Where the monster was born

[PredFan]

Lefties hate FOX News for the simple reason that they criticise the government and especially the Obama Regime. That explains why they ignore the falsehoods, lies, fabrications and "creative journalism" of the left wing MSM.

Hypocrit, thy name is Liberal.

 

[daveman]

I am not defending Fox News, feel free to shine the light on them all day long. What I am doing is mocking the idea that a pan developed by one president to get the word out, and used by every president since then, none better than Obama, is the reason Fox News now exists.

No, what you were doing was an ad hominem/strawman fallacy. And what you're doing now is a rhetorical handbrake turn as a means of escape.

Olé.

I attacked you? Seriously?

You disagreed with him. Same thing.

 

[PredFan]

FOX is a MONSTER, a MONSTER I tell ya!!!!!

 

[Pogo]

I am not defending Fox News, feel free to shine the light on them all day long. What I am doing is mocking the idea that a pan developed by one president to get the word out, and used by every president since then, none better than Obama, is the reason Fox News now exists.

No, what you were doing was an ad hominem/strawman fallacy. And what you're doing now is a rhetorical handbrake turn as a means of escape.

Olé.

I attacked you? Seriously?

I would have pointed it out (again) but PredFan beat me to it in the next post after yours.

Thanks PF

 

[Pogo]

FOX is a MONSTER, a MONSTER I tell ya!!!!!

Ah, I don't think it's a "monster" myself. More like a tick you didn't notice right away, and now it's embedded and engorged.

What (I think) the OP meant by Fox bringing on "the death of our news media":

Actual straight objective news, where it exists, never makes money. News is not a profit-making venture. All those alphabet network news shows we grew up with were being subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and I love Lucy shows, which DO make money. News is expensive. A lot of traveling, a lot of staff and stringers, a lot of equipment flying around, news bureaus all over the world -- costs high, return minimal. That's what CNN was doing pre-Fox, but their advantage was being the only (at the time) 24/7 news outlet, so you didn't have to wait for the evening alphabets.

When Fox bubbled up it took a new approach to cut costs (and this is independent of any political angle): rather than deal with all that expense, plunk some talking heads in a studio talking about the news, rather than reporting it from afar. And given Murdoch's legacy in tabloid newspapers where he made his fortune, make it a gossip show about politicians rather than about policy. Then dress up that studio with garish colors and graphics that go whooooosh and suggestive screen chyrons, and plunk some angry white guys down to piss and moan and shake their fists all night in commentary programs (which is where the Fox ratings are) and there you have your viewers. Because you have brought in angst and suspicion and conspiracy -- the fear and loathing. The Emotion. The spectacle.

Oh and the short-skirted bimbos, they don't hurt either.

But what you've accomplished isn't news; it's news theater. CNN, doing straight news (at the time), then sees its ratings dwindle, because TV viewers will always gravitate toward the drama and the outrageous and the ridiculous over cold hard fact. Emotion always trumps impartiality to the unwashed.

There's no emotion in real news (or in naked truth). "Storm headed for Iowa" = boring. "Storm heads to Iowa where it will kill innocent bystanders, maybe you" = viewers. Making the impersonal personal. What Fox broadcasts is not on the whole news, but news theater, dripping with emotion. And news theater will always outsell straight news. But in the process of all that angstmongering, truth is the first casualty. Straight truth is ... boring. "Boring" as far as "doesn't draw a crowd". When you're in the commercial broadcast business, you need to draw a crowd. That's why a more cerebral program like Bill Buckley's had to use PBS; it wouldn't sell enough soap.

Unfortunately, all of them being commercial entities, CNN saw the financial writing on the wall and jumped into the same sewer, although not working the LCD as well. MSNBC saw it and said "me too", and down goes media (Howard Cosell voice).

Roger Ailes may be a lot of things but one of them is not stupid. He understands media manipulation as well as anyone does. It's all over these documents (see the Bush golfing passage earlier). And he documents my point about cutting the costs of news as well as steering it, in the article, with
>> Television News Incorporated (TVN), a right-wing news service Ailes worked on in the early 1970s after he got fired by the White House. According to Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by conservative beermonger Joseph Coors, and its mandate sounds exactly like a privately funded version of Capitol News Service: "[TVN] was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit&#8212;and at a fraction of the true costs of production." <<

News is expensive; news theater is cheap. Bring an understanding of how to use it as a political spinning wheel, and voilà: Fox Noise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, what you were doing was an ad hominem/strawman fallacy. And what you're doing now is a rhetorical handbrake turn as a means of escape.

Olé.

I attacked you? Seriously?

You disagreed with him. Same thing.

That I did.

 

[PredFan]

No, what you were doing was an ad hominem/strawman fallacy. And what you're doing now is a rhetorical handbrake turn as a means of escape.

Olé.

I attacked you? Seriously?

I would have pointed it out (again) but PredFan beat me to it in the next post after yours.

Thanks PF

I'm confused. I was agreeing with QW in that post, but I dont see how that fits in with all this.

 

[PredFan]

FOX is a MONSTER, a MONSTER I tell ya!!!!!

Ah, I don't think it's a "monster" myself. More like a tick you didn't notice right away, and now it's embedded and engorged.

What (I think) the OP meant by Fox bringing on "the death of our news media":

Actual straight objective news, where it exists, never makes money. News is not a profit-making venture. All those alphabet network news shows we grew up with were being subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and I love Lucy shows, which DO make money. News is expensive. A lot of traveling, a lot of staff and stringers, a lot of equipment flying around, news bureaus all over the world -- costs high, return minimal. That's what CNN was doing pre-Fox, but their advantage was being the only (at the time) 24/7 news outlet, so you didn't have to wait for the evening alphabets.

When Fox bubbled up it took a new approach to cut costs (and this is independent of any political angle): rather than deal with all that expense, plunk some talking heads in a studio talking about the news, rather than reporting it from afar. And given Murdoch's legacy in tabloid newspapers where he made his fortune, make it a gossip show about politicians rather than about policy. Then dress up that studio with garish colors and graphics that go whooooosh and suggestive screen chyrons, and plunk some angry white guys down to piss and moan and shake their fists all night in commentary programs (which is where the Fox ratings are) and there you have your viewers. Because you have brought in angst and suspicion and conspiracy -- the fear and loathing. The Emotion. The spectacle.

Oh and the short-skirted bimbos, they don't hurt either.

But what you've accomplished isn't news; it's news theater. CNN, doing straight news (at the time), then sees its ratings dwindle, because TV viewers will always gravitate toward the drama and the outrageous and the ridiculous over cold hard fact. Emotion always trumps impartiality to the unwashed.

There's no emotion in real news (or in naked truth). "Storm headed for Iowa" = boring. "Storm heads to Iowa where it will kill innocent bystanders, maybe you" = viewers. Making the impersonal personal. What Fox broadcasts is not on the whole news, but news theater, dripping with emotion. And news theater will always outsell straight news. But in the process of all that angstmongering, truth is the first casualty. Straight truth is ... boring. "Boring" as far as "doesn't draw a crowd". When you're in the commercial broadcast business, you need to draw a crowd. That's why a more cerebral program like Bill Buckley's had to use PBS; it wouldn't sell enough soap.

Unfortunately, all of them being commercial entities, CNN saw the financial writing on the wall and jumped into the same sewer, although not working the LCD as well. MSNBC saw it and said "me too", and down goes media (Howard Cosell voice).

Roger Ailes may be a lot of things but one of them is not stupid. He understands media manipulation as well as anyone does. It's all over these documents (see the Bush golfing passage earlier). And he documents my point about cutting the costs of news as well as steering it, in the article, with
>> Television News Incorporated (TVN), a right-wing news service Ailes worked on in the early 1970s after he got fired by the White House. According to Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by conservative beermonger Joseph Coors, and its mandate sounds exactly like a privately funded version of Capitol News Service: "[TVN] was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit—and at a fraction of the true costs of production." <<

News is expensive; news theater is cheap. Bring an understanding of how to use it as a political spinning wheel, and voilà: Fox Noise.

Change only a few names and you're talking about the MSM.

QM is right. You're simply a partisan hack.

 

[Pogo]

I attacked you? Seriously?

I would have pointed it out (again) but PredFan beat me to it in the next post after yours.

Thanks PF

I'm confused. I was agreeing with QW in that post, but I dont see how that fits in with all this.

It doesn't fit in. That's why I called him out on a fallacy.
What you helped with was putting his ad hominem in a big bold font. I had already explained it to him last night but I guess he's slow.

 

[PredFan]

I have two choices:
1. I can listen to the news media that parrots the government's talking points.
2. I can listen to the media that criticises the government.

For me it's a no-brainer, FOX News.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, what you were doing was an ad hominem/strawman fallacy. And what you're doing now is a rhetorical handbrake turn as a means of escape.

Olé.

I attacked you? Seriously?

I would have pointed it out (again) but PredFan beat me to it in the next post after yours.

Thanks PF

I asked you a question that I am still waiting for you to answer, why aren't you worried about the various times progressive news has gone off the deep end and made up things about Republicans? If you are not a partisan hack it should be pretty easy to point out how you think MSNBC was wrong to lie about Bush. If you can't do that, maybe your real problem is not that I am attacking you, maybe it is that you don't like when people ask you direct questions about your motives.

 

[PredFan]

I would have pointed it out (again) but PredFan beat me to it in the next post after yours.

Thanks PF

I'm confused. I was agreeing with QW in that post, but I dont see how that fits in with all this.

It doesn't fit in. That's why I called him out on a fallacy.
What you helped with was putting his ad hominem in a big bold font. I had already explained it to him last night but I guess he's slow.

You are right, he did attack you, but, he's right you are a partisan hack.

 

[Pogo]

FOX is a MONSTER, a MONSTER I tell ya!!!!!

Ah, I don't think it's a "monster" myself. More like a tick you didn't notice right away, and now it's embedded and engorged.

What (I think) the OP meant by Fox bringing on "the death of our news media":

Actual straight objective news, where it exists, never makes money. News is not a profit-making venture. All those alphabet network news shows we grew up with were being subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and I love Lucy shows, which DO make money. News is expensive. A lot of traveling, a lot of staff and stringers, a lot of equipment flying around, news bureaus all over the world -- costs high, return minimal. That's what CNN was doing pre-Fox, but their advantage was being the only (at the time) 24/7 news outlet, so you didn't have to wait for the evening alphabets.

When Fox bubbled up it took a new approach to cut costs (and this is independent of any political angle): rather than deal with all that expense, plunk some talking heads in a studio talking about the news, rather than reporting it from afar. And given Murdoch's legacy in tabloid newspapers where he made his fortune, make it a gossip show about politicians rather than about policy. Then dress up that studio with garish colors and graphics that go whooooosh and suggestive screen chyrons, and plunk some angry white guys down to piss and moan and shake their fists all night in commentary programs (which is where the Fox ratings are) and there you have your viewers. Because you have brought in angst and suspicion and conspiracy -- the fear and loathing. The Emotion. The spectacle.

Oh and the short-skirted bimbos, they don't hurt either.

But what you've accomplished isn't news; it's news theater. CNN, doing straight news (at the time), then sees its ratings dwindle, because TV viewers will always gravitate toward the drama and the outrageous and the ridiculous over cold hard fact. Emotion always trumps impartiality to the unwashed.

There's no emotion in real news (or in naked truth). "Storm headed for Iowa" = boring. "Storm heads to Iowa where it will kill innocent bystanders, maybe you" = viewers. Making the impersonal personal. What Fox broadcasts is not on the whole news, but news theater, dripping with emotion. And news theater will always outsell straight news. But in the process of all that angstmongering, truth is the first casualty. Straight truth is ... boring. "Boring" as far as "doesn't draw a crowd". When you're in the commercial broadcast business, you need to draw a crowd. That's why a more cerebral program like Bill Buckley's had to use PBS; it wouldn't sell enough soap.

Unfortunately, all of them being commercial entities, CNN saw the financial writing on the wall and jumped into the same sewer, although not working the LCD as well. MSNBC saw it and said "me too", and down goes media (Howard Cosell voice).

Roger Ailes may be a lot of things but one of them is not stupid. He understands media manipulation as well as anyone does. It's all over these documents (see the Bush golfing passage earlier). And he documents my point about cutting the costs of news as well as steering it, in the article, with
>> Television News Incorporated (TVN), a right-wing news service Ailes worked on in the early 1970s after he got fired by the White House. According to Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by conservative beermonger Joseph Coors, and its mandate sounds exactly like a privately funded version of Capitol News Service: "[TVN] was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit—and at a fraction of the true costs of production." <<

News is expensive; news theater is cheap. Bring an understanding of how to use it as a political spinning wheel, and voilà: Fox Noise.

Change only a few names and you're talking about the MSM.

QM is right. You're simply a partisan hack.

I WAS talking about the MSM. No names need be changed; they're all in there.
Maybe you should try reading the post; I said right at the top that that analysis was independent of political angle. The post was entirely about the veracity of media, specifically television, and how Roger Ailes used (uses) it to manipulate perceptions (and more to the point of the post, to build ratings) and the detrimental effect it has on other news outlets sharing the same monetary gravitational pull. That's entirely a media analysis.

Perhaps you need to go look up the word "partisan". And if you're not even going to bother to read the post, I'd stay away from "hack". K?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FOX is a MONSTER, a MONSTER I tell ya!!!!!

Ah, I don't think it's a "monster" myself. More like a tick you didn't notice right away, and now it's embedded and engorged.

What (I think) the OP meant by Fox bringing on "the death of our news media":

Actual straight objective news, where it exists, never makes money. News is not a profit-making venture. All those alphabet network news shows we grew up with were being subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and I love Lucy shows, which DO make money. News is expensive. A lot of traveling, a lot of staff and stringers, a lot of equipment flying around, news bureaus all over the world -- costs high, return minimal. That's what CNN was doing pre-Fox, but their advantage was being the only (at the time) 24/7 news outlet, so you didn't have to wait for the evening alphabets.

When Fox bubbled up it took a new approach to cut costs (and this is independent of any political angle): rather than deal with all that expense, plunk some talking heads in a studio talking about the news, rather than reporting it from afar. And given Murdoch's legacy in tabloid newspapers where he made his fortune, make it a gossip show about politicians rather than about policy. Then dress up that studio with garish colors and graphics that go whooooosh and suggestive screen chyrons, and plunk some angry white guys down to piss and moan and shake their fists all night in commentary programs (which is where the Fox ratings are) and there you have your viewers. Because you have brought in angst and suspicion and conspiracy -- the fear and loathing. The Emotion. The spectacle.

Oh and the short-skirted bimbos, they don't hurt either.

But what you've accomplished isn't news; it's news theater. CNN, doing straight news (at the time), then sees its ratings dwindle, because TV viewers will always gravitate toward the drama and the outrageous and the ridiculous over cold hard fact. Emotion always trumps impartiality to the unwashed.

There's no emotion in real news (or in naked truth). "Storm headed for Iowa" = boring. "Storm heads to Iowa where it will kill innocent bystanders, maybe you" = viewers. Making the impersonal personal. What Fox broadcasts is not on the whole news, but news theater, dripping with emotion. And news theater will always outsell straight news. But in the process of all that angstmongering, truth is the first casualty. Straight truth is ... boring. "Boring" as far as "doesn't draw a crowd". When you're in the commercial broadcast business, you need to draw a crowd. That's why a more cerebral program like Bill Buckley's had to use PBS; it wouldn't sell enough soap.

Unfortunately, all of them being commercial entities, CNN saw the financial writing on the wall and jumped into the same sewer, although not working the LCD as well. MSNBC saw it and said "me too", and down goes media (Howard Cosell voice).

Roger Ailes may be a lot of things but one of them is not stupid. He understands media manipulation as well as anyone does. It's all over these documents (see the Bush golfing passage earlier). And he documents my point about cutting the costs of news as well as steering it, in the article, with
>> Television News Incorporated (TVN), a right-wing news service Ailes worked on in the early 1970s after he got fired by the White House. According to Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by conservative beermonger Joseph Coors, and its mandate sounds exactly like a privately funded version of Capitol News Service: "[TVN] was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit—and at a fraction of the true costs of production." <<

News is expensive; news theater is cheap. Bring an understanding of how to use it as a political spinning wheel, and voilà: Fox Noise.

Are you trying to tell me that before Fox that no news organization ever aimed for a profit, or plunked some taking heads in a studio to talk about the news?

Keep in mind that I actually grew up watching shows that did exactly that.

 

[Pogo]

I attacked you? Seriously?

I would have pointed it out (again) but PredFan beat me to it in the next post after yours.

Thanks PF

I asked you a question that I am still waiting for you to answer, why aren't you worried about the various times progressive news has gone off the deep end and made up things about Republicans? If you are not a partisan hack it should be pretty easy to point out how you think MSNBC was wrong to lie about Bush. If you can't do that, maybe your real problem is not that I am attacking you, maybe it is that you don't like when people ask you direct questions about your motives.

Maybe yours is that you can't even admit when you're wrong. I accept your nonapology. I only accept it because I know a real one is beyond your ken.

Now that ad hominem is out of the way we're onto the strawman: "why aren't you worried". Bring the link to where I said I wasn't "worried" about "progressive news" (a term I've never used in my life). Or to this mysterious "lie about Bush" debate in which I've never been a participant. Or in plain English, what the **** are you talking about and how does it connect to Roger Ailes?

And keep in mind I've already posted, here and in the past, excoriations of the entire MSM and its bias for sensationalistic superficial bullshit over substance. You might want to take that into account while you're deciding how deep a hole you want to dig yourself.

Can you dig it?

 

[PredFan]

Ah, I don't think it's a "monster" myself. More like a tick you didn't notice right away, and now it's embedded and engorged.

What (I think) the OP meant by Fox bringing on "the death of our news media":

Actual straight objective news, where it exists, never makes money. News is not a profit-making venture. All those alphabet network news shows we grew up with were being subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and I love Lucy shows, which DO make money. News is expensive. A lot of traveling, a lot of staff and stringers, a lot of equipment flying around, news bureaus all over the world -- costs high, return minimal. That's what CNN was doing pre-Fox, but their advantage was being the only (at the time) 24/7 news outlet, so you didn't have to wait for the evening alphabets.

When Fox bubbled up it took a new approach to cut costs (and this is independent of any political angle): rather than deal with all that expense, plunk some talking heads in a studio talking about the news, rather than reporting it from afar. And given Murdoch's legacy in tabloid newspapers where he made his fortune, make it a gossip show about politicians rather than about policy. Then dress up that studio with garish colors and graphics that go whooooosh and suggestive screen chyrons, and plunk some angry white guys down to piss and moan and shake their fists all night in commentary programs (which is where the Fox ratings are) and there you have your viewers. Because you have brought in angst and suspicion and conspiracy -- the fear and loathing. The Emotion. The spectacle.

Oh and the short-skirted bimbos, they don't hurt either.

But what you've accomplished isn't news; it's news theater. CNN, doing straight news (at the time), then sees its ratings dwindle, because TV viewers will always gravitate toward the drama and the outrageous and the ridiculous over cold hard fact. Emotion always trumps impartiality to the unwashed.

There's no emotion in real news (or in naked truth). "Storm headed for Iowa" = boring. "Storm heads to Iowa where it will kill innocent bystanders, maybe you" = viewers. Making the impersonal personal. What Fox broadcasts is not on the whole news, but news theater, dripping with emotion. And news theater will always outsell straight news. But in the process of all that angstmongering, truth is the first casualty. Straight truth is ... boring. "Boring" as far as "doesn't draw a crowd". When you're in the commercial broadcast business, you need to draw a crowd. That's why a more cerebral program like Bill Buckley's had to use PBS; it wouldn't sell enough soap.

Unfortunately, all of them being commercial entities, CNN saw the financial writing on the wall and jumped into the same sewer, although not working the LCD as well. MSNBC saw it and said "me too", and down goes media (Howard Cosell voice).

Roger Ailes may be a lot of things but one of them is not stupid. He understands media manipulation as well as anyone does. It's all over these documents (see the Bush golfing passage earlier). And he documents my point about cutting the costs of news as well as steering it, in the article, with
>> Television News Incorporated (TVN), a right-wing news service Ailes worked on in the early 1970s after he got fired by the White House. According to Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by conservative beermonger Joseph Coors, and its mandate sounds exactly like a privately funded version of Capitol News Service: "[TVN] was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit&#8212;and at a fraction of the true costs of production." <<

News is expensive; news theater is cheap. Bring an understanding of how to use it as a political spinning wheel, and voilà: Fox Noise.

Change only a few names and you're talking about the MSM.

QM is right. You're simply a partisan hack.

I WAS talking about the MSM. No names need be changed; they're all in there.
Maybe you should try reading the post; I said right at the top that that analysis was independent of political angle. The post was entirely about the veracity of media, specifically television, and how Roger Ailes used (uses) it to manipulate perceptions (and more to the point of the post, to build ratings) and the detrimental effect it has on other news outlets sharing the same monetary gravitational pull. That's entirely a media analysis.

Perhaps you need to go look up the word "partisan". And if you're not even going to bother to read the post, I'd stay away from "hack". K?

Nice attempt to backtrack, but that's horse shit and you know it. You were explaining what the OP meant, and he wasn't talking about any other new network. The fact that you agree with him is obvious, you even finished it with the "FOX Noise". Not to mention that this isn't the first time I've seen you bull shit on these boards.

Hack.

 

[Pogo]

FOX is a MONSTER, a MONSTER I tell ya!!!!!

Ah, I don't think it's a "monster" myself. More like a tick you didn't notice right away, and now it's embedded and engorged.

What (I think) the OP meant by Fox bringing on "the death of our news media":

Actual straight objective news, where it exists, never makes money. News is not a profit-making venture. All those alphabet network news shows we grew up with were being subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and I love Lucy shows, which DO make money. News is expensive. A lot of traveling, a lot of staff and stringers, a lot of equipment flying around, news bureaus all over the world -- costs high, return minimal. That's what CNN was doing pre-Fox, but their advantage was being the only (at the time) 24/7 news outlet, so you didn't have to wait for the evening alphabets.

When Fox bubbled up it took a new approach to cut costs (and this is independent of any political angle): rather than deal with all that expense, plunk some talking heads in a studio talking about the news, rather than reporting it from afar. And given Murdoch's legacy in tabloid newspapers where he made his fortune, make it a gossip show about politicians rather than about policy. Then dress up that studio with garish colors and graphics that go whooooosh and suggestive screen chyrons, and plunk some angry white guys down to piss and moan and shake their fists all night in commentary programs (which is where the Fox ratings are) and there you have your viewers. Because you have brought in angst and suspicion and conspiracy -- the fear and loathing. The Emotion. The spectacle.

Oh and the short-skirted bimbos, they don't hurt either.

But what you've accomplished isn't news; it's news theater. CNN, doing straight news (at the time), then sees its ratings dwindle, because TV viewers will always gravitate toward the drama and the outrageous and the ridiculous over cold hard fact. Emotion always trumps impartiality to the unwashed.

There's no emotion in real news (or in naked truth). "Storm headed for Iowa" = boring. "Storm heads to Iowa where it will kill innocent bystanders, maybe you" = viewers. Making the impersonal personal. What Fox broadcasts is not on the whole news, but news theater, dripping with emotion. And news theater will always outsell straight news. But in the process of all that angstmongering, truth is the first casualty. Straight truth is ... boring. "Boring" as far as "doesn't draw a crowd". When you're in the commercial broadcast business, you need to draw a crowd. That's why a more cerebral program like Bill Buckley's had to use PBS; it wouldn't sell enough soap.

Unfortunately, all of them being commercial entities, CNN saw the financial writing on the wall and jumped into the same sewer, although not working the LCD as well. MSNBC saw it and said "me too", and down goes media (Howard Cosell voice).

Roger Ailes may be a lot of things but one of them is not stupid. He understands media manipulation as well as anyone does. It's all over these documents (see the Bush golfing passage earlier). And he documents my point about cutting the costs of news as well as steering it, in the article, with
>> Television News Incorporated (TVN), a right-wing news service Ailes worked on in the early 1970s after he got fired by the White House. According to Rolling Stone, TVN was financed by conservative beermonger Joseph Coors, and its mandate sounds exactly like a privately funded version of Capitol News Service: "[TVN] was designed to inject a far-right slant into local news broadcasts by providing news clips that stations could use without credit—and at a fraction of the true costs of production." <<

News is expensive; news theater is cheap. Bring an understanding of how to use it as a political spinning wheel, and voilà: Fox Noise.

Are you trying to tell me that before Fox that no news organization ever aimed for a profit, or plunked some taking heads in a studio to talk about the news?

Keep in mind that I actually grew up watching shows that did exactly that.

No. First place I know better than to try to tell you anything, so when I post something ponderous like that, trust me it's not with you in mind.

Second, I just laid out the points about what news costs and I'm not going to cut and paste all over again. I said that news is not something you go into for profit. And it isn't. If you're making a profit, and you don't have some kind of monopoly information channel, then chances are what you're doing isn't "news".

 

[Pogo]

Change only a few names and you're talking about the MSM.

QM is right. You're simply a partisan hack.

I WAS talking about the MSM. No names need be changed; they're all in there.
Maybe you should try reading the post; I said right at the top that that analysis was independent of political angle. The post was entirely about the veracity of media, specifically television, and how Roger Ailes used (uses) it to manipulate perceptions (and more to the point of the post, to build ratings) and the detrimental effect it has on other news outlets sharing the same monetary gravitational pull. That's entirely a media analysis.

Perhaps you need to go look up the word "partisan". And if you're not even going to bother to read the post, I'd stay away from "hack". K?

Nice attempt to backtrack, but that's horse shit and you know it. You were explaining what the OP meant, and he wasn't talking about any other new network. The fact that you agree with him is obvious, you even finished it with the "FOX Noise". Not to mention that this isn't the first time I've seen you bull shit on these boards.

Hack.

There's no "backtrack" here, General Halftrack. It's my analysis and I stand by it; all those media outlets were already named in the original post-- don't blame me if you didn't read it until I called your attention to it.

The reason we center on Fox Noise is that it was the indisputable leader in the dumbing down process of news into news-theater. That's what the whole history I originally laid out means. And I've posted that innumerable times before, and all I get in response is ad hominem like you just flung. That is, if I get any response at all.

That tells me something. So does the Windbag's desperate attempts to get the spotlight off Fox Noise and onto "progressive news"", whatever that is.

And about "Fox Noise", I like words and puns, so sue me. I didn't make that one up (I wish I did) but it's clever, so I've adopted it as my own. Isn't it cute?

Anyway when you have no retort to my actual points about how things work, other than "bullshit" and "hack" --- well that's what I tried to warn you about....