Hate it, dontcha, Libs

[Rozman]

Why are MSNBC's ratings in the shitter?
If their hosts are so good and they are the way and the truth and the light....
Why don't Libs support them?

Just like Air America on the radio....
They didn't have anyone follow them...

 

[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?

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.

Exactly. If aesthetic value was a straight relationship with commercial success, Bruce Springstein would be scratching just to get a summer bar gig in Asbury Park. And I know how much Ernie loves Bruce Springstein.

Given effective enough psychological persuasion you can sell anything. You could probably, I dunno, pick up a rock off the ground, put a tag on it calling it a "pet rock", and some schmuck would pay you for it. Psychological marketing is as old as the hills and has been developed since way before there was broadcasting. Murdoch's an expert at it.

 

[Sarah G]

We dont need cable news telling us what to think like Fox listeners do. Very easy.

 

[Sarah G]

Do you have anything more current than the Iraq war? We all know who fucked that up.

Ravi brought up the Iraq war and I responded to her. Try to keep up here Sarah.

AND

Please try to stay away from the keyboard when you're blowing over .24 BAC.

Yer getting kind of bitter here, Ernie.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I don't really care without some reason of relevance.

But back to your first line --- yes, exactly: "product to market". That's the point. You're being sold a product, not an ideology. In this sense Murdoch is no different from Billy Mays. That is, a whore.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why are Conservatives proud of Fox News?

They claim that Fox News is, indeed, fair and balanced. Is that as in real journalism, you know, the profession of Journalism? Or is it in commentary? Do Conservatives agree that Fox News is fair and balanced in its editorial practices and policies, in its commentary and discussion programs?

But I don't believe that the craftsmanship and competence of the Fox News staff has anything to do with the Conservative admiration of Fox News. They are proud of it because it defines, bolsters and validates their political point of view. They are comfortable with the message and the messengers of Fox News and its Right Wing bias.

For, you see, bias is an elastic concept. Bias can be anything from annoying to treasonous for our Conservative brothers and sisters. We, the sensible, must grant them a wide berth where Fox News matters.

An outlook mired in a lack of curiosity seeks comfort in righteous ignorance.

From a rational perspective, FOX is certainly more fair and balanced than MSNBC. It's roughly a right wing analog of CNN staff who seem like far left lunatics, to me from an emotional perspective, but logically I find FOX and CNN to be heads and tails of the same coin.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you have anything more current than the Iraq war? We all know who fucked that up.

Ravi brought up the Iraq war and I responded to her. Try to keep up here Sarah.

AND

Please try to stay away from the keyboard when you're blowing over .24 BAC.

Yer getting kind of bitter here, Ernie.

Not bitter. Frustrated. I'm trying to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

[mudwhistle]

b

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I don't really care without some reason of relevance.

But back to your first line --- yes, exactly: "product to market". That's the point. You're being sold a product, not an ideology. In this sense Murdoch is no different from Billy Mays. That is, a whore.

And that makes Phil Griffin what????? Just admit that Liberal Media is just the other side of the coin; no more or less evil and that Murdock is just more successful at the game.

 

[Ernie S.]

Happy New Year, everyone. Off to the PARTY at Doc's.

 

[R.D.]

Do you have anything more current than the Iraq war? We all know who fucked that up.

Ravi brought up the Iraq war and I responded to her. Try to keep up here Sarah.

AND

Please try to stay away from the keyboard when you're blowing over .24 BAC.

Yer getting kind of bitter here, Ernie.

Not bitter. Frustrated. I'm trying to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

[Sarah G]

No Ernie, you're frustrated because your opening taunt failed and you know it didn't work for you.

 

[Dante]

Hate it, dontcha, Libs

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.

Predictable.

When CNN and MSNBC started to mimic FOX they assumed there was a larger audience for spoon fed bs. Most normal people do not watch any of those 3 networks on a regular basis. Who in their right minds likes to be on edge, always on alert, constantly outraged and .. oh wait. Right wingers do.

never mind

 

[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.

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.

Again, "like" really doesn't enter into it. People are drawn to the sensational, and that's been a known pscyhological tool for forever. "If it bleeds it leads" has never advanced the course of ethical journalism, but has always sold papers. Does that mean people "like" disaster? When you're on the road and traffic slows to a crawl because everybody's got to rubberneck at the SUV that flipped over, shall we conclude people "like" accidents? Do viewers tune in "Survivor" because they "like" the idea of being stranded on an island forced to eat one's own feces?

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.

I know way too much about commercial broadcasting to want to say anything like that. If I didn't view the entire medium with complete contempt I wouldn't have thrown my TV away. I tell you what, also from experience, if you ever want to witness a population of self-serving unprincipled parasites without an ethical bone in their collective body, forget about politicians or car dealers or doctors or lawyers or whatever stereotype, and go walk into a convention of the National Association of Broadcasters. It's the real deal. You'll need a shower and some mental floss when you come out.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why are Conservatives proud of Fox News?

They claim that Fox News is, indeed, fair and balanced. Is that as in real journalism, you know, the profession of Journalism? Or is it in commentary? Do Conservatives agree that Fox News is fair and balanced in its editorial practices and policies, in its commentary and discussion programs?

But I don't believe that the craftsmanship and competence of the Fox News staff has anything to do with the Conservative admiration of Fox News. They are proud of it because it defines, bolsters and validates their political point of view. They are comfortable with the message and the messengers of Fox News and its Right Wing bias.

For, you see, bias is an elastic concept. Bias can be anything from annoying to treasonous for our Conservative brothers and sisters. We, the sensible, must grant them a wide berth where Fox News matters.

An outlook mired in a lack of curiosity seeks comfort in righteous ignorance.

From a rational perspective, FOX is certainly more fair and balanced than MSNBC. It's roughly a right wing analog of CNN staff who seem like far left lunatics, to me from an emotional perspective, but logically I find FOX and CNN to be heads and tails of the same coin.

To be fair, MSNBC is not a news outlet. They are purely commentary. MSNBC is not a news gathering organization. Their news reporting is all NBC reporting. The reason d'être for MSNBC is commentary and punditry.

 

[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?

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.

--- which is exactly what I mean by "emotional investment".

If what FNC were doing was presenting news rather than selling emotion, nobody would be posting what their ratings are. You don't see anyone putting up threads about how ABC is beating up CBS or vice versa.

 

[Pogo]

Do you have anything more current than the Iraq war? We all know who fucked that up.

Ravi brought up the Iraq war and I responded to her. Try to keep up here Sarah.

AND

Please try to stay away from the keyboard when you're blowing over .24 BAC.

Aren't you the same guy who just posted about "calling viewers of the other one 'idiots'"?

 

[Pogo]

Why are MSNBC's ratings in the shitter?
If their hosts are so good and they are the way and the truth and the light....
Why don't Libs support them?

Gullibility factor --- it was already spoken for.

I doubt they're "in the shitter"; if they were you'd see massive changes going on. Being downlist in the ratings doesn't necessarily mean you're in the shitter. It just means you have less. If you have three turkeys and I have two, you have more than I do, but we both have enough to eat.

Just like Air America on the radio....
They didn't have anyone follow them...

As noted before, AirAmerica went down due to its business operations, but the stuff they were presenting is still on the air today. That is in fact where Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow came from.

However this does bring up a worthy tangent: AirAmerica tried to mimic the same attack-dog model Lush Rimjob uses on the right, applied to the left. As you note here, it didn't sell as well as Limblob did, even given able attack dogs like Schultz and Randi Rhodes. What does this say psychologically about the respective audiences, that this particular psycho tool works better on the right than it does on the left? Discuss...

 

[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.

Exactly. If aesthetic value was a straight relationship with commercial success, Bruce Springstein would be scratching just to get a summer bar gig in Asbury Park. And I know how much Ernie loves Bruce Springstein.

Given effective enough psychological persuasion you can sell anything. You could probably, I dunno, pick up a rock off the ground, put a tag on it calling it a "pet rock", and some schmuck would pay you for it. Psychological marketing is as old as the hills and has been developed since way before there was broadcasting. Murdoch's an expert at it.

And the folks at MSNBC suck at it? Or is it that Liberals are more easily attracted to shiny pebbles than substantive news and commentary?

 

[Ernie S.]

We dont need cable news telling us what to think like Fox listeners do. Very easy.

Lost cause.... Liberal media doesn't tell you what to think. They are aware that most of you are incapable of rational thought. They tell you what to feel.