mean in English? I don't even know if he's talking about me. Anyone?

you're being to cute by half now.

you know exactly what it means, because you miraculously, fantastically- coincidentally chose to cut it off at exactly the point after I speak to your previous remarks..ala white folks....remember?

Bullshit. I cut that off because it was unrelated to anything. Here's what I cut off:
>> I just think the election was tiring, I know I am tired, and being on the losing end is even more tiresome. I would guess its both audiences, the victors feel they can rest, the losers just fade out for a while...... <<

What the hell does that have to do with the previous sentence?
What the hell does "papering over' mean?
What the hell does "their mask slipped" mean?
What the hell does "cute by half" mean?
"thats becasue instead of asking, you assume, or it certainly appears you have...am I wrong? . " --- huh???

And how, pray, does the fact that I'm in a thread about TV ratings and I also introduced one praising a Chris Wallace interview, "hypacrasy"??

These are rhetorical questions; just think about them. I'm sorry but whatever your version of English is is cryptic and unfamiliar.
Again, you're not hearing me either; you describe it as "free versing". If we're not communicating on either end we should just drop it, so forgive me if I discontinue responding to what I can't make sense of.

unrelated?


uhm, one more time- your words-

Fox has been in decline in an overall pattern. Again it's got nothing to do with "low or high information", since information is not the business they're in. The overall pattern prolly has a lot to do with its demographics... old white men.

The oldest audience on cable TV; they're literally dying off. In a microcosm they have the same fade-to-irrelevance problem the RP encountered in the last election ...when they both floundered and tried to bail out a sinking ship with Rovian math.

 

[Pogo]

Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show

.................. and?

And, if you have a stupid question, its probably better to keep it to yourself and keep people wondering if you're a moron rather than removing all doubt.

OKaaaay, well I'm not the one posting ratings books without explanation of why I'm posting them or what point they're supposed to make. Doesn't seem to me that a random lob of ad hominem serves that explanation...

 

[Foxfyre]

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

ok, what does all of this mean, in plain english?

Very good Spoon. I know I get longwinded; guilty as charged. Why even now I'm typing irrelevant ... ah never mind.

What it means is I'm simply flummoxing Foxy's fallacies-- she makes a blanket statement; she implies I'm part of that blanket even though I've posted its contrary; and then she takes that same blanket and projects fantasies of 'suppression', which I point out is undocumented opinion, and then contradict with a real example.

Hope this helps. We really can't have intelligent discussion with people painting over their adversaries with convenient blanket labels and then using that strawman as a crutch to ignore what they're actually saying. (/offtopic)

Like everybody else, I post my opinions that I helieve are informed opinions and I have stated my reasons for why I believe my opinions are informed. You are just as explicit and definite in your own stated opinions. You say that I have contradicted myself and I challenge you to show any statements I've made, in context, in which I have done that. You have not shown that your sources are better than anybody else's or that your opinion is any more valid than anybody else's.

I will further challenge you to find any statement I've made, in context, in this thread that has accused you or anybody else of being part of the 'suppression' or anything else. I try very hard not to go ad hominem when I make my arguments and I do try to qualify my remarks to allow exclusion of any in a group that don't merit a certain characterization.

The topic of this thread is Fox News ratings 'tanking'. That is what I and several others have been discussing. The thrust of the argument I have made is that while Fox's ratings are not at their highest level ever, 'tanking' is not an accurate term to describe the current situation in cable news market share at this time.

 

[Pogo]

ok, what does all of this mean, in plain english?

Very good Spoon. I know I get longwinded; guilty as charged. Why even now I'm typing irrelevant ... ah never mind.

What it means is I'm simply flummoxing Foxy's fallacies-- she makes a blanket statement; she implies I'm part of that blanket even though I've posted its contrary; and then she takes that same blanket and projects fantasies of 'suppression', which I point out is undocumented opinion, and then contradict with a real example.

Hope this helps. We really can't have intelligent discussion with people painting over their adversaries with convenient blanket labels and then using that strawman as a crutch to ignore what they're actually saying. (/offtopic)

Like everybody else, I post my opinions that I helieve are informed opinions and I have stated my reasons for why I believe my opinions are informed. You are just as explicit and definite in your own stated opinions. You say that I have contradicted myself and I challenge you to show any statements I've made, in context, in which I have done that. You have not shown that your sources are better than anybody else's or that your opinion is any more valid than anybody else's.

I didn't say you contradicted yourself; I said you moved the goalposts. My use of "contradict" there refers to me contradicting you, not you contradicting you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
More on this momentarily...

I will further challenge you to find any statement I've made, in context, in this thread that has accused you or anybody else of being part of the 'suppression' or anything else. I try very hard not to go ad hominem when I make my arguments and I do try to qualify my remarks to allow exclusion of any in a group that don't merit a certain characterization.

Very good Madame. Here is your order:

... In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

I wouldn't call that ad hominem though. I see a blanket statement on which rests a strawman. And that strawman, a particularly egregious one, was what I contradicted.
I've always known you to eschew ad hominem.

I know, it's late. Love ya Foxy.

The topic of this thread is Fox News ratings 'tanking'. That is what I and several others have been discussing. The thrust of the argument I have made is that while Fox's ratings are not at their highest level ever, 'tanking' is not an accurate term to describe the current situation in cable news market share at this time.

Yes I agree. I said the same thing.

 

[American_Jihad]

Cable News Ratings - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings, Television Show Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com

Cable News Ratings for Monday, February 25, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers


...

Update:

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Wednesday, February 27, 2013

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC 1,218 218 455
CNN 337 91 147
MSNBC 447 118 196
CNBC 176 43 87
FBN 66 16 37
HLN 374 124 197

Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 2,224 327 758
CNN 458 107 184
MSNBC 865 223 425
CNBC 194 86 100
FBN 64 19 39
HLN 559 184 324

Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

...

 

[Foxfyre]

Very good Spoon. I know I get longwinded; guilty as charged. Why even now I'm typing irrelevant ... ah never mind.

What it means is I'm simply flummoxing Foxy's fallacies-- she makes a blanket statement; she implies I'm part of that blanket even though I've posted its contrary; and then she takes that same blanket and projects fantasies of 'suppression', which I point out is undocumented opinion, and then contradict with a real example.

Hope this helps. We really can't have intelligent discussion with people painting over their adversaries with convenient blanket labels and then using that strawman as a crutch to ignore what they're actually saying. (/offtopic)

Like everybody else, I post my opinions that I helieve are informed opinions and I have stated my reasons for why I believe my opinions are informed. You are just as explicit and definite in your own stated opinions. You say that I have contradicted myself and I challenge you to show any statements I've made, in context, in which I have done that. You have not shown that your sources are better than anybody else's or that your opinion is any more valid than anybody else's.

I didn't say you contradicted yourself; I said you moved the goalposts. My use of "contradict" there refers to me contradicting you, not you contradicting you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
More on this momentarily...



Very good Madame. Here is your order:

... In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

I wouldn't call that ad hominem though. I see a blanket statement on which rests a strawman. And that strawman, a particularly egregious one, was what I contradicted.
I've always known you to eschew ad hominem.

I know, it's late. Love ya Foxy.

The topic of this thread is Fox News ratings 'tanking'. That is what I and several others have been discussing. The thrust of the argument I have made is that while Fox's ratings are not at their highest level ever, 'tanking' is not an accurate term to describe the current situation in cable news market share at this time.

Yes I agree. I said the same thing.

It is not a strawman. It was a specific statement in response to another comment--in context, remember? When you take it out of context, it is you who builds the strawman. However it is late, I am weary, and I'm headed for my pillow. I'll leave you with a Mama Fox ((hug)) for being a much better worthy opponent than most, and perhaps tomorrow will indeed be another day.