Hate it, dontcha, Libs

[Pogo]

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.

You're making my case. This is exactly what I'm talking about -- emotion sells. Fearmongering and conflict and conspiracy-feeding and outrageous content, sells. How many more people now know who Martin Bashir is than before he came out with that atrocious metaphor? There you go -- attention again. If there's a difference between that and going on the radio for three days foaming "slut slut slut", it's naught but semantics. The goal is the same. Here again, Martin Bashir and Lush Rimjob are far more like each other than they are different.

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.

-- And that too sells. I don't know about the "misogynist" bit but I think if you look around you'll find that sex does sell. Here again, Rupert Murdoch knows this from experience. Ever heard of the "page three girl"? That's his baby. It worked at The Sun, so he put it on TV.

All of these examples you've noted -- for both outlets -- represent emotion. Base human instincts. That's the whole point right there. When that's your objective -- and in commercial TV it always has been-- "offending people" is virtually required. You don't have to do it but if you don't somebody else will, and you're left behind.

Ideology is just window dressing. It ain't about ideology --- it's about the psychology of manipulation. Which is in the final analysis no different from a TV show presenting fake wrestling, surprise paternity tests or naked strangers purportedly left to survive in the jungle with no resources even though there's a camera crew with an expense account filming them the entire time. It's all illusion designed to melt your mind into a moronic mush so that you're vulnerable for the commercial. That's where it's at baby.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong again, as usual. There are many issues MSNBC and CNN won't even cover. People who don't normally watch Fox aren't even aware of some current events if those events cast Obama in a bad light. When they DO cover a story, it's for the purpose of ridiculing his opponents, it's like hearing a court case and only letting one side testify, then they give THEIR verdict. They think everyone is stupid. At least Fox has opposing view points. That's why they're the most trusted and have many times more viewers.

 

[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.

Wrong again, as usual. There are many issues MSNBC and CNN won't even cover. People who don't normally watch Fox aren't even aware of some current events if those events cast Obama in a bad light. When they DO cover a story, it's for the purpose of ridiculing his opponents, it's like hearing a court case and only letting one side testify, then they give THEIR verdict. They think everyone is stupid. At least Fox has opposing view points. That's why they're the most trusted and have many times more viewers.

Of course there are, just as there are issues Fox won't cover. In every case it's because it's assumed they won't sell --- not because it paints this politician or that one in a positive or negative light. The only criterion for whether that pos/neg light get used is, "will it sell" to our audience. Exactly the same reason they overplay non-stories like the death of Michael Jackson or the next missing white girl. It's not because anybody thinks it's important news -- it's because it sells. The "opposing viewpoint" tool is another one that sells, if you can pull it off. Olbermann never did it but Maddow does. I think Matthews does too. All depends on whether you can sell it. Obviously when FNC sells their version, you're buyin', so they'll stay with it as long as you do. Again, the conflict angle incites emotion, and emotion sells.

What you're looking at is the puppet show. Look up to see the puppeteer. THAT is why they have more viewers -- creative puppeteers.

And if you still don't realize it's all about selling emotion, just take a random snapshot of this message board on any day and count the threads and posts waxing all rah-rah emotional about a TV channel. That's an emotional investment. You need scroll no further than the OP of this thread, where a ratings book -- which exists only to sell ads -- is translated into an emotion: "Hate". First word in the title. It doesn't get plainer than that.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong again, as usual. There are many issues MSNBC and CNN won't even cover. People who don't normally watch Fox aren't even aware of some current events if those events cast Obama in a bad light. When they DO cover a story, it's for the purpose of ridiculing his opponents, it's like hearing a court case and only letting one side testify, then they give THEIR verdict. They think everyone is stupid. At least Fox has opposing view points. That's why they're the most trusted and have many times more viewers.

Of course there are, just as there are issues Fox won't cover. In every case it's because it's assumed they won't sell --- not because it paints this politician or that one in a positive or negative light. The only criterion for whether that pos/neg light get used is, "will it sell" to our audience. Exactly the same reason they overplay non-stories like the death of Michael Jackson or the next missing white girl. It's not because anybody thinks it's important news -- it's because it sells. The "opposing viewpoint" tool is another one that sells, if you can pull it off. Olbermann never did it but Maddow does. I think Matthews does too. All depends on whether you can sell it. Obviously when FNC sells their version, you're buyin', so they'll stay with it as long as you do.

What you're looking at is the puppet show. Look up to see the puppeteer. THAT is why they have more viewers -- creative puppeteers.

Pure bullshit. I guess you're trying to sell something here, like the notion that the American people weren't interested in knowing that the IRS was targeting people for intimidation or that the Justice Dept. wasn't targeting journalists for prosecution. No, that stuff doesn't sell, does it?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Drunks go to bars.
Idiots go to FOX.

Why are you continually surprised?

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

So you know that Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. But you CELEBRATE being fed propaganda?!?

If high ratings was an indicator of quality, wouldn't that extend to all forms of culture as well? By that metric, Lady Gaga has more quality in music than Mozart as more folks bought her music than his.

 

[R.D.]

"So you know that Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. "


Yeah, the pres is afraid of them too

 

[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.

Drunks go to bars.
Idiots go to FOX.

Why are you continually surprised?

If anything this theory suggest that viewers of Fox Noise are simply more gullible than those of its competitors.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Can't stand it that Mr. Murdock has a better, more in demand product to market than Al Gore or Evan Cohen, can you?

I wouldn't expect you to know who Gloria Wise was (not is) or anything about the Boys and Girls youth centers named for her, or the scandal regarding GWBGC and Air America, but I would expect you to educate yourself.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

How would I know???? I used Google. You are welcome to try it out too.

 

[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.

You're making my case. This is exactly what I'm talking about -- emotion sells. Fearmongering and conflict and conspiracy-feeding and outrageous content, sells. How many more people now know who Martin Bashir is than before he came out with that atrocious metaphor? There you go -- attention again. If there's a difference between that and going on the radio for three days foaming "slut slut slut", it's naught but semantics. The goal is the same. Here again, Martin Bashir and Lush Rimjob are far more like each other than they are different.

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.

-- And that too sells. I don't know about the "misogynist" bit but I think if you look around you'll find that sex does sell. Here again, Rupert Murdoch knows this from experience. Ever heard of the "page three girl"? That's his baby. It worked at The Sun, so he put it on TV.

All of these examples you've noted -- for both outlets -- represent emotion. Base human instincts. That's the whole point right there. When that's your objective -- and in commercial TV it always has been-- "offending people" is virtually required. You don't have to do it but if you don't somebody else will, and you're left behind.

Ideology is just window dressing. It ain't about ideology --- it's about the psychology of manipulation. Which is in the final analysis no different from a TV show presenting fake wrestling, surprise paternity tests or naked strangers purportedly left to survive in the jungle with no resources even though there's a camera crew with an expense account filming them the entire time. It's all illusion designed to melt your mind into a moronic mush so that you're vulnerable for the commercial. That's where it's at baby.

So Fox's ratings are due to marketing and MSNBC's are due to what?

They both employ a staff to sell their image. All that may get you to switch to a cable news site, but if you don't like what you see, you won't be back, regardless of the window dressing.

All this shit is way above you, dear Possum. What you really are dying to say is "FOX bad, MSNBC good." and walk away stamping your feet. BUT attribute it to marketing if you want. I'll tell you from experience, if your product sucks, all the marketing in the world isn't going to save your ass.

 

[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.

Drunks go to bars.
Idiots go to FOX.

Why are you continually surprised?

Another idiot that can't stand the fact that FOX has a better product. Instead of improving the product, the left resorts to calling their competitors' viewers idiots.

Not sure, but that business model sounds..... well..... idiotic.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

You guys need somebody to speak for you. I've been watching MSNBC this week, Michael Steele is sitting in for Chris Matthews on Hardball. He is so good, I hope they find a permanent spot for him.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

Drunks go to bars.
Idiots go to FOX.

Why are you continually surprised?

Another idiot that can't stand the fact that FOX has a better product. Instead of improving the product, the left resorts to calling their competitors' viewers idiots.

Not sure, but that business model sounds..... well..... idiotic.

Not a better product rather a needier audience..

 

[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?

So you know that Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. But you CELEBRATE being fed propaganda?!?

If high ratings was an indicator of quality, wouldn't that extend to all forms of culture as well? By that metric, Lady Gaga has more quality in music than Mozart as more folks bought her music than his.

So you know that MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. But you CELEBRATE being fed propaganda?!?

Oh wait! you don't watch MSNBC. No one else does either.

 

[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.

You guys need somebody to speak for you. I've been watching MSNBC this week, Michael Steele is sitting in for Chris Matthews on Hardball. He is so good, I hope they find a permanent spot for him.

You do know that Michael Steele is the former president of the Republican National Committee? Probably not, or your opinion would change.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

You guys need somebody to speak for you. I've been watching MSNBC this week, Michael Steele is sitting in for Chris Matthews on Hardball. He is so good, I hope they find a permanent spot for him.

You do know that Michael Steele is the former president of the Republican National Committee? Probably not, or your opinion would change.

I do know it. Your best Republicans are going to MSNBC as commentators. You do know that don't you?

 

[Sarah G]

Fox has Teaparty heros.. Blech.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

So you know that Fox News is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. But you CELEBRATE being fed propaganda?!?

If high ratings was an indicator of quality, wouldn't that extend to all forms of culture as well? By that metric, Lady Gaga has more quality in music than Mozart as more folks bought her music than his.

So you know that MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. But you CELEBRATE being fed propaganda?!?

Oh wait! you don't watch MSNBC. No one else does either.

I never posted, nor started a thread in praise of any media outlet.

 

[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.

Drunks go to bars.
Idiots go to FOX.

Why are you continually surprised?

Another idiot that can't stand the fact that FOX has a better product. Instead of improving the product, the left resorts to calling their competitors' viewers idiots.

Not sure, but that business model sounds..... well..... idiotic.

Not a better product rather a needier audience..

Whatever it takes to rationalize, hey Sarah?