Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A topic I have not put too much thought into. Informative, thank you. I think it makes a lot of sense.Conservative writer John Ziegler gives a very accurate and detailed argument as to why the entity known as FOXNEWS is, and has been bad for conservatism in his article With the O’Reilly Era Over, Here’s Why Fox News Has Been Horrible for Conservatism
which part are you having trouble comprehending?Actually not informative and makes no sense.
Just another "for the choir" article making broad assumptions and ludicrous comparisons.
which part are you having trouble comprehending?Actually not informative and makes no sense.
Just another "for the choir" article making broad assumptions and ludicrous comparisons.
You said it doesn't make sense. I find it to be a well written piece that is very self explanatory. If you find such a clearly articulated piece of work confusing, there are obvious comprehension issues. Are you jumping topics because of the lack of comprehension on the topic presented? Or you just can't manage a conversation without a deflection?which part are you having trouble comprehending?Actually not informative and makes no sense.
Just another "for the choir" article making broad assumptions and ludicrous comparisons.
It isn't a matter of comprehension. It is a matter of how far are you willing to suspend reality to accept the spin.
Having said that, just how good has the rest of MSM been for the liberal cause? All of them were backing Hillary, and Hillary was perhaps the least liberal candidate in the history of the Democrat party.
You said it doesn't make sense. I find it to be a well written piece that is very self explanatory. If you find such a clearly articulated piece of work confusing, there are obvious comprehension issues. Are you jumping topics because of the lack of comprehension on the topic presented? Or you just can't manage a conversation without a deflection?which part are you having trouble comprehending?Actually not informative and makes no sense.
Just another "for the choir" article making broad assumptions and ludicrous comparisons.
It isn't a matter of comprehension. It is a matter of how far are you willing to suspend reality to accept the spin.
Having said that, just how good has the rest of MSM been for the liberal cause? All of them were backing Hillary, and Hillary was perhaps the least liberal candidate in the history of the Democrat party.
My conservativism isn't based on a TV show. I do think FOX helped a great deal in getting Trump elected though. They are a giant pebble in the shoe of the left. They are about all the right has for TV prominence. I'm not going to read an article on how that's bad for conservativism.
You missed my point, asshole. It's like reading your posts, worthless.My conservativism isn't based on a TV show. I do think FOX helped a great deal in getting Trump elected though. They are a giant pebble in the shoe of the left. They are about all the right has for TV prominence. I'm not going to read an article on how that's bad for conservativism.
Which was what...?You missed my point, asshole. It's like reading your posts, worthless.My conservativism isn't based on a TV show. I do think FOX helped a great deal in getting Trump elected though. They are a giant pebble in the shoe of the left. They are about all the right has for TV prominence. I'm not going to read an article on how that's bad for conservativism.
Couldn't see it with your head stuffed up your ass. Not my problem.Which was what...?You missed my point, asshole. It's like reading your posts, worthless.My conservativism isn't based on a TV show. I do think FOX helped a great deal in getting Trump elected though. They are a giant pebble in the shoe of the left. They are about all the right has for TV prominence. I'm not going to read an article on how that's bad for conservativism.
What was your point?
Bill has a very popular podcast. I listen to it every night. With the passage of enough time CNN and MSNBC will be banging on his door contract in hand. If you think this is not true you are not thinking. The man is media ratings gold.Conservative writer John Ziegler gives a very accurate and detailed argument as to why the entity known as FOXNEWS is, and has been bad for conservatism in his article With the O’Reilly Era Over, Here’s Why Fox News Has Been Horrible for Conservatism
Megyn Kelly on NBC, Greta on MSNBC, and Bill on CNN.Bill has a very popular podcast. I listen to it every night. With the passage of enough time CNN and MSNBC will be banging on his door contract in hand. If you think this is not true you are not thinking. The man is media ratings gold.Conservative writer John Ziegler gives a very accurate and detailed argument as to why the entity known as FOXNEWS is, and has been bad for conservatism in his article With the O’Reilly Era Over, Here’s Why Fox News Has Been Horrible for Conservatism
You know...I think your post was brilliant.What Fox did is pioneer the "editorials presented under the auspice of news" model of news network programming and content. Editorials are indeed at type of journalism, but they are not news, even though news is also a form of journalism.
Are editorials biased? Of course, they are. They are supposed to be. The key is that they do what so many indolent Americans want: they give viewers a reason not to endeavor to figure things out for themselves. Like it or not, human nature is that of a herd/pack animal and as such, letting the "top dogs" handle the decision making and reacting in line with those decisions is not only easy to do, but also it's what one must for as long as one lives "fight" mentally and physically not to do. Too, it takes a certain set of skills to do well, and most people are neither willing, committed nor given to honing those skills to such a degree and applying them consistently.
Thus, Fox has both more of such segments than its competitors, and it more often than any of them, save maybe MSNBC, presents strongly and cogently only one side of any topic upon which its program hosts editorialize. Fox figured out that it could transform the talk-radio model into financial success even though far more listening than talking is going on insofar as listeners cannot "call in" to a Fox program like O'Reilly Factor or the network's other editorial shows.
It's not surprising that Fox adopted the national politics editorial format to fill its programming slots. The alternative is to have swarms of reporters and video crews "all over the world" covering all sorts of genuine news stories, few of which can be reliably be predicted to capture viewers interests enough to command ad revenue comparable to that of the editorial format. Organizations like Reuters, the AP and UPI can do that in a print format, for all it takes is intrepid and determined reporters with recording devices and an editor for "every so many of them." In contrast, having video crews in as many places covering as many events is cost prohibitive if a news division is also to be a profit center for a network, which necessarily it must be for an 24-hour "news" network.
Of course, showing the profits it did from adopting "editorial as news" approach to news channel programming, there were sure to be others who did so too. MSNBC was created for the sole purpose of being the liberal alternative to Fox. CNN adopted a similar model for some of its programming, but it's editorialists are generally from both sides of the aisle; however, offering that multiplicity of viewpoints necessarily means that less total airtime than Fox or MSNBC devote to a topic can be given to either side. (The consequence of that is that CNN has to use commentators who are very adept at succinctly delivering highly cogent ideas. To CNN's credit, they pretty well succeed at doing so, though except for David Gergen, their cadre of conservative commentators is markedly less adept than are their liberal and moderate commentators.)
And therein is the problem. News, in and of itself just isn't particularly entertaining, but to keep viewers attracted, lo addicted, to a network -- not just a given show -- news must to some degree "flick on" viewers' "entertainment switch." When news must also be business, one gets news filtered through the prism of the bottom line. In the days of Murrow, Cronkite, et al, the news was what it was and and whether viewers liked what they learned on the nightly news shows, thus turning a profit wasn't, the point of delivering news content. The anchorman may have editorialized from time to time, but mostly people got their editorial content from print media.
What does editorial consumption via print vs. via television have? It means one must willfully engage with and focus on the writer's ideas. One simply cannot simultaneously read an editorial and cook dinner. One can try, but either the meal will have flaws or one's comprehension of what one reads will be flawed. Television editorials allow our selectively attentive brains "cook with gas." (The human brain is "wired" to do that and one must deliberately not do it)
(I did see it.)
(I caught 16.)
(FWIW, I correctly answered 1, 3, and 4 when, nearly done with my MBA, I took that test as part of my interview with Andersen, but I didn't accept their offer. I was rather surprised to see it on the Internet. My Andersen interviewers also asked other "bizarre" questions like "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be and why?")
That was your entertainment. Assuming you were reading the whole post, do you remember what I was writing about? If you didn't, you now know firsthand how the editorial format works to shape people's thoughts: it takes viewers from one thing to the next and dissuades them from ever cogently connecting the dots among them. Put another way, it puts people's brains on "auto pilot," which is exactly where untrained brains want to be.
I think your post was brilliant.
Krystal touches on the main point of a corporation that is supposedly "left"
True.I think your post was brilliant.
Thank you.
Krystal touches on the main point of a corporation that is supposedly "left"
Well, she's right that ideology takes a backseat to profit in the management of a cable news network.
While I agree there's a cultural disdain for "The Establishment," I am of a mind that the tacit, and in some instances explicit, goal of most citizens is to become a member of "The Establishment." Thus, while people gripe about "The Establishment," which, frankly, is an easy target, they expend a lot of effort trying to appear to be among it. For instance, look at how many folks go about obtaining the trappings of wealth yet are, often enough, barely two paychecks away from "ruin." Members of "The Establishment" obtain their financial position before acquiring the trappings thereunto.
Think what you will of "The Establishment," but the fact is that very few people (comparatively) are born to it, and, unlike nations having a formal class system, entry into and remaining part of it is achievable by anyone who makes the effort to do so. Whereas in the UK, "The Establishment" consists of the aristocracy, admittance to which requires one be a peer, the U.S. "Establishment" is a meritocracy. All the merit in the world will not make one an earl or baron, for instance, whereas developing critical (in demand) skills and working hard to apply them in a productive manner will secure one entry to the U.S. "Establishment."
Just what does it take to become part of "The Establishment?" Quite simply, it takes being a high performer in all respects: cognitively, ethically, professionally, socially, etc. And the U.S. "system" provides a "roadmap" for how to do that; however, many, many people resist accepting the guidance and opt to chart their own way. That's fine, it's a free country and nobody's going to force one to "follow the yellow brick road," but if one's going to take that approach, as opposed to following the "roadmap" until one "arrives" and after that charting a new course, one had better know very well what one's doing at the outset.
Like it or not, one has to realize that one lives in a "system;" thus the most sensible approach is to adhere to the system until the system has borne its fruits, after which bucking the system Think of it like this. One cannot very well trailblaze and (re)invent a wholly new approach to winning at chess until after one has mastered the current approaches to winning at chess. Can one try the reverse approach? Sure, one can, but to succeed with that approach, one must be either lucky, which is not predictable, or a prodigy, which is far more than merely being a high performer. Neither of those are the blessings most of us, including most members of "The Establishment," have.
Quite simply, the difference between "The Establishment" and everyone else is that, in general, members of "The Establishment" willfully choose to work with the system and let it work for them rather than fighting it. They may become mavericks at some point in their lives, but they don't generally begin that way. Why? Because rarely does that work. At the end of the day, "it's" all about achieving one's goals, not, romantic appeal notwithstanding, achieving them the maverick way.
It's so bad the dimocrats have lost the White House, Senate, House, a thousand or so state legislative seats, a bunch of governorships, and likely soon the Supreme Court for several generations. Their party is in shambles so thus all the phony allegations of Russians, Comey, etc. costing the Hildebeast the election...anything to distract folks from the party's real problems.My conservativism isn't based on a TV show. I do think FOX helped a great deal in getting Trump elected though. They are a giant pebble in the shoe of the left. They are about all the right has for TV prominence. I'm not going to read an article on how that's bad for conservativism.
