Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns
by Mike Gonzalez
October 20, 2009
The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.
"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.
Less debatable is the fact that Fox's mix of immediacy and opinionated commentary has proved a fantastically popular business model. And, in a capitalist system, that means a profitable model. Not surprisingly, it's a formula that others are now striving to copy.
Immediacy and opinion may seem to be at war, but they actually go hand in hand. The technology that brought us the first makes the second necessary.
With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.
Raw news is now the stuff of cell phone cameras, text messaging and Twitter. It has been commoditized and is being taken away from journalists. Neda Soltan's murder in Tehran this summer was captured by someone who probably couldn't tell you who Joseph Pulitzer was, but he or she had a cell phone. This may be a calamity for legacy media, but it's not a national tragedy. Rest assured, we are better informed today or at least have the means to be than when we sat around the national hearth and got the news from one source, Uncle Walter.
Mike Gonzalez is vice president of communications at The Heritage Foundation. He most recently directed corporate affairs for a solar energy company.
I spent a few hours this summer at Off the Record, a watering hole for journalists near the White House, trying to convince a newly arrived British correspondent for a major outlet that his gig was up. He couldn't compete with millions of Bangladeshis, Bolivians and Californians armed with $10 hand-held electronic devices, I said. He agreed, but argued vehemently that what journalists must provide now is context.
He's right. With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.
Now, my friend's "context" is by definition subjective. So is Fox's. Unlike most of its competitors, Fox's "context" is conservative, which means it has a huge audience that was previously being neglected. Other major papers and networks trend left because their journalists trend left. Fox has half the nation to itself!
No wonder Anita Dunn and David Axelrod are crying foul and, in the latter's case, pleading with other journalists to bar Fox from their playground.
Government, of course, has an awesome power, if it decided to be rough. The administration has a panoply of tools, including the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. But it wouldn't be doing the nation or democracy any favors by depriving it of the only national television outlet that breaks the left's monopoly on news. It would also be fighting the only workable media business model in sight.
American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.
Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.
They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?
They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?
American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.
Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.
The demographic they are consistently winning is the most coveted 25-54 age group. If you have a credible source for your claims of "white, old and uneducated" please feel free to post it with a source link.They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters.... ~snip~ Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me).
VERY good!They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?
They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?
American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.
Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.
Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??
The demographic they are consistently winning is the most coveted 25-54 age group. If you have a credible source for your claims of "white, old and uneducated" please feel free to post it with a source link.They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters.... ~snip~ Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me).
That's why I ding his rep each and every time I see him do it.The demographic they are consistently winning is the most coveted 25-54 age group. If you have a credible source for your claims of "white, old and uneducated" please feel free to post it with a source link.They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters.... ~snip~ Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me).
He'd just rather spew partisan bullshit than facts.
They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?
They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?
They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?
They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?
American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.
Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.
Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??
Its the truth.
They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?
They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?
Not going to address the points in the article, are you?
It's so much easier for you to vomit your partisan opinion, isn't it?
You made some claims, how about some proof?
Boobie, I did address the article. I dont believe in personal attacks without at least addressing the subject at hand.
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns
So does NASCAR.
It's all just further evidence of the lack of intelligence of the general population.
They are number one for a reason. They are appealing to dumb (right winger) republican voters. Period. They are watching a station they know lies, yet they watch. Why do you think real republicans disassociate themselves with Beck, Hannity et al?
They have a few million viewers, and this is impressive, but percentage wise, how will this effect the next election? HOw did it effect the last one?
American idol have great ratings as well....Ratings does not equal quality. It represents a demographic that was tapped.
Fox usual demographic is White, uneducated 60 year olds. (Look at the tea party audiances if you dont believe me). You CANNOT win an election with that demographic.
Then why does the WH see them as such a threat??
They dont, they said the truth, Fox (who lies) are shills for the republicans...whats wrong with that?
The white house said, Fox is a shill for the righty's, fox news is not news, tey are opinions. What is the problem?
For you, Zona, since you are so obsessed with FOX News.
Note that this is from NPR.
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns : NPR
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns
by Mike Gonzalez
October 20, 2009
The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.
"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.
Less debatable is the fact that Fox's mix of immediacy and opinionated commentary has proved a fantastically popular business model. And, in a capitalist system, that means a profitable model. Not surprisingly, it's a formula that others are now striving to copy.
Immediacy and opinion may seem to be at war, but they actually go hand in hand. The technology that brought us the first makes the second necessary.
With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.
Raw news is now the stuff of cell phone cameras, text messaging and Twitter. It has been commoditized and is being taken away from journalists. Neda Soltan's murder in Tehran this summer was captured by someone who probably couldn't tell you who Joseph Pulitzer was, but he or she had a cell phone. This may be a calamity for legacy media, but it's not a national tragedy. Rest assured, we are better informed today or at least have the means to be than when we sat around the national hearth and got the news from one source, Uncle Walter.
Mike Gonzalez is vice president of communications at The Heritage Foundation. He most recently directed corporate affairs for a solar energy company.
I spent a few hours this summer at Off the Record, a watering hole for journalists near the White House, trying to convince a newly arrived British correspondent for a major outlet that his gig was up. He couldn't compete with millions of Bangladeshis, Bolivians and Californians armed with $10 hand-held electronic devices, I said. He agreed, but argued vehemently that what journalists must provide now is context.
He's right. With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.
Now, my friend's "context" is by definition subjective. So is Fox's. Unlike most of its competitors, Fox's "context" is conservative, which means it has a huge audience that was previously being neglected. Other major papers and networks trend left because their journalists trend left. Fox has half the nation to itself!
No wonder Anita Dunn and David Axelrod are crying foul and, in the latter's case, pleading with other journalists to bar Fox from their playground.
Government, of course, has an awesome power, if it decided to be rough. The administration has a panoply of tools, including the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. But it wouldn't be doing the nation or democracy any favors by depriving it of the only national television outlet that breaks the left's monopoly on news. It would also be fighting the only workable media business model in sight.
For you, Zona, since you are so obsessed with FOX News.
Note that this is from NPR.
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns : NPR
Attack It If You Must, But Fox News Still Reigns
by Mike Gonzalez
October 20, 2009
The White House's attack on Fox News is ripe with irony. Supposedly, it was conservatives who famously stood athwart history shouting, "Stop!" Supposedly, the Obama administration favors change. Turns out the only change the White House "communicators" want to see in media is the one that stops the wheels of progress.
"Progress," of course, is entirely subjective. After all, those who support a return to 1930s-style Keynesianism and corporatism, plus a penchant for a Chamberlain-like appeasement of the same vintage, can declare themselves progressive with a straight face. Likewise, not everybody will consider Fox and what it does progress.
Less debatable is the fact that Fox's mix of immediacy and opinionated commentary has proved a fantastically popular business model. And, in a capitalist system, that means a profitable model. Not surprisingly, it's a formula that others are now striving to copy.
Immediacy and opinion may seem to be at war, but they actually go hand in hand. The technology that brought us the first makes the second necessary.
With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.
Raw news is now the stuff of cell phone cameras, text messaging and Twitter. It has been commoditized and is being taken away from journalists. Neda Soltan's murder in Tehran this summer was captured by someone who probably couldn't tell you who Joseph Pulitzer was, but he or she had a cell phone. This may be a calamity for legacy media, but it's not a national tragedy. Rest assured, we are better informed today — or at least have the means to be — than when we sat around the national hearth and got the news from one source, Uncle Walter.
Mike Gonzalez is vice president of communications at The Heritage Foundation. He most recently directed corporate affairs for a solar energy company.
I spent a few hours this summer at Off the Record, a watering hole for journalists near the White House, trying to convince a newly arrived British correspondent for a major outlet that his gig was up. He couldn't compete with millions of Bangladeshis, Bolivians and Californians armed with $10 hand-held electronic devices, I said. He agreed, but argued vehemently that what journalists must provide now is context.
He's right. With news commoditized, sellers aren't in charge of pricing. Opinion alone differentiates it and allows the purveyor to command a premium. Thus Fox's success.
Now, my friend's "context" is by definition subjective. So is Fox's. Unlike most of its competitors, Fox's "context" is conservative, which means it has a huge audience that was previously being neglected. Other major papers and networks trend left because their journalists trend left. Fox has half the nation to itself!
No wonder Anita Dunn and David Axelrod are crying foul and, in the latter's case, pleading with other journalists to bar Fox from their playground.
Government, of course, has an awesome power, if it decided to be rough. The administration has a panoply of tools, including the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. But it wouldn't be doing the nation or democracy any favors by depriving it of the only national television outlet that breaks the left's monopoly on news. It would also be fighting the only workable media business model in sight.
