fox news ratings tank

[Foxfyre]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

Once again -- wtf does that mean in English? I don't even know if he's talking about me. Anyone?

It made perfectly good sense to me. Perhaps because I've read enough posts to understand the satirical reference he used. Or maybe because we're both crazy in the same way. I dunno. But yeah, if you aren't reading the same stuff he is, you won't understand the comment.

 

[Trajan]

I saw somewhere that the top news, at any time(just general amountof viewers) and various Fox shows had the top 4(?) spots. The've next 2 were liberal comedy shows.. Daily show and Letterman(Ithink)
LOL what does that tell you? And that was from Monday

Beats me. What does it tell you?

As far as ideologies and media, I've toyed with the question of whether there's a reason the media that tends to work for the "right" tends to be based on confrontation (e.g. Limbaugh, O'Reilly) while what works for the "left" tends to be based on comedy and satire (as above). That thought came up in talk radio comparisons.

Think about the reverse -- do we know a left-leaning media production based on confrontation that works? Or a right-leaning one based on comedy? Why would this be?

Just a thought for contemplation.

"confrontation" , as in O'reilly vs Stewart or Letterman? do you really think those are valid objects for comparison? seriously?


maybe if you checked on liberal penchants for/of behavior ala real comparative mediums- Meet the Depressed or This Weak....Gregory for example is a walking/talking advertisement for passive aggressive behavior.....



hopefully you can comprehend this? is it grammatically correct (enuff) and acceptable to you?

 

[Pogo]

Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show

.................. and?

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

 

[Trajan]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

Once again -- wtf does that mean in English? I don't even know if he's talking about me. Anyone?

you're being to cute by half now.

you know exactly what it means, because you miraculously, fantastically- coincidentally chose to cut it off at exactly the point after I speak to your previous remarks..ala white folks....remember?

 

[Trajan]

.................. and?

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

who are the "some of you"? exactly, thx.


and please show me exactly what you used to draw that inference/conclusion.......thx.

 

[Spoonman]

.................. and?

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

ok, what does all of this mean, in plain english?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Fox News isn't fixing our problems. MSNBC certainly isn't fixing our problems. What do I care who's getting rich and famous in the news world?

 

[Pogo]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

I just think the election was tiring, I know I am tired, and being on the losing end is even more tiresome. I would guess its both audiences, the victors feel they can rest, the losers just fade out for a while......

Almost certainly there was higher viewership of ALL television news media during the months leading up to the election when people were interested in the election. After the election was over, a lot of that interest no longer existed and viewership of all television news media almost certainly fell off. (I didn't make that a statement of certainty because I frankly don't care enought to check all the ratings for all those weeks/months.)

And yes, after being immersed in politics almost 24/7 for weeks and weeks, people often do reach the saturation point. I certainly do. So Fox isn't getting nearly as much ratings out of my television viewing as it did a few months ago. I watch enough to see what they're covering, but don't stay with it hour by hour while the same stuff is rehashed over and over and over. I would rather watch Survivor or American Idol or The Amazing Race or a good movie if I am going to watch anything. I'm guessing that is the case with fans of other cable news too.

But that is true of all other media too. I still scan the headlines at Drudge and Breitbart and Huffington Post to see what the news of the day is, and still read enough from various sources to keep up with the current issues. Right now it is all focused on sequester and the ramifications of that. So I inform myself best that I can re those ramifications, but am not interested in hearing the same opinions expressed by commentator after commentator at any source.

So in slow news periods, Fox News, and everybody else, is going to have lower ratings. And if something really special or profound happens, you'll see their ratings, and everybody else's, spike.

This makes a lot more sense. I especially agree with the bolded part; the meaning of ratings is blown up to to feed fantasies through association that hasn't a base in the realities of how that world works. That's why I expound on those realities and why I too have not bothered to look up ratings, or fact-check (or even read) the ratings posted here. They carry no real practical purpose. And that would be true regardless who's "team was winning" (<< heavy sarcasm).

 

[Spoonman]

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

I just think the election was tiring, I know I am tired, and being on the losing end is even more tiresome. I would guess its both audiences, the victors feel they can rest, the losers just fade out for a while......

Almost certainly there was higher viewership of ALL television news media during the months leading up to the election when people were interested in the election. After the election was over, a lot of that interest no longer existed and viewership of all television news media almost certainly fell off. (I didn't make that a statement of certainty because I frankly don't care enought to check all the ratings for all those weeks/months.)

And yes, after being immersed in politics almost 24/7 for weeks and weeks, people often do reach the saturation point. I certainly do. So Fox isn't getting nearly as much ratings out of my television viewing as it did a few months ago. I watch enough to see what they're covering, but don't stay with it hour by hour while the same stuff is rehashed over and over and over. I would rather watch Survivor or American Idol or The Amazing Race or a good movie if I am going to watch anything. I'm guessing that is the case with fans of other cable news too.

But that is true of all other media too. I still scan the headlines at Drudge and Breitbart and Huffington Post to see what the news of the day is, and still read enough from various sources to keep up with the current issues. Right now it is all focused on sequester and the ramifications of that. So I inform myself best that I can re those ramifications, but am not interested in hearing the same opinions expressed by commentator after commentator at any source.

So in slow news periods, Fox News, and everybody else, is going to have lower ratings. And if something really special or profound happens, you'll see their ratings, and everybody else's, spike.

This makes a lot more sense. I especially agree with the bolded part; the meaning of ratings is blown up to to feed fantasies through association that hasn't a base in the realities of how that world works. That's why I expound on those realities and why I too have not bothered to look up ratings, or fact-check (or even read) the ratings posted here. They carry no real practical purpose. And that would be true regardless who's "team was winning" (<< heavy sarcasm).

if you think ratings and viewership don't matter, obviously you are not in marketing

 

[Foxfyre]

.................. and?

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

If you think the Left in the media is not almost completely organized and in lockstep, you simply are not a qualified media watcher. You see the same assigned talking points related almost verbatim by talking head after talking head. You see the same code words repeated again and again and again. Words like "gravitas" that would never show up in everday vernacular, but when they are issued in talking points, everybody uses the word.

Now admittedly some of the stuff on Fox is just as redundant and when you see the same video clip or photo shown again and again and again over hours, it does become wearying. But I do not see the same grammatical patterns, the same code words, the same structured arguments being used on the Right anywhere nearly as often as on the Left. And I think THAT is another reason Fox does so well. You really can get all points of view there, something that is not often allowed on MSNBC, at least not without denigrating whatever doesn't mesh with the assigned doctrine of the day.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

Once again -- wtf does that mean in English? I don't even know if he's talking about me. Anyone?

It made perfectly good sense to me. Perhaps because I've read enough posts to understand the satirical reference he used. Or maybe because we're both crazy in the same way. I dunno. But yeah, if you aren't reading the same stuff he is, you won't understand the comment.

OK well you might just translate, rather than speak in secret code...

 

[Pogo]

I saw somewhere that the top news, at any time(just general amountof viewers) and various Fox shows had the top 4(?) spots. The've next 2 were liberal comedy shows.. Daily show and Letterman(Ithink)
LOL what does that tell you? And that was from Monday

Beats me. What does it tell you?

As far as ideologies and media, I've toyed with the question of whether there's a reason the media that tends to work for the "right" tends to be based on confrontation (e.g. Limbaugh, O'Reilly) while what works for the "left" tends to be based on comedy and satire (as above). That thought came up in talk radio comparisons.

Think about the reverse -- do we know a left-leaning media production based on confrontation that works? Or a right-leaning one based on comedy? Why would this be?

Just a thought for contemplation.

"confrontation" , as in O'reilly vs Stewart or Letterman? do you really think those are valid objects for comparison? seriously?


maybe if you checked on liberal penchants for/of behavior ala real comparative mediums- Meet the Depressed or This Weak....Gregory for example is a walking/talking advertisement for passive aggressive behavior.....



hopefully you can comprehend this? is it grammatically correct (enuff) and acceptable to you?

I think the varying use of styles is a valid comparison, yes. Or am I not allowed to raise that question either? Look, if you have an opinion , share it; if not, just let it go. It's just a question to ponder.

We're not communicating here Trajan. You haven't gotten my points, and once again I don't know what you're talking about here with "Gregory" and "passive aggressive". Presumably you didn't get the gist of my observation, since you're mixing elements that have nothing to do with each other. We should probably just drop all this because at least on this end, nothing's happening.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

Once again -- wtf does that mean in English? I don't even know if he's talking about me. Anyone?

you're being to cute by half now.

you know exactly what it means, because you miraculously, fantastically- coincidentally chose to cut it off at exactly the point after I speak to your previous remarks..ala white folks....remember?

Bullshit. I cut that off because it was unrelated to anything. Here's what I cut off:
>> I just think the election was tiring, I know I am tired, and being on the losing end is even more tiresome. I would guess its both audiences, the victors feel they can rest, the losers just fade out for a while...... <<

What the hell does that have to do with the previous sentence?
What the hell does "papering over' mean?
What the hell does "their mask slipped" mean?
What the hell does "cute by half" mean?
"thats becasue instead of asking, you assume, or it certainly appears you have...am I wrong? . " --- huh???

And how, pray, does the fact that I'm in a thread about TV ratings and I also introduced one praising a Chris Wallace interview, "hypacrasy"??

These are rhetorical questions; just think about them. I'm sorry but whatever your version of English is is cryptic and unfamiliar.
Again, you're not hearing me either; you describe it as "free versing". If we're not communicating on either end we should just drop it, so forgive me if I discontinue responding to what I can't make sense of.

 

[Pogo]

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

ok, what does all of this mean, in plain english?

Very good Spoon. I know I get longwinded; guilty as charged. Why even now I'm typing irrelevant ... ah never mind.

What it means is I'm simply flummoxing Foxy's fallacies-- she makes a blanket statement; she implies I'm part of that blanket even though I've posted its contrary; and then she takes that same blanket and projects fantasies of 'suppression', which I point out is undocumented opinion, and then contradict with a real example.

Hope this helps. We really can't have intelligent discussion with people painting over their adversaries with convenient blanket labels and then using that strawman as a crutch to ignore what they're actually saying. (/offtopic)

 

[Pogo]

Almost certainly there was higher viewership of ALL television news media during the months leading up to the election when people were interested in the election. After the election was over, a lot of that interest no longer existed and viewership of all television news media almost certainly fell off. (I didn't make that a statement of certainty because I frankly don't care enought to check all the ratings for all those weeks/months.)

And yes, after being immersed in politics almost 24/7 for weeks and weeks, people often do reach the saturation point. I certainly do. So Fox isn't getting nearly as much ratings out of my television viewing as it did a few months ago. I watch enough to see what they're covering, but don't stay with it hour by hour while the same stuff is rehashed over and over and over. I would rather watch Survivor or American Idol or The Amazing Race or a good movie if I am going to watch anything. I'm guessing that is the case with fans of other cable news too.

But that is true of all other media too. I still scan the headlines at Drudge and Breitbart and Huffington Post to see what the news of the day is, and still read enough from various sources to keep up with the current issues. Right now it is all focused on sequester and the ramifications of that. So I inform myself best that I can re those ramifications, but am not interested in hearing the same opinions expressed by commentator after commentator at any source.

So in slow news periods, Fox News, and everybody else, is going to have lower ratings. And if something really special or profound happens, you'll see their ratings, and everybody else's, spike.

This makes a lot more sense. I especially agree with the bolded part; the meaning of ratings is blown up to to feed fantasies through association that hasn't a base in the realities of how that world works. That's why I expound on those realities and why I too have not bothered to look up ratings, or fact-check (or even read) the ratings posted here. They carry no real practical purpose. And that would be true regardless who's "team was winning" (<< heavy sarcasm).

if you think ratings and viewership don't matter, obviously you are not in marketing

Thank you Spoon. That's my whole point here: that's what ratings mean, and it's the only thing they mean. When I say they carry no purpose, that's a direct reference to the sentence preceding it: they have no purpose for us here, since we are not TV ad buyers. But I've only made this point about 23 times.

 

[Spoonman]

This makes a lot more sense. I especially agree with the bolded part; the meaning of ratings is blown up to to feed fantasies through association that hasn't a base in the realities of how that world works. That's why I expound on those realities and why I too have not bothered to look up ratings, or fact-check (or even read) the ratings posted here. They carry no real practical purpose. And that would be true regardless who's "team was winning" (<< heavy sarcasm).

if you think ratings and viewership don't matter, obviously you are not in marketing

Thank you Spoon. That's my whole point here: that's what ratings mean, and it's the only thing they mean. When I say they carry no purpose, that's a direct reference to the sentence preceding it: they have no purpose for us here, since we are not TV ad buyers. But I've only made this point about 23 times.

but they are indicative of who is watching what. if people tune into something, there is a reason they do. it isn't for the commercials

 

[Pogo]

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

It's quite amusing how some of you seem to think "The Left®" is some organised LLC that meets every week in a Duuque café. Part of the blanket generalisation mentality. It must be easier than imagining that people draw their conclusions individually, and sometimes those conclusions simply mesh; that's what "common sense" means. It's also insulting to have one's ideas marginalised in this way.

Anyway (since the response is to me), I've already noted that one ratings book does not a trend make, that the election and inauguration headlining the news at the time was probably a factor in a temporary blip; but if you'd rather ignore that and paint me over with your own preconceptions of what it would be more convenient for me to have said, well that's your failing.

When I say "....and?" I'm looking for what reason the poster had for posting the ratings, i.e. what he thinks they mean. I have yet to get an answer on that. But I'll tell you this on this ridiculous idea of suppression of speech, I've been attacked by several posters for an open-ended discussion on gun myths that I put up elsewhere on this site -- not for any point I made but for putting up the question for discussion in the first place. I could tell you who these posters were, and I think we would both agree that not a one came from "The Left", so this BS about "liberal suppression" is just that, and it's not washing, it's not honest, and it doesn't reflect history.

(/offtopic)

If you think the Left in the media is not almost completely organized and in lockstep, you simply are not a qualified media watcher. You see the same assigned talking points related almost verbatim by talking head after talking head. You see the same code words repeated again and again and again. Words like "gravitas" that would never show up in everday vernacular, but when they are issued in talking points, everybody uses the word.

Now admittedly some of the stuff on Fox is just as redundant and when you see the same video clip or photo shown again and again and again over hours, it does become wearying. But I do not see the same grammatical patterns, the same code words, the same structured arguments being used on the Right anywhere nearly as often as on the Left. And I think THAT is another reason Fox does so well. You really can get all points of view there, something that is not often allowed on MSNBC, at least not without denigrating whatever doesn't mesh with the assigned doctrine of the day.

Oh come on Foxy. You're moving the goalposts to spin your own point somewhere else. You started with the concept of "The Left" as a mythically tangible entity ("the Left is STILL desperate to believe") and now suddenly you want to make it into "the left in the media". This tactic is not honest and I'm not going to bother to entertain this tangent of a tangent.

I'm sorry you're unfamiliar with the word gravitas but it's not new (or recent) to me. These vague unquantifiable impressions of "lockstep language' are wispily weak as an argument, and none of this is the topic anyway.

 

[Pogo]

if you think ratings and viewership don't matter, obviously you are not in marketing

Thank you Spoon. That's my whole point here: that's what ratings mean, and it's the only thing they mean. When I say they carry no purpose, that's a direct reference to the sentence preceding it: they have no purpose for us here, since we are not TV ad buyers. But I've only made this point about 23 times.

but they are indicative of who is watching what. if people tune into something, there is a reason they do. it isn't for the commercials

Of course. The viewers tune in for the programming and endure the commercials; the broadcaster broadcasts for the commercials and endures having to run programming.

Now if you're an advertiser and you want a big audience, you go where the high ratings are, but it will cost you more. Closer to your point, the demographic breakdown of those ratings will help you reach single women 25 to 54 or whatever your target might be. And that's the function of ratings, which is why I wonder why posters keep posting ratings.
If this were a message board centered on the advertising industry, then it would make sense to post these charts. That's the part of the world they come from in the first place.

All these charts tell us is that, if you're buying an ad on cable news TV and you don't care about the demographics, then that ad is going to cost you more on Fox News than on whoever is trailing them. I just don't see the real significance of that interesting factoid.

 

[Samson]

Fox News Ratings Hit 12-Year Demo Lows In January Cable News Figures

Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show

.................. and?

And, if you have a stupid question, its probably better to keep it to yourself and keep people wondering if you're a moron rather than removing all doubt.

 

[whitehall]

The word is "drop" but you can use "tank" if it makes you feel better. Lucky for the left that they have the tax exempt Soros propaganda network called "newshounds" that monitors Fox 24/7 and spins their scoops to Huffington. Does anybody care about Chris Matthew's ratings or CNN or the comedy channel that the left seems to get it's news analysis from?