Fox News - News By Design

[Pogo]

yeah, it's not nearly as mainstream (er commietastic) as the HuffPo or DailyKooks...

Leftist neo communist teeny boppers must believe the folks over at pmsnbc...

Man, the media during the 18th and 19th century....

You mean like when the NBC producer...

All the news sources do that. Time magazine did it...

Remember the old days (like two years ago) when you could open a topic on Fox and get responses actually about Fox?

Ah, takes me back... (wipes eyes) -- now all you can get is a plateful of steaming red herring; a Reader's Digress served up by your waitress, Miss Direction. "Yeah but NBC does this"... "Yeah but Time magazine does that"... "Yeah but... Yeah but... Yeah but..."

I wonder if a topic was opened on ABC if would it be descended on by protests of "yeah but CBS did this..."? I doubt it.

This one's my favourite:

Obviously you do not watch MSNBC also know as 2 X chromosomes and 1 Y !?

Apparently it's some vague slur on somebody's sexuality, plus simultaneous topic shift. You get a red herring stuffed with ad hominem; two fallacies for the price of one.
Such a deal!

Wonder if historians can pinpoint the date that Foxpologists stopped defending the castle and went to diversionary tactics.
Does somebody up on high cue you guys when to do this? Come on -- who's "Mister Big"?
.
.

 

[Pogo]

Really?

Top 10 cable news ratings Q3, 2012:

1. The O'Reilly Factor
Fox News -- 2.831 million total viewers

2. Hannity
Fox News -- 2.35 million total viewers

3. Special Report with Bret Baier
Fox News -- 1.96 million total viewers

4. The Five
Fox News -- 1.86 million total viewers

5. On the Record with Greta van Susteren
Fox News -- 1.828 million total viewers

6. Fox Report with Shepard Smith
Fox News -- 1.734 million total viewers

7. America's Newsroom
Fox News -- 1.405 million total viewers

8. Your World with Neil Cavuto
Fox News -- 1.377 million total viewers

9. America Live
Fox News -- 1.234 million total viewers

10. O'Reilly Factor (11PM)
Fox News -- 1.191 million total viewers

******* liar.

Puhhhleeze, posting Q3 numbers in response to Q4 information then-----then calling my C&P a lie? What's your excuse for missing the gist this time?



Maddow and O’Donnell Jingle Fox’s Bells:
For the month of December, two-thirds of the Fox News primetime lineup came in second to MSNBC (in the critical 25-54 year old demographic). The Rachel Maddow Show’s monthly average came in 4% above the formidable Fox fixture, Sean Hannity. Lawrence O’Donnell had an even better advantage of 11% over his weaker competition, Greta Van Susteren.

This was a stark difference from last year when Hannity comfortably led Maddow by 46% and Van Susteren outpaced O’Donnell by the same amount. Those leads have now completely evaporated. Only Bill O’Reilly has managed to keep his fat head above water, although his 69% December 2011 lead over Ed Schultz was cut nearly in half in 2012 to 40%.

December 2012 was an affirmation of the superior performance MSNBC has shown since the election in November. Maddow and O’Donnell have consistently defeated Hannity and Van Susteren since President Obama did the same thing to Mitt Romney. This can no longer be explained away by Fox defenders as mere depression on the part of conservative viewers who tuned out after an electoral spanking. That excuse may have made sense for a week or two, but not a full two months later with high profile news events like the “fiscal cliff,” new cabinet appointments, Benghazi hearings, the Petraeus scandal, and the Newtown school shooting dominating news coverage.

Like I said America is starting to notice that Fox skews the news.
.

Bullshit. You did not post Q4 numbers, only the CHANGE in ONE demographic between Dec '11 and Dec '12, you dis-ingenious piece of shit.

I have not seen Q4 numbers FOR ALL DEMOGRAPHICS yet posted, but I assure you, Fox will still dominate.

Your bias is overwhelming.

I drool when I see people post ratings as if they're "votes".

Ratings exist for one purpose and one purpose only: so that the broadcaster has a basis to set advertising rates. That's it. And that means the more eyeballs you draw, the more you can charge. That has zero to do with "credibility". It has to do with attention.

Fox Noise is adept at creating attention; that's why the ratings are what they are. The bright romper room colors on everything; the short-skirted bimbos; the suggestive chyrons constantly crawling across the screen with loaded questions ("Did Obama and Chris Christie create Sandy?"); the endless format of confrontation and us/them morality plays; the constant highlighting of anything that can be angled into a fear topic and the graphics that go whooooosh ... this is all engineered to bring you in and keep you there. Because the more you're there, the more they can charge the advertiser. That's what ratings mean.

Attention isn't garnered by credibility or ethical journalism or thoughtful content. A balanced, thinking, philosophical in-depth look at the issues would fall flat in terms of ratings books. But bring in "they're coming to take your guns" or "new bill means your taxes go up", or "did Obama go to terrorism school?" and voilà -- viewers. Doesn't mean they agree with it; it means they agree that it's a spectacle. Just as a line of cars slowing down to rubberneck at the overturned tractor-trailer doesn't mean they "agree" with the idea of having accidents.

Humans gawk at drama. If there's any doubt about that, consider that the big draws on TV among non-news shows are moronic sitcoms, fake wrestling and people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs.

Fox News isn't news; it's news-theater. It's a TV gossip show using politicians instead of movie stars. It's always about the personal, and never about the issues. Tabloid journalism is, after all, what Rupert Murdoch built his fortune on.

By now FNC is far from the only one employing this kind of manipulation. Where'd it come from?

Real news is expensive to produce. All those alphabet newscasts we grew up with in the '50s and '60s were heavily subsidized by Gilligan's Island and the Beverly Hillbillies -- the real money makers. You don't make a profit by doing news. So in came Fox sixteen years ago with a new angle: rather than do actual news, they would sit people in a studio and have them talk about the news. Certainly there are onsite reporters (or stringers) when the occasion requires, but their bread and butter -- where they make their money-- is the evening "prime time" with all those talking heads who will be the first to protest that they're commentators, not journalists... while the logo on the corner continues to read "Fox News". More manipulation. And on they go, yammering constantly about people, not ideas. About politicians, not politics. And a free boogeyman with every one. Nothing sells like fear. The same reason your local news channel will lead not with what city council did today or people having a good time at the local festival, but a deadly fire in some neighborhood you never heard of. Fire! Death! Missing white girl! Salivate now!

Sadly, competitive commercial broadcasting being what it is, the CNNs and MSNBCs have gradually given up their own ethics to follow suit. Because that's where the money is.

Let's just be clear about what the ratings mean, and what they don't.
.
.

 

[whitehall]

CBS set the treason bar pretty high when it tried to use forged documents to influence a presidential election. Anything the left wing propaganda site Salon has to say about fox is frivolous. Meanwhile dumb assed lefties are still shelling out good money to hear Dan Rather speak.

 

[bripat9643]

More hate Fox threads huh? It really pisses fascists off when certain Media doesn't follow party lines.

it confuses the peasants when not all the propaganda organs are singing the same tune.

 

[Sallow]

Ah yes.

The Saudi/Aussie Network for telling Americans what to think.

I've heard of it.

 

[westwall]

.


12 most despicable things Fox News did in 2012 - Salon.com
Mark Howard
Jan 5, 2013

The most heartbreaking news of 2012 was surely the massacre in Newtown, CT, where 20 schoolchildren and six adults were senselessly murdered by a deranged gunman. The resultant outcry from concerned Americans about the easy access to weapons that are capable of such carnage was met by Fox News as an attack on the Second Amendment and free enterprise. Its response was to slaughter the First Amendment by prohibiting any discussion of gun safety on the network.

<snip>


12) Fox opposes ban on assault weapons but imposes ban on talking about it.

&#8630;It’s also worthwhile to note that while Fox has banned all talk of gun control, they have not similarly banished talk of other explanations for the atrocity in Connecticut. For instance, they had no problemn with laying the blame on movies and video games. And Fox host Mike Huckabee was permitted to go on the air and blame the killings on the absence of God in the classroom. That’s is a particularly idiotic theory when you consider that other mass killings have taken place in churches where there presumably was no shortage of Godliness.


News Corpse » Fox News Opposes Ban On Assault Weapons But Imposes Ban On Talking About It: Posted by Mark on December 17, 2012

Never mind that Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of the Fox News parent company, supports taking “bold leadership” to restrict access to assault weapons, executives at Fox News have dictated that the subject of gun control is forbidden on their network. Sources told Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine that…

“David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. ‘This network is not going there,’ Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange.”
​

This is the sort of overt bias that is practiced at Fox News on a regular basis. There is nothing new about Fox demanding that their anchors and contributors follow the marching orders from the executive suites. They receive a morning memo informing them on the topics of the day and what their positions will be. Even loyal Fox associates like pollster Frank Luntz have revealed that failing to “comport with the outlet’s orthodoxy” will result in getting you blacklisted. Sherman’s sources went on to say that…

“During the weekend, one frustrated producer went around Clark to lobby Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice-president for news editorial, but Clemente upheld the mandate. ‘We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control,’ the source said.”
​

<snip>

.

You mean like when the NBC producer altered the 911 tapes to make Zimmerman look like a racist, or like when Rather broadcast a story on Bush he knew to be false? That kind of news by design?

Propagandist.

Good on MSNBC for immediately firing the producer that Breitbarted the tape. OTOH, when Fox got busted for essentially the same thing...


News Corpse » Graphic Evidence Of The Racism Of Fox News: Racial Photoshopping:


...uh, well that's just Fox being "Fair and Balanced"?
.

How about when MSNBC claimed the Tea party folks were racist and showed a cropped photo of a man carrying an AR-15 rifle at a Tea Party meeting. Then the uncropped photo showed up and lo and behold the man carrying the rifle was black.

You putz they ALL are fucked. To claim anything else exposes you for the propagandist you are.

 

[Stephanie]

Leftist neo communist teeny boppers must believe the folks over at pmsnbc are objectively non political. Yes, they are that stupid.

Ahhh but MSNBC doesn't describe itself as MSNBC "news", does it?


Fox -ehem- News OTOH, in their rush to skew the dialogue about Sandy Hook and other heinous gun crimes pisses on their own anchors and contributors 1st Amendment right to free speech and-----and America is starting to notice.

​

Dec 06 2012


<snip>


The frequency with which MSNBC is topping Fox dispels any notion that this is an anomaly. In fact, from election day through November 30, Maddow and O&#8217;Donnell beat Hannity and Van Susteren by 13% and 20% respectively. The full primetime averages for this period for Fox and MSNBC are separated by only 2% with O&#8217;Reilly lifting Fox barely into the lead.

Fox News can no longer boast that they are the runaway leader in cable news. Before long they may not be the leader at all. Their audience may be tiring of being lied to and they might not appreciate the filters that Fox has put between them and the real world. There can be only so many times that someone can discover that what they thought they knew for sure was not even close to correct. And people who get their news from Fox have been in that situation too many times already.



<snip>
.

you are such a joke as is all those idiots at PmsNbc..it's not a surprise you would defend their divisive shows. Not one thing FAIR or Balanced with them

 

[Pogo]

Again, it's telling that every time Fox is the topic, all its drones want to talk about is MSNBC. Or CNN or anything but Fox. Strange psychology.

See post 21.

 

[Cassandro]

.


12 most despicable things Fox News did in 2012 - Salon.com
Mark Howard
Jan 5, 2013

The most heartbreaking news of 2012 was surely the massacre in Newtown, CT, where 20 schoolchildren and six adults were senselessly murdered by a deranged gunman. The resultant outcry from concerned Americans about the easy access to weapons that are capable of such carnage was met by Fox News as an attack on the Second Amendment and free enterprise. Its response was to slaughter the First Amendment by prohibiting any discussion of gun safety on the network.

<snip>


12) Fox opposes ban on assault weapons but imposes ban on talking about it.

&#8630;It’s also worthwhile to note that while Fox has banned all talk of gun control, they have not similarly banished talk of other explanations for the atrocity in Connecticut. For instance, they had no problemn with laying the blame on movies and video games. And Fox host Mike Huckabee was permitted to go on the air and blame the killings on the absence of God in the classroom. That’s is a particularly idiotic theory when you consider that other mass killings have taken place in churches where there presumably was no shortage of Godliness.


News Corpse » Fox News Opposes Ban On Assault Weapons But Imposes Ban On Talking About It: Posted by Mark on December 17, 2012

Never mind that Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of the Fox News parent company, supports taking “bold leadership” to restrict access to assault weapons, executives at Fox News have dictated that the subject of gun control is forbidden on their network. Sources told Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine that…

“David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. ‘This network is not going there,’ Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange.”
​

This is the sort of overt bias that is practiced at Fox News on a regular basis. There is nothing new about Fox demanding that their anchors and contributors follow the marching orders from the executive suites. They receive a morning memo informing them on the topics of the day and what their positions will be. Even loyal Fox associates like pollster Frank Luntz have revealed that failing to “comport with the outlet’s orthodoxy” will result in getting you blacklisted. Sherman’s sources went on to say that…

“During the weekend, one frustrated producer went around Clark to lobby Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice-president for news editorial, but Clemente upheld the mandate. ‘We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control,’ the source said.”
​

<snip>

.

Delusional, but then you obviously rely on others to do your talking (and thinking).

 

[eflatminor]

...the more eyeballs you draw, the more you can charge. That has zero to do with "credibility".

I absolutely agree with you. My point was to refute Star's statement that "Fox News can no longer boast that they are the runaway leader in cable news". Clearly, that's a lie.

You are correct that credibility is a different issue. We all know that Fox is biased heavily toward Conservatism so I read any Fox story with that in mind. Same applies to MSNBC and their bias towards Progressive/liberal Democrat ideals. Their biases damage their credibility to be sure, but I have yet to find a news source that isn't biased one way or another.

Lastly, I have to say that while I'm not a Fox fan, I do appreciate two of their commentators, Judge Napolitano and John Stossel. They may be biased towards limited government and individual liberty, but at least they're upfront about it. Besides, those are good things to be biased towards!

 

[Pogo]

...the more eyeballs you draw, the more you can charge. That has zero to do with "credibility".

I absolutely agree with you. My point was to refute Star's statement that "Fox News can no longer boast that they are the runaway leader in cable news". Clearly, that's a lie.

You are correct that credibility is a different issue. We all know that Fox is biased heavily toward Conservatism so I read any Fox story with that in mind. Same applies to MSNBC and their bias towards Progressive/liberal Democrat ideals. Their biases damage their credibility to be sure, but I have yet to find a news source that isn't biased one way or another.

Lastly, I have to say that while I'm not a Fox fan, I do appreciate two of their commentators, Judge Napolitano and John Stossel. They may be biased towards limited government and individual liberty, but at least they're upfront about it. Besides, those are good things to be biased towards!

Thanks for a reasoned response that's actually on the topic (what a concept). My point was that whether Fox or MSNBC or QVC is ahead of the others means nothing in terms of quality, so these lists of ratings don't have much of a point. They show who's the best at audience manipulation, which is quite a different thing from ideology.

I will say at the same time that in the portion of the FNC clock that actually is news, (confined to the lower-viewership times), they have Shepard Smith who's probably the most credible journalist on any channel; the "exception that proves the rule". But I say that because Smith (alone, it seems) is willing to buck the channel's party line in favor of genuine fair and balanced when the narrative doesn't fit the right-wing pandering. Every other host on the channel comes off as a spineless right-wing yes man.

But of course Shepard Smith is not the element that brings in those ratings, nor is that what they're interested in.

 

[Desperado]

Fox News..........
When News Breaks, We Fix it.

 

[Star]

...the more eyeballs you draw, the more you can charge. That has zero to do with "credibility".

I absolutely agree with you. My point was to refute Star's statement that "Fox News can no longer boast that they are the runaway leader in cable news". Clearly, that's a lie.

You are correct that credibility is a different issue. We all know that Fox is biased heavily toward Conservatism so I read any Fox story with that in mind. Same applies to MSNBC and their bias towards Progressive/liberal Democrat ideals. Their biases damage their credibility to be sure, but I have yet to find a news source that isn't biased one way or another.

Lastly, I have to say that while I'm not a Fox fan, I do appreciate two of their commentators, Judge Napolitano and John Stossel. They may be biased towards limited government and individual liberty, but at least they're upfront about it. Besides, those are good things to be biased towards!

You're eflat wrong about "Fox News can no longer boast that they are the runaway leader in cable news." being my statement. OTOH Mark Howard's chart that I C&Ped, and the list that eflatminor posted clearly show that since the election (Nov. 6) Fox's numbers have been headed down in the prime demographic 25-54, while MSNBC's numbers have been moving up. IOWs, "Fox News can no longer boast that they are the runaway leader in cable news."

The Christmas Wars:
It has suddenly become clear why Fox News has been so fixated on inciting a “War on Christmas.” It must be because the Christmas season has been devastatingly cruel to Fox News. This year the Nielsen ratings left a smoldering lump of coal in Fox’s stocking despite all the pandering they did to Old St. Nick. Apparently Fox was very naughty. Santa doesn’t approve of lying and, perhaps, viewers are getting tired of it as well​

But back to the subject of this thread;


Fox News Flim-Flam: Conning Latinos For Politics And Profit:


Mark
July 20, 2012


The reputation for Fox News as a brazenly biased, right-wing, mouthpiece for the Republican Party and a conservative agenda is well-established. From their upper-management (Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes) to their frontline anchors (Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity), they have forged a network that has entirely abandoned any pretense of impartiality.

That well-honed partisan prejudice has proven to be useful in poisoning the political discourse. Fox News has exploited their audience to favor GOP candidates and sway perceptions of complex issues like health care, economics, and the environment. Amongst the most prominent of the issues that Fox has sought to distort is immigration. Their reporting is relentless in falsely portraying immigrants as shiftless lawbreakers who steal jobs from American citizens and drain the nation of scarce public resources.

<snip>

The problem for Fox News, and their ideological benefactors, is that these are citizens who can vote and are registering in record numbers. This is particularly noticeable in states that are crucial for Republican electoral victories like Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. But the trend is evident in some measure throughout the country.

This situation poses a disconcerting problem for Fox. How do they maintain their editorial animosity toward immigrants without alienating an increasingly important voter group? The answer appears to be by developing news content specifically for this demographic and sequestering it from the rest of their viewership.

<snip>

Here are a few typical examples:
June 15, 2012: In response to President Obama’s announcement of a policy shift wherein certain young immigrants would be granted work permits rather than be deported, the Fox News Latino web site posted a story headlined, “Obama Administration Halts Deportations for Young Immigrants.” That’s a factually accurate description that treats the news in a neutral manner. The headline was accompanied by a sympathetic photo of a young Latina child draped with an American flag.

However, on Fox Nation they went with the headline “Obama Administration Bypasses Congress, To Give Immunity, Stop Deporting Younger Illegals.” In that short sentence they managed to imply impropriety on the part of the administration, infer the controversial subject of amnesty, and insult Latinos by employing the dehumanizing label of “illegals” (even though the people affected by this initiative did not break any law). The photo accompanying this article was of adult Latinos sitting up against a wall in handcuffs.

It is also notable that the Fox News Latino site posted the Associated Press article about the announcement in full. The Fox Nationalists posted only two paragraphs plus a video from Fox News of right-wing wacko Allen West expressing his outrage. This is further evidence that the Fox Nationalists want to avoid giving their dimwitted readers too much actual information, but prefer to throw up as much ultra-right-wing opinion as possible.​

<snip>



Fox skews news?

.