Ratings for Wednesday News programs...

[insein]

CABLE NEWS RACE
WED, SEPT 8, 2004

FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 2.2
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2.1 [RATING]
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.7
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 1.4
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1.3
CNN LARRY KING 1.2
CNN AARON BROWN 0.8
CNN PAULA ZAHN 0.6
MSNBC HARDBALL 0.6
MSNBC OLBERMAN 0.5
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.5
MSNBC NORVILLE 0.4
CNBC MILLER 0.1
CNBC MCENROE 0.1

The people are speaking pretty loudly.

 

[nakedemperor]

The people are speaking pretty loudly.

24 hour news networks are forced to fit 3 hours of news into 24 hours. To increase ratings, the entire industry has turned to sensationalist news coverage; the industry remains "a business", and networks are scrambling to emulate Fox News' style coverage. It is edgier, more entertaining, and more abrasive. Its just more fun to watch. Kind of like Star magazine's and the National Enquirer's respective popularity. Doesn't mean it's a better news source (I would argue the opposite), just means its more entertaining.

 

[Merlin1047]

24 hour news networks are forced to fit 3 hours of news into 24 hours. To increase ratings, the entire industry has turned to sensationalist news coverage; the industry remains "a business", and networks are scrambling to emulate Fox News' style coverage. It is edgier, more entertaining, and more abrasive. Its just more fun to watch. Kind of like Star magazine's and the National Enquirer's respective popularity. Doesn't mean it's a better news source (I would argue the opposite), just means its more entertaining.

I would not dispute your analysis except for that last sentence which you just HAD to throw in. Is your analysis of Americans so cynical that you think your fellow countrymen are so stupid that they watch the news to be entertained? Amazing the mechanisms libs seize upon to make themselves feel superior.

I can only speak for myself and my wife and I can tell you that we watch things like Turner Classic Movies or the SciFi channel (that's me) to be entertained by television. We watch the news to get FACTUAL data, unfiltered by network agendas and talking head opinions. THAT sir, is why we both watch FOX and practically ignore the rest.

 

[insein]

I would not dispute your analysis except for that last sentence which you just HAD to throw in. Is your analysis of Americans so cynical that you think your fellow countrymen are so stupid that they watch the news to be entertained? Amazing the mechanisms libs seize upon to make themselves feel superior.

I can only speak for myself and my wife and I can tell you that we watch things like Turner Classic Movies or the SciFi channel (that's me) to be entertained by television. We watch the news to get FACTUAL data, unfiltered by network agendas and talking head opinions. THAT sir, is why we both watch FOX and practically ignore the rest.

I was thinking the same thing merlin. I dont find Greta or Brit particularly entertaining. In fact i find them to be , well like news anchors. Boring and to the point (at least the way they used to be). Hannity and Colmes and Oreilly are interesting and informative but hardly entertaining. In fact you might say they are dull at some points. Bottomline, I goto Foxnews for just that, NEWS. Seems a majority of cable viewers do as well.

 

[freeandfun1]

Frankly, the libs, who now bitch about 24 hour news service, forget that it was the Clinton News Network (CNN) that started the entire thing. They also forget that one of the BIGGEST benefactors from the first Gulf War, in terms of money earned from it, is - you got it, CNN. Gulf War 1 is what turned CNN from a dinky 24 hour "news only" station into a 24 hour a day analytical analysis of what is going on in the world (with a liberal slant of course). They are just pissed that somebody came along, went back to what they WERE doing, and beat their pants off at it.

 

[nakedemperor]

I would not dispute your analysis except for that last sentence which you just HAD to throw in. Is your analysis of Americans so cynical that you think your fellow countrymen are so stupid that they watch the news to be entertained? Amazing the mechanisms libs seize upon to make themselves feel superior.

I can only speak for myself and my wife and I can tell you that we watch things like Turner Classic Movies or the SciFi channel (that's me) to be entertained by television. We watch the news to get FACTUAL data, unfiltered by network agendas and talking head opinions. THAT sir, is why we both watch FOX and practically ignore the rest.

This is the hilariousness of the situation about the Right Wing's mouth piece, FNC: half of you, Merlin for example, argue that FNC is on the straight and narrow and that it is FAIR and BALANCED. NO SPIN ZONE!

The other half (freeandfun1), ACCEPT that Murdoch and Ailes have political agendas, and point at other news sources ("Clinton News Network") and whine "YOU STARTED IT!"

You guys should link up and hammer out your difference.

 

[nakedemperor]

I would not dispute your analysis except for that last sentence which you just HAD to throw in. Is your analysis of Americans so cynical that you think your fellow countrymen are so stupid that they watch the news to be entertained? Amazing the mechanisms libs seize upon to make themselves feel superior.

What a lousy thing to say. We don't feel superior. Eesh. I'm merely lucid enough to know that what I meant was not that the news on FNC is practically fictional and a carefully constructed web of lies of the GOP. Its not GOP pornography. What it IS is a company that has allowed its politics to intervene in coverage techniques and their ability to get higher ratings affects their journatlistic integrity.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

24 hour news networks are forced to fit 3 hours of news into 24 hours. To increase ratings, the entire industry has turned to sensationalist news coverage; the industry remains "a business", and networks are scrambling to emulate Fox News' style coverage. It is edgier, more entertaining, and more abrasive. Its just more fun to watch. Kind of like Star magazine's and the National Enquirer's respective popularity. Doesn't mean it's a better news source (I would argue the opposite), just means its more entertaining.

It's more thought provoking. Two points of view are expressed and true discussions occur. It's refreshing after years of the big 3 pretending there's only one legitimate point of view and referring to all others as "extreme" and unworthy of consideration. The stranglehold the left had on information and public opinion is broken.

 

[dilloduck]

What a lousy thing to say. We don't feel superior. Eesh. I'm merely lucid enough to know that what I meant was not that the news on FNC is practically fictional and a carefully constructed web of lies of the GOP. Its not GOP pornography. What it IS is a company that has allowed its politics to intervene in coverage techniques and their ability to get higher ratings affects their journatlistic integrity.

well what DO you feel then ? Wronged perhaps? The news is unfortunately a business and they are constantly at risk of selecting certain items and "reporting" them to appeal to a large enough audience to stay in business. What they risk is crediblity and the possiblity of an ever changing audience. For years many conservatives have had to grumble and mutter about the liberal presentation of daily events and still are angry enough to have to point out liberal bias where and whenever they see it. There are now networks out there that present a different perspective on the very same events and people have discovered them. Ratings show these shows to be very popular. You choose to explain this popularity as the entertainment factor or biased reporting. Could it be that people have found a news source that is closer ,maybe not perfect, just closer to the TRUTH? Competition for the truth is a bitch and some times you lose out to the will of the audience who apparently more interested in having some truth in their news. Others prefer to have the truth twisted for them and go to michael moore creations.

 

[Merlin1047]

What a lousy thing to say. We don't feel superior. Eesh. I'm merely lucid enough to know that what I meant was not that the news on FNC is practically fictional and a carefully constructed web of lies of the GOP. Its not GOP pornography. What it IS is a company that has allowed its politics to intervene in coverage techniques and their ability to get higher ratings affects their journatlistic integrity.

Right.



:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What a lousy thing to say. We don't feel superior. Eesh. I'm merely lucid enough to know that what I meant was not that the news on FNC is practically fictional and a carefully constructed web of lies of the GOP. Its not GOP pornography. What it IS is a company that has allowed its politics to intervene in coverage techniques and their ability to get higher ratings affects their journatlistic integrity.

It's called showing both points of view.

 

[nakedemperor]

No one wants to tackle the post about conflicting conservative defenses of FNC?

Dang.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No one wants to tackle the post about conflicting conservative defenses of FNC?

Dang.

What are they again? Sum them up for me. I'll take it on.

 

[5stringJeff]

NE, I'm not sure anyone on here would argue that the commentary on FNC slants conservative. However, as far as actual news coverage, I find Fox to be balanced much more than the other networks, both in what stories they report and the actual reporting of the stories they do.

 

[freeandfun1]

NE, I'm not sure anyone on here would argue that the commentary on FNC slants conservative. However, as far as actual news coverage, I find Fox to be balanced much more than the other networks, both in what stories they report and the actual reporting of the stories they do.

Not only is their news segments fair, even on their "conservative slanted" commentary shows always have opposing positions. Watch CNN and see how many GOPers are allowed to respond to crap spieled out by democrats. The few token GOPers they do allow on to rebut are generally not given much time. And please, don't anybody tell me that Tucker Carlson on CNN is conservative.

 

[nakedemperor]

Not only is their news segments fair, even on their "conservative slanted" commentary shows always have opposing positions. Watch CNN and see how many GOPers are allowed to respond to crap spieled out by democrats. The few token GOPers they do allow on to rebut are generally not given much time. And please, don't anybody tell me that Tucker Carlson on CNN is conservative.

I agree that other newschannels let politics affect their coverage. If you want to see actual numbers about conservative appearances on FNC, pro-conservative to pro-liberal story coverage ratio, etc. watch Outfoxed. It's a great documentary.

Rightwingavatar-- I was commenting before on the multiple conservative responses to FNC claims, both of which can be found in this thread. One beign, that fox IS fair and balanced, and 2 being that "You do it too". These are obviously conflicting defenses.

 

[nakedemperor]

Waiting, waiting...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree that other newschannels let politics affect their coverage. If you want to see actual numbers about conservative appearances on FNC, pro-conservative to pro-liberal story coverage ratio, etc. watch Outfoxed. It's a great documentary.

Rightwingavatar-- I was commenting before on the multiple conservative responses to FNC claims, both of which can be found in this thread. One beign, that fox IS fair and balanced, and 2 being that "You do it too". These are obviously conflicting defenses.

Fox has both points of view, moreso than the others. That's the facts.

 

[Annie]

This appears to be full meltdown by LMM. Unreal. Go to the Reynolds site, from there just follow the links...

http://instapundit.com/archives/017749.php

September 11, 2004
BILL AT INDCJOURNAL earlier reported that the Boston Globe misquoted the statement of forensic expert Philip Bouffard. He has posted the results of a telephone interview with Bouffard, where Bouffard says they misrepresent his conclusions, suggesting that the documents may be genuine when he didn't say that, and reports that he's "pissed."

Now Bill reports that CBS is repeating the Globe misquote as part of its efforts to defend its own position. Bill has posted the Globe ombudsman's address and suggests that you contact her.

UPDATE: I don't know what they said on the air, but CBS is amazingly sloppy on their website, where they get Bouffard's name wrong, calling him "Phillip Broussard" -- even though they're referencing the Globe story which, despite misquoting Bouffard, at least gets his name right. CBS reports: "Saturday's issue of the Boston Globe reports that one document expert, Phillip Broussard, who had expressed suspicions about the documents, said 'he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.'"

Bear in mind that to be quoting from the Globe article they must have had it in front of them, and they still got the name wrong. (Even adding an extra "l" to the first name.) Sheesh. Get these guys some pajamas, fast!

ANOTHER UPDATE: David Hogberg saw the broadcast and reports. They seem to have gotten the name wrong on the air, too.

posted at 07:32 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[Zhukov]

No one wants to tackle the post about conflicting conservative defenses of FNC?

Dang.

Wouldn't you need to find someone who believes both? Surely different people can have different opinions about the same thing can't they? People aren't pressed from a cookie cutter.



And Brit is hardly entertaining. Special Report is the only thing I watch on FOXNEWS, and I watch it because it's the news. Straight and simple. His delivery is about as dry as it gets, and that's why I enjoy it.

Towards the end you get commentary by a collection of pundits, and generally the conservatives outnumber those on the left. But's it's not news, and it doesn't pretend to be. It's punditry, nothing more, and typically I don't bother to watch it.

Does he point out liberal silliness and liberal hypocrisy more often than CNN or MSNBC, let alone the networks? Yes he does.

Does he point out liberal silliness and liberal hypocrisy disproportional to it's occurence? I would say no.

What's more, and perhaps most importantly, he doesn't assume a condescending attitude towards his audience.