Hate it, dontcha, Libs

[Vigilante]

Its fox. They appeal to the lowest common denominator = those who want and need to be lied to so they can feed their hate.

If they'd just get off their fat butts and stop blaming others, they'd get a lot further in life.

But then, they'd have to actually turn off the Boob Tube.

Fugly you can watch CNN cover hours of the plane that went down, if you like!

 

[Ernie S.]

FOXNEWS Most Watched Cable News Net For 13th Straight Year...

CNN facing all-time ratings lows...

Struggling MSNBC eyes changes to fix ratings...

Headed off to work Have at it, y'all.

I don't buy or sell ads on Fox Noise, so who cares?

You do understand that's the only function of ratings, right?

I understand that. Do you understand that if FOX News has double the ratings of MSNBC, twice as many like the way they report the news?

Do you understand that if a station has twice the ratings, they get ca. twice the ad revenue?

Do you understand that MSNBC is in business to sell ads and if they can't sell enough, they will need to either change their business plan or close their doors?

 

[S.J.]

Libs are really bothered by the success of Fox News, aren't they?

 

[Dot Com]

I don't look up to people who get their info from TV. Its also no big secret that "controversy" creates "ratings" which translate into "ad revenue". If there is no controversy then create it hence Fox & Friends. Glad to help.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I do. I don't think Pogo understands that on a good night there are 9 people watching MSNBC.

Maybe he does, but he thinks that means that more people like a Liberal slant to their news programming because he prefers his that way.
I understand that we all like to think our values are so obviously right that everyone ought to climb on board, but ratings prove that more people are climbing on board a right of center news outlet than on a left of center or a far left one.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I do. I don't think Pogo understands that on a good night there are 9 people watching MSNBC.

Maybe he does, but he thinks that means that more people like a Liberal slant to their news programming because he prefers his that way.
I understand that we all like to think our values are so obviously right that everyone ought to climb on board, but ratings prove that more people are climbing on board a right of center news outlet than on a left of center or a far left one.

 

[Pogo]

FOXNEWS Most Watched Cable News Net For 13th Straight Year...

CNN facing all-time ratings lows...

Struggling MSNBC eyes changes to fix ratings...

Headed off to work Have at it, y'all.

I don't buy or sell ads on Fox Noise, so who cares?

You do understand that's the only function of ratings, right?

I understand that. Do you understand that if FOX News has double the ratings of MSNBC, twice as many like the way they report the news?

But that's my point -- it has nothing to do with "like". It has to do with attention, which is not the same thing. Viewers are drawn by the outrageous, not by "what they like", which explains most of what Fox does. After that, viewers are creatures of habit.

"Attention", after all, is what Lush Rimjob was going after with Flukegate -- building ratings. Whether you or I agreed or disagreed with what he was doing, we were both paying attention. That's what sells ratings. You certainly don't sell them with dogma.

In other words viewers don't gravitate to FNC because they "like" what they're reporting; they gravitate to it because they're serving Fear Candy -- riots and conspiracies and ulterior motives and people behaving badly (or reportedly so). That $ells. The fact that that audience might agree with the slant is just them fishing for a gullible audience that they can build loyalty with.

Do you understand that if a station has twice the ratings, they get ca. twice the ad revenue?

Of course, that's exactly my point.

Do you understand that MSNBC is in business to sell ads and if they can't sell enough, they will need to either change their business plan or close their doors?

Sure. But that's not a realistic view since ratings are relative to each other (not absolutes), so the entity on the bottom of that list is making less money than those on top-- but that doesn't mean they're not making any. There's advertising dollars for everybody, just a question of how much you can charge for them. If you're meeting your costs and setting some surplus aside, you have a successful business, even if your competitor has a more successful one. So the entity bringing up the rear, unless their ratings are abysmal, is making their profit too, just not as much.

 

[Pogo]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I do. I don't think Pogo understands that on a good night there are 9 people watching MSNBC.

Maybe he does, but he thinks that means that more people like a Liberal slant to their news programming because he prefers his that way.
I understand that we all like to think our values are so obviously right that everyone ought to climb on board, but ratings prove that more people are climbing on board a right of center news outlet than on a left of center or a far left one.

I don't even have a TV dood. I got sick of the circus, particularly that Sharpton guy. But the fact that he's still there tells me that somebody's watching. If they weren't watching it wouldn't exist.

Also, it doesn't take a whole lot of money to run a cable channel. You know what an on-air broadcast station runs? One transmitter and one antenna alone, just the purchase, will set you back five figures each, and that's without setting them up, renting tower space, the personnel, the lawyers to get the license in order, etc. Cable doesn't have those expenses.

 

[Ernie S.]

How does Fox maintain editorial animosity toward immigrants without alienating the important voter group?

Fox News Latino Shameless - Salon.com


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 website 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, suggest 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.

Maybe FOX is more successful in part by not offending people.
They don't have a Martin Bashir demanding someone defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth, or an Ed Shultz calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut or saying, "The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They'd rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her!"
Or a Chris Matthews who says among other dumb shit: "Rush Limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet, but we'll be there to watch."
They don't let guests like Harry Belafonte get by with saying, "The only thing left for barack obama to do is to work like a Third-World dictator and put all these guys [Republicans who disagree with obama on entitlement reform, taxation, and balancing the budget] in jail." without an argument.


But yeah, sure FOX is evil because they give a platform for ideals you disagree with. They are racist because they have guests and hosts armed with facts and statistics you'd rather were well hidden. They are homophobic because they think marriage is a legal and spiritual bond between one man and one woman. They are misogynistic because they employ attractive women.

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I do. I don't think Pogo understands that on a good night there are 9 people watching MSNBC.

Maybe he does, but he thinks that means that more people like a Liberal slant to their news programming because he prefers his that way.
I understand that we all like to think our values are so obviously right that everyone ought to climb on board, but ratings prove that more people are climbing on board a right of center news outlet than on a left of center or a far left one.

I don't even have a TV dood. I got sick of the circus, particularly that Sharpton guy. But the fact that he's still there tells me that somebody's watching. If they weren't watching it wouldn't exist.

Also, it doesn't take a whole lot of money to run a cable channel. You know what an on-air broadcast station runs? One transmitter and one antenna alone, just the purchase, will set you back five figures each, and that's without setting them up, renting tower space, the personnel, the lawyers to get the license in order, etc. Cable doesn't have those expenses.

You buy that equipment one time and ad revenue should pay that off in a few weeks. The big cost is the salaries of the talking heads, the support staff and production space. You have to pay those bills every month and if MSNBC is only getting 25% of what Fox is getting per ad spot, those bills are going to get more and more difficult to pay.
Maybe that's why FOX can pay it's top 2 hosts in the neighborhood of 20 million/year and Al Sharpton owes the IRS 4.5 million.

 

[SAYIT]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I think he does. The ratings mean those espousing loony lib BS get paid less than those who don't. It may even mean those espousing that loony lib BS will need to change their ways, find a sugar daddy or close their doors. Stay tuned.

 

[Ernie S.]

FOXNEWS Most Watched Cable News Net For 13th Straight Year...

CNN facing all-time ratings lows...

Struggling MSNBC eyes changes to fix ratings...

Headed off to work Have at it, y'all.

I don't buy or sell ads on Fox Noise, so who cares?

You do understand that's the only function of ratings, right?

I understand that. Do you understand that if FOX News has double the ratings of MSNBC, twice as many like the way they report the news?

But that's my point -- it has nothing to do with "like". It has to do with attention, which is not the same thing. Viewers are drawn by the outrageous, not by "what they like", which explains most of what Fox does. After that, viewers are creatures of habit.

"Attention", after all, is what Lush Rimjob was going after with Flukegate -- building ratings. Whether you or I agreed or disagreed with what he was doing, we were both paying attention. That's what sells ratings. You certainly don't sell them with dogma.

In other words viewers don't gravitate to FNC because they "like" what they're reporting; they gravitate to it because they're serving Fear Candy -- riots and conspiracies and ulterior motives and people behaving badly (or reportedly so). That $ells. The fact that that audience might agree with the slant is just them fishing for a gullible audience that they can build loyalty with.

Do you understand that if a station has twice the ratings, they get ca. twice the ad revenue?

Of course, that's exactly my point.

Do you understand that MSNBC is in business to sell ads and if they can't sell enough, they will need to either change their business plan or close their doors?

Sure. But that's not a realistic view since ratings are relative to each other (not absolutes), so the entity on the bottom of that list is making less money than those on top-- but that doesn't mean they're not making any. There's advertising dollars for everybody, just a question of how much you can charge for them. If you're meeting your costs and setting some surplus aside, you have a successful business, even if your competitor has a more successful one. So the entity bringing up the rear, unless their ratings are abysmal, is making their profit too, just not as much.

Rationalize it any way you want, poor Possum. The fact remains that more people want a right of center slant to news than a far left one.
Yes. there advertising dollars for everybody, but as rating decline, there are less dollars spent at your station and quality will suffer in a black hole type of death spiral ending in the death of your station and possibly a huge lawsuit from someone like the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club for stealing 800 grand. (remember Air America?)

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I think he does. The ratings mean those espousing loony lib BS get paid less than those who don't. It may even mean those espousing that loony lib BS will need to change their ways, find a sugar daddy or close their doors. Stay tuned.

Air America's sugar daddy, Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, kept them on the air for a couple of months. Al Gore's millions from "carbon credits couldn't keep Current TV alive. There's just no market for left leaning news. The majority of Democrat voters chose to remain blissfully ignorant of politics as long as their EBT cards are recharged every month.

 

[SAYIT]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I think he does. The ratings mean those espousing loony lib BS get paid less than those who don't. It may even mean those espousing that loony lib BS will need to change their ways, find a sugar daddy or close their doors. Stay tuned.

Air America's sugar daddy, Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, kept them on the air for a couple of months. Al Gore's millions from "carbon credits couldn't keep Current TV alive. There's just no market for left leaning news. The majority of Democrat voters chose to remain blissfully ignorant of politics as long as their EBT cards are recharged every month.

It's the same old leftist dilemma ... the party is over when they run out of OPC (Other People's Cash) to spend.

 

[S.J.]

The bottom line is that people want to hear the news, not opinions from a bunch of hateful kooks. That's why MSNBC has no audience.

 

[ninja007]

Its fox. They appeal to the lowest common denominator = those who want and need to be lied to so they can feed their hate.

If they'd just get off their fat butts and stop blaming others, they'd get a lot further in life.

But then, they'd have to actually turn off the Boob Tube.

more libs watch Fox than any other source.

 

[Pogo]

The bottom line is that people want to hear the news, not opinions from a bunch of hateful kooks. That's why MSNBC has no audience.

Clearly that's not the case or Fox Noise would have no audience either.

We like to pretend these two are some kind of ideological "rivals". They ain't. They're doing exactly the same thing, in two slightly different flavours. As I keep saying, Fox and MSNBC have way more in common with each other than either does with any of us.

 

[Pogo]

I don't speak for all libs, but why should I care which cable news channel has the best ratings?

Do you own stock in FOX? If not, why do you care?

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I think he does. The ratings mean those espousing loony lib BS get paid less than those who don't. It may even mean those espousing that loony lib BS will need to change their ways, find a sugar daddy or close their doors. Stay tuned.

Air America's sugar daddy, Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, kept them on the air for a couple of months. Al Gore's millions from "carbon credits couldn't keep Current TV alive. There's just no market for left leaning news. The majority of Democrat voters chose to remain blissfully ignorant of politics as long as their EBT cards are recharged every month.

News isn't "marketed". It's not something that can be "sold". Emotion is what sells. Nobody knows that better than a rich tycoon who got that way by selling gossip tabloids around the world. His name is Rupert Murdoch. Same shit, different medium. What he markets via Fox and similar outlets isn't "news" -- it's News Theater. It's talking heads talking about the news, rather than reporting it (which again, is waaay cheaper). It's gossipers talking about people and their evil ways (emotion) rather than policy (intellect). It is in effect no different than a Hollywood gossip show (like Bill O'Reilly came from) except that they use politicians as fodder instead of movie stars.

I don't know who Gloria Wise is but that roster AirAmerica once had on the air before its organization collapsed, is still on the air today. They sell ad time like everybody else. In fact the local station here is owned by ClearChannel, which also owns another station that carries the Limblob and Hannity fare -- same owner in the same market, "telling" us two different things. If that doesn't illustrate that the objective is all about whatever will ensnare eyeballs (or in radio, ears) and not about the ideological content, I can't help ya. If either one thought they had an opportunity to switch tomorrow to country music or sports, they'd do without a second thought.

In the same way, if either Fox or MSNBC thought they could profit more by taking on the "side" the other one is on, you'd see that shift in a New York studio minute. MSNBC used to be a right-leaning channel, with shows by Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson et al. It apparently didn't work.

This idea that a commercial TV enterprise somehow represents an ideological "side" is a lotta hooey. That's just the marketing angle. It's all about the money and always has been. Money in commercial broadcasting means selling commercials, and that's done by drawing the attention (<< that word again) of the gullible. All you have to do is target the most gullible, pull their strings and play them. Obviously some are better at pulling those strings than others. That's a dubious honor at best.

Perhaps this term is most revealing -- when we describe what's on the broadcast dial in Asheville or Mobile (or San Francisco or Cincinnati etc), they don't call the areas "communities", even though that's what they are. They call them "markets".
That says it all about how commercial broadcasting sees itself. They make, in this term at least, no bones about what their real objective and purpose is. Neither should we.

 

[Pogo]

FOXNEWS Most Watched Cable News Net For 13th Straight Year...

CNN facing all-time ratings lows...

Struggling MSNBC eyes changes to fix ratings...

Headed off to work Have at it, y'all.

I don't buy or sell ads on Fox Noise, so who cares?

You do understand that's the only function of ratings, right?

I understand that. Do you understand that if FOX News has double the ratings of MSNBC, twice as many like the way they report the news?

But that's my point -- it has nothing to do with "like". It has to do with attention, which is not the same thing. Viewers are drawn by the outrageous, not by "what they like", which explains most of what Fox does. After that, viewers are creatures of habit.

"Attention", after all, is what Lush Rimjob was going after with Flukegate -- building ratings. Whether you or I agreed or disagreed with what he was doing, we were both paying attention. That's what sells ratings. You certainly don't sell them with dogma.

In other words viewers don't gravitate to FNC because they "like" what they're reporting; they gravitate to it because they're serving Fear Candy -- riots and conspiracies and ulterior motives and people behaving badly (or reportedly so). That $ells. The fact that that audience might agree with the slant is just them fishing for a gullible audience that they can build loyalty with.

Do you understand that if a station has twice the ratings, they get ca. twice the ad revenue?

Of course, that's exactly my point.

Do you understand that MSNBC is in business to sell ads and if they can't sell enough, they will need to either change their business plan or close their doors?

Sure. But that's not a realistic view since ratings are relative to each other (not absolutes), so the entity on the bottom of that list is making less money than those on top-- but that doesn't mean they're not making any. There's advertising dollars for everybody, just a question of how much you can charge for them. If you're meeting your costs and setting some surplus aside, you have a successful business, even if your competitor has a more successful one. So the entity bringing up the rear, unless their ratings are abysmal, is making their profit too, just not as much.

Rationalize it any way you want, poor Possum. The fact remains that more people want a right of center slant to news than a far left one.
Yes. there advertising dollars for everybody, but as rating decline, there are less dollars spent at your station and quality will suffer in a black hole type of death spiral ending in the death of your station and possibly a huge lawsuit from someone like the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club for stealing 800 grand. (remember Air America?)

?

 

[Pogo]

I would claim not to care if the news outlet that espouses my party's dogma's ratings were in the toilet too, I suppose, but that would be dishonest of me, wouldn't it?

This just in -- TV channels don't "espouse dogma". At most they use it as a tool for what their real goal is, which is selling commercial time.

Ratings measure attention, not assent. And certainly not dogma.

I don't think Ernie S. understands the implications of what he wrote.

I do. I don't think Pogo understands that on a good night there are 9 people watching MSNBC.

Maybe he does, but he thinks that means that more people like a Liberal slant to their news programming because he prefers his that way.
I understand that we all like to think our values are so obviously right that everyone ought to climb on board, but ratings prove that more people are climbing on board a right of center news outlet than on a left of center or a far left one.

I don't even have a TV dood. I got sick of the circus, particularly that Sharpton guy. But the fact that he's still there tells me that somebody's watching. If they weren't watching it wouldn't exist.

Also, it doesn't take a whole lot of money to run a cable channel. You know what an on-air broadcast station runs? One transmitter and one antenna alone, just the purchase, will set you back five figures each, and that's without setting them up, renting tower space, the personnel, the lawyers to get the license in order, etc. Cable doesn't have those expenses.

You buy that equipment one time and ad revenue should pay that off in a few weeks. The big cost is the salaries of the talking heads, the support staff and production space. You have to pay those bills every month and if MSNBC is only getting 25% of what Fox is getting per ad spot, those bills are going to get more and more difficult to pay.
Maybe that's why FOX can pay it's top 2 hosts in the neighborhood of 20 million/year and Al Sharpton owes the IRS 4.5 million.

Umm... how would you know what these two channels are charging for ads? That's not public info.

My examples of capital investment represent just those of one station. Multiply that by the hundred or two you need to put a broadcast network on the air, then compare that to the cost of sending a cable feed up to a satellite that anybody with a cable service can downlink. That's WAY cheaper.

Also ad time is not necessarily sold for one stream by itself. NewsCorp for instance owns FNC but broadcast stations, magazines, movie producers, newspapers and a whole lot of tabloids. Depending on what you're selling if I'm in NewsCorp sales I could sell you a package that might cover any combination of all this, from an ad on Hannity to a splash (or kindly editorial) in the WSJ to product placement in a movie. The revenue all goes to Corproate, which then distributes it as needed -- and obviously some of Corporate's assets carry more of their own weight than others.

Imagine that -- Fox News, redistributing wealth.