Fox losing moderate-conservative viewers

[peach174]

Fox is still number one in the ratings, and has the most viewers.

Cable News Ratings for Friday, April 19, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, it's not the same thing.

MSNBC reports the news; Fox makes the news.

Legitimate media outlets do not actively participate in promoting candidates, Fox does.

MSNBC's biggest problem is cheerleading Obama way too fuckin' much!

.

 

[KevinWestern]

If Fox is propaganda, so is MSNBC. Fox pushes Right, MSNBC left.

The recent gun control coverage frenzy confirms this.

No, it's not the same thing.

MSNBC reports the news; Fox makes the news.

Legitimate media outlets do not actively participate in promoting candidates, Fox does.

No it is the same.

MSNBC is selective - like Fox - and chooses to cover and push stories that support a "left" agenda. Again, the blackout on most all of Obama's wrong doing is proof of this. The recent gun control hysteria is even more proof of this....

Banning 'assault weapons' is a 'left' talking point.

When you promote one party and shun the other, you become a news source that cannot be trusted.

Just to clarify, are you denying that MSNBC is left leaning?

.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Fox is good for a laugh, except for Stossel and Cavuto, each of whom has enough connection to reality to be interesting even to those of us with enough going on to dismiss about half of their content as emotional drivel. My fave on Fox is Seen O'Hannity, the Bush League's lantern-jawed bottom. Those shows people talk about, Stewart and the guy who apes O'rally, they can't hold a candle to O'hannity in the belly laugh division.

MSNBC is just pathetic. Windy Mathews is a simple old queen. Him and Gingrich have voices that would benefit from a chop to the throat. Some of those younger ones remind me of the Poindexter set at college; people whose whole world is based on what should be and not what is. Channels like msnbc help one to understand what happened to carnivals.

CNN? Wow. The bigger they were, the harder they fell. Who in the **** is Wolf Blitzer? He looks like the guy who panhandles in the little town a few miles up the road, only Blitzer doesn't sound as smart as that guy. Erin Burnett? Looks like an interesting weekend, but an hour of news a quarter inch deep? Uh, no, but thanks.

And it gets worse. Who here thought that 70s hair was the bottom of the barrel? Every one of you knows this has a lot further to fall.

 

[Billo_Really]

Fox is good for a laugh, except for Stossel and Cavuto, each of whom has enough connection to reality to be interesting even to those of us with enough going on to dismiss about half of their content as emotional drivel. My fave on Fox is Seen O'Hannity, the Bush League's lantern-jawed bottom. Those shows people talk about, Stewart and the guy who apes O'rally, they can't hold a candle to O'hannity in the belly laugh division.

MSNBC is just pathetic. Windy Mathews is a simple old queen. Him and Gingrich have voices that would benefit from a chop to the throat. Some of those younger ones remind me of the Poindexter set at college; people whose whole world is based on what should be and not what is. Channels like msnbc help one to understand what happened to carnivals.

CNN? Wow. The bigger they were, the harder they fell. Who in the **** is Wolf Blitzer? He looks like the guy who panhandles in the little town a few miles up the road, only Blitzer doesn't sound as smart as that guy. Erin Burnett? Looks like an interesting weekend, but an hour of news a quarter inch deep? Uh, no, but thanks.

And it gets worse. Who here thought that 70s hair was the bottom of the barrel? Every one of you knows this has a lot further to fall.

I liked Stossel when he got his ass *****-slapped by that wrestler.

 

[Billo_Really]

No it is the same.

MSNBC is selective - like Fox - and chooses to cover and push stories that support a "left" agenda. Again, the blackout on most all of Obama's wrong doing is proof of this. The recent gun control hysteria is even more proof of this....

Banning 'assault weapons' is a 'left' talking point.

When you promote one party and shun the other, you become a news source that cannot be trusted.

Just to clarify, are you denying that MSNBC is left leaning?

.

No it is not the same.

Fox deliberately tries to deceive its viewers.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, it's not the same thing.

MSNBC reports the news; Fox makes the news.

Legitimate media outlets do not actively participate in promoting candidates, Fox does.

MSNBC's biggest problem is cheerleading Obama way too fuckin' much!

.

Obama is not a candidate and they did not actively promote him during the election.

 

[KevinWestern]

No it is the same.

MSNBC is selective - like Fox - and chooses to cover and push stories that support a "left" agenda. Again, the blackout on most all of Obama's wrong doing is proof of this. The recent gun control hysteria is even more proof of this....

Banning 'assault weapons' is a 'left' talking point.

When you promote one party and shun the other, you become a news source that cannot be trusted.

Just to clarify, are you denying that MSNBC is left leaning?

.

No it is not the same.

Fox deliberately tries to deceive its viewers.

One could say the exact same about MSNBC pushing an assault weapons ban 24/7 after Sandy Hook.

For a weapon that kills less than 50 Americans annually, isn't it deceptive to dedicate as much airtime as they did to this cause when are literally thousands of other more legitimate and malicious things taking place within our gov't and country?

See my point?

They beef up coverage on left leaning issues.

 

[Billo_Really]

One could say the exact same about MSNBC pushing an assault weapons ban 24/7 after Sandy Hook.

For a weapon that kills less than 50 Americans annually, isn't it deceptive to dedicate as much airtime as they did to this cause when are literally thousands of other more legitimate and malicious things taking place within our gov't and country?

See my point?

They beef up coverage on left leaning issues.

You can prove what Fox say's is wrong, you can't do that with MSNBC.

I challenge anyone to prove anything Rachel Maddow said is not true.

 

[Billo_Really]

Don't fuckin' argue with me!

Everything I say is true!

I need another beer...

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Fox is good for a laugh, except for Stossel and Cavuto, each of whom has enough connection to reality to be interesting even to those of us with enough going on to dismiss about half of their content as emotional drivel. My fave on Fox is Seen O'Hannity, the Bush League's lantern-jawed bottom. Those shows people talk about, Stewart and the guy who apes O'rally, they can't hold a candle to O'hannity in the belly laugh division.

MSNBC is just pathetic. Windy Mathews is a simple old queen. Him and Gingrich have voices that would benefit from a chop to the throat. Some of those younger ones remind me of the Poindexter set at college; people whose whole world is based on what should be and not what is. Channels like msnbc help one to understand what happened to carnivals.

CNN? Wow. The bigger they were, the harder they fell. Who in the **** is Wolf Blitzer? He looks like the guy who panhandles in the little town a few miles up the road, only Blitzer doesn't sound as smart as that guy. Erin Burnett? Looks like an interesting weekend, but an hour of news a quarter inch deep? Uh, no, but thanks.

And it gets worse. Who here thought that 70s hair was the bottom of the barrel? Every one of you knows this has a lot further to fall.

I liked Stossel when he got his ass *****-slapped by that wrestler.

Agreed.

Stossel and Cavuto are just the best of a bad lot - in my personal opinion. Stossel is for sure a cherry picker; it doesn't get much easier than pitching peanuts to pigeons. Cavuto is actually pretty good at reporting finance, but not worth a **** at filtering ReagaNUT bogusness.

 

[kiwiman127]

Since election day last year, Fox has lost a large percentage of its moderate-conservative viewership.

Hannity dipped more than 50%; O'Reilly lost about a quarter.

According to Nielsen data, Fox News's prime-time monthly audience fell to its lowest level in twelve years in January among the 25-to-54 demographic. Daytime Fox News programming likewise saw its lowest monthly ratings in this age cohort since June 2008. Even the network's two biggest stars, O'Reilly and Hannity, have not been immune from viewer desertion: Hannity lost close to 50 percent of his pre-election audience in the final weeks of 2012, and O'Reilly more than a quarter. The slide hasn't stopped in 2013, either. Compared with a year ago, O'Reilly's February prime-time ratings dropped 
26 percent in the coveted 25-to-54 demographic, his worst performance since July 2008. Hannity's sank even further, to the lowest point in his show's history.

And that's not all! There's a big loss in the "trust" factor with Fox, for those claiming to be moderate-conservatives.

You can only put out so much bullshit for so long before normal people start tuning out.

What I found that was quite a hoot, was that a recent survey found Fox viewers to be less informed than people who watch no news programs at all!

Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University who specializes in studying partisan psychology...conducted a survey that found Fox News's viewers were less informed about current political issues than those who watched no news at all.

That's pretty bad!

Any moderately intelligent individual would conclude Fox News is garbage just in the same way MSNBC news is garbage. Therefore, I’m glad to hear viewers are dropping off.

Journalists these days seem more concerned about ratings than journalistic integrity, and everyone seems to have a pretty blatantly obvious agenda (especially MSNBC).

Turn off your TV’s folks… it’s all garbage.

.

I've been saying that for years, plus some months too! I haven't watched Fox News or MSNBC for years and now I can chew gum and walk at the same time!

 

[KevinWestern]

One could say the exact same about MSNBC pushing an assault weapons ban 24/7 after Sandy Hook.

For a weapon that kills less than 50 Americans annually, isn't it deceptive to dedicate as much airtime as they did to this cause when are literally thousands of other more legitimate and malicious things taking place within our gov't and country?

See my point?

They beef up coverage on left leaning issues.

You can prove what Fox say's is wrong, you can't do that with MSNBC.

I challenge anyone to prove anything Rachel Maddow said is not true.

I'm not saying that the facts they give are false, I'm arguing that that they have an agenda and are selective on what they choose to cover based on that agenda.

This makes them unreliable if you're looking to understand the big picture.

.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm not saying that the facts they give are false, I'm arguing that that they have an agenda and are selective on what they choose to cover based on that agenda.

This makes them unreliable if you're looking to understand the big picture.

.

Just because they have an agenda and are selective on what they choose to cover, doesn't automatically make them unreliable. As much as I am against Fox, I don't dismiss their claims simply on the basis that it comes from them. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until I have evidence to the contrary.

You consider the source to be prudent, but you don't put all your eggs in that basket. The truth or falsehood of a claim, doesn't rest soley on the source from which it comes. That's why ad hominem's are illogical fallacy's. Even Fox can be right sometimes.












I said sometimes!

 

[KevinWestern]

Just because they have an agenda and are selective on what they choose to cover, doesn't automatically make them unreliable. As much as I am against Fox, I don't dismiss their claims simply on the basis that it comes from them. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until I have evidence to the contrary.

News shouldn't have an agenda - that is bad journalism!

The purpose of the news is to inform the readership of all of the most important stories that are going on in the world so that individuals can monitor, plan, and take action accordingly. It is supposed to be as non-biased as possible.

When an agenda is thrown into the mix, and news is withheld or glossed over in order to protect a political candidate, a company, or a certain ideal, the readers (naturally) become under-informed.

This most certainly makes it unreliable because you can no longer rely on it to give you all of the most relevant information (which is what one could only hope a respectable news outlet would provide)...

See my point?

.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

MSNBC reports the news; Fox makes the news.

Legitimate media outlets do not actively participate in promoting candidates, Fox does.

Bullshit. You just agree with the leftist bias MSNBC puts out there with their stories so you claim they're "real" news. You're no different than the dedicated Fox viewers you're criticizing. Talk about irony.

 

[Billo_Really]

Bullshit. You just agree with the leftist bias MSNBC puts out there with their stories so you claim they're "real" news. You're no different than the dedicated Fox viewers you're criticizing. Talk about irony.

Name me anyone at MSNBC that openly promoted a candidate in the last election like Fox did for republican candidates. Glenn Beck promoted the Tea Party on his show for weeks before their big rally in Washington. In fact, whenever any republican candidate goes to Washington, he's got to make a required visit to kiss the ring of Roger Ailes. Fox practically writes the republican agenda. MSNBC doesn't do anything like that for the democrats.

 

[Billo_Really]

News shouldn't have an agenda - that is bad journalism!

The purpose of the news is to inform the readership of all of the most important stories that are going on in the world so that individuals can monitor, plan, and take action accordingly. It is supposed to be as non-biased as possible.

When an agenda is thrown into the mix, and news is withheld or glossed over in order to protect a political candidate, a company, or a certain ideal, the readers (naturally) become under-informed.

This most certainly makes it unreliable because you can no longer rely on it to give you all of the most relevant information (which is what one could only hope a respectable news outlet would provide)...

See my point?

.

The mainstream media stopped doing actual journalism the day they fired Phil Donahue for his anti-Iraq war point of view.

Ever since then, they've been broadcasting nothing but entertainment.

 

[tjvh]

Bullshit. You just agree with the leftist bias MSNBC puts out there with their stories so you claim they're "real" news. You're no different than the dedicated Fox viewers you're criticizing. Talk about irony.

Name me anyone at MSNBC that openly promoted a candidate in the last election like Fox did for republican candidates. Glenn Beck promoted the Tea Party on his show for weeks before their big rally in Washington. In fact, whenever any republican candidate goes to Washington, he's got to make a required visit to kiss the ring of Roger Ailes. Fox practically writes the republican agenda. MSNBC doesn't do anything like that for the democrats.

Really Loonboy, you can't be serious.

 

[Billo_Really]

Really Loonboy, you can't be serious.

I'm dead serious!

Name anyone from any other media outlet that openly promoted candidates during their broadcasts.

Fox did it constantly.

Don't act like I'm nuts if you can't prove what I said was wrong.