FoxNews ANNIHILATES the competition. (and whiny liberals HATE this)

[reason10]

https://www.sarahpalin.com/2022/677160/kayleigh-mcenany-and-fox-news-annihilate-competition-boast-more-viewers-than-cnn-and-msnbc-combined-2/?fbclid=IwAR1p-Xm_1SCvqjCm-b2Soqlno0w9g66Qiimp95LMAkhsdQ34clyYd39KH3s

Kayleigh McEnany and Fox News Annihilate Competition, Boast More Viewers Than CNN and MSNBC Combined

Quote

 

Fox News has control over the airwaves once again and is drawing more viewers than its competitors.

“Outnumbered” with co-hosts Kayleigh McEnany and Harris Faulkner is receiving about 2 million viewers per day.

In comparison, CNN and MSNBC’s showings at the same time slot receive 638,000 and 685,000 viewers, respectively.

Between ages 24-54, “Outnumbered” dominated the competition with 56,000 viewers.CNN and MSNBC combined had less than 200,000 viewers

 

I guess the free market has spoken. People are sick of left wing Nazi programming.

[Michael Hardner]

They're number one and have been for a long time.  People still elected Obama for two terms during their reign, and dumped Trump for biden.

 

Their place in the evolution of TV news is interesting.  They ARE MSM today.  They create the stories, they don't follow them.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

They're number one and have been for a long time.  People still elected Obama for two terms during their reign, and dumped Trump for biden.

 

Their place in the evolution of TV news is interesting.  They ARE MSM today.  They create the stories, they don't follow them.

I'm not sure if I would lump them into the MSM category just yet, but they still cover some stories that the others don't like to touch. Yes, the Democrats still win even with FOX dominating the news but perhaps if they did not exist the Democrats would be almost unbeatable.

Recently on the Munk debates program, Matt Taibbi made a great point at the beginning when he pointed out that all of the major networks cater to their targeted demographic and basically only tell them what they want to hear. This is true and that includes FOX as well. I personally think their overall coverage is still superior to the rest but there's always room for improvement. 

I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic check out the actual debate itself as it was really interesting and both sides always have equal time. The audience get's polled before and after the event as to whether opinions shift.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

1. I'm not sure if I would lump them into the MSM category just yet, 

2. Recently on the Munk debates program, Matt Taibbi made a great point at the beginning when he pointed out that all of the major networks cater to their targeted demographic and basically only tell them what they want to hear. This is true and that includes FOX as well.  

 

1. I looked up the definition and it refers to the 'dominant' trend.  FOX is #1 so they are MSM by definition
2. Yes, because we don't have 'public' under a mass audience we have 'patrons'.  The model of maintaining a moral platform is replaced by an advertising model that flatters and confirms its patrons.  Non profit media needs to replace this model IMO or the press as it was meant to be will utterly disappear.

[reason10]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They're number one and have been for a long time.  People still elected Obama for two terms during their reign, and dumped Trump for biden.

 

Their place in the evolution of TV news is interesting.  They ARE MSM today.  They create the stories, they don't follow them.

A couple of items:

1. Fox is not a right wing network. It is fair and balanced, which means it gives BOTH sides of the aisle equal time. And it's a lot more professional than those hack networks.

2.News Networks are not and should not be in the business of electing politicians. You don't judge the worth of a network by its ability to campaign for either side. Fox stayed neutral and professional, something the goose steppers at CNN, PMSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC were incapable of doing .

3. Trump was reelected on Election night.

[reason10]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I looked up the definition and it refers to the 'dominant' trend.  FOX is #1 so they are MSM by definition
2. Yes, because we don't have 'public' under a mass audience we have 'patrons'.  The model of maintaining a moral platform is replaced by an advertising model that flatters and confirms its patrons.  Non profit media needs to replace this model IMO or the press as it was meant to be will utterly disappear.

That is a fancy way of saying you're upset that CBS, NBC and ABC have lost their monopoly status on public opinion.

I've heard liberals decry the idea that somehow news has to be sold, rather than being a public right. But as long as I've had to watch news on networks, they ALL had commercials, advertisers. They've ALL had to attract an audience in order to sell advertising air. There has NEVER been a "public" in the entire history of television. It has ALL been according to ratings.

Rush LImbaugh put it in a crude but accurate fashion: I attract as large an audience as possible so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates.

[sharkman]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They're number one and have been for a long time.  People still elected Obama for two terms during their reign, and dumped Trump for biden.

 

Their place in the evolution of TV news is interesting.  They ARE MSM today.  They create the stories, they don't follow them.

Nice to see someone who is programmed by the MSM still be able to admit that networks like MSM are not reporting news stories.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

Nice to see someone who is programmed by the MSM still be able to admit that networks like MSM are not reporting news stories.

Hm?  Pretty arrogant and ungenerous for you to say that I'm programmed.

[herbie]

The only thing Fox News has managed to annihilate in all these years is it's own credibility.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, herbie said:

The only thing Fox News has managed to annihilate in all these years is it's own credibility.

Disagree.

They are the product of brilliant minds.  The design and strategy are game changing.  They changed politics and the world.

[reason10]

On 12/20/2022 at 11:26 PM, herbie said:

The only thing Fox News has managed to annihilate in all these years is it's own credibility.

Not to educated people.

Some day you might actually run into one.

[reason10]

On 12/21/2022 at 6:23 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Disagree.

They are the product of brilliant minds.  The design and strategy are game changing.  They changed politics and the world.

Fox is too preoccupied with getting ratings to give a rat's ass about changing politics. About the only ratings giant I know of who shot up the ranks while being deliberately partisan was Rush Limbaugh. He was never shy about his ideology and he is considered the highest rated radio talk show host of all time.

Fox is what news sources SHOULD be. It reports mostly the facts and lets you decide. And whenever it gives any views, they are always fair and balanced with equal time given to both sides.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know if they intended to change politics but they did.

They're an entertainment outfit.

Hannity told Lin Wood that the election was stolen, and testified that he didn't believe it.

He's an actor and he's playing a character on a show.

[Michael Hardner]

Mike Lindell, aka Mike Pillow, apparently has attacked Hannity's journalism which should be very easy to defend, since Hannity isn't a journalist but a trader in the oil of the snake...

[Hodad]

On 1/4/2023 at 9:54 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know if they intended to change politics but they did.

They're an entertainment outfit.

Hannity told Lin Wood that the election was stolen, and testified that he didn't believe it.

He's an actor and he's playing a character on a show.

They did intend to change politics and media. It was deliberately conceived (and successfully executed) to sell a political POV to an older audience that is ill equipped for critical analysis.

That tight pairing of real news with fictional opinion is something that audience just wasn't prepared for. It's a generation that grew up watching real journalism and honestly I think it never occurred to them that they shouldn't question if this upstart network was playing by new rules.

I watched my father fall into it after retirement, in the early days of Fox, and it was like he fell into a different universe, slightly askew from our reality. 

Many studies on news literacy have determined that Fox viewers are less informed, but that's often not the best choice of words. Very often they are tremendously informed--about the wrong things. Misdirection, misinformation and disinformation is a spectrum of the harm done.

 

 

 

[ironstone]

According to this piece nothing much has changed at CNN under the new boss.

Maybe If CNN Hired A Real Conservative, It Wouldn't Tank So Badly (thefederalist.com)

Some of you guys don't seem to get that there is a difference between news anchors and opinion shows. FOX has a lot of opinion shows, as do all of their competitors. The question is, why does FOX dwarf the competition in the ratings?

[reason10]

On 1/14/2023 at 9:04 AM, ironstone said:

According to this piece nothing much has changed at CNN under the new boss.

Maybe If CNN Hired A Real Conservative, It Wouldn't Tank So Badly (thefederalist.com)

Some of you guys don't seem to get that there is a difference between news anchors and opinion shows. FOX has a lot of opinion shows, as do all of their competitors. The question is, why does FOX dwarf the competition in the ratings?

The easy answer is MOST OF AMERICA IS NOT GOOSE STEPPING LEFT WING RADICALS who would watch CNN.

[sharkman]

And along those lines, here is a little something on the woke culture.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, sharkman said:

Test post, can I post shit

Why change the habits of a lifetime?

[sharkman]

That’s weird, now your stalking me and drunk.  Must be boring in Alberta…

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, sharkman said:

That’s weird, now your stalking me and drunk.  Must be boring in Alberta…

It's not that boring.  I was out looking at a comet tonight.

I think I saw a space ship behind it.  You should tell the other members of your cult.

[sharkman]

On 1/16/2023 at 1:05 PM, reason10 said:

The easy answer is MOST OF AMERICA IS NOT GOOSE STEPPING LEFT WING RADICALS who would watch CNN.

Hah, CNN.  The woke that went broke.

[sharkman]

So, Fox axes one of their most popular hosts after settling the Dominion lawsuit.  The two items aren’t related at all, it’s just a coincidence, right?

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, sharkman said:

So, Fox axes one of their most popular hosts after settling the Dominion lawsuit.  The two items aren’t related at all, it’s just a coincidence, right?

There's hardly any doubt he was let go due to this or the next lawsuit. Meanwhile he's being cited as the most popular. I wonder what the backlash from his viewers will be.

[sharkman]

What’s the backlash?  Here you go:

 

 

Now, Fox ownership are not imbeciles, they knew full well that settling that lawsuit out of court and dropping Tucker would be a disaster for their ratings and therefore revenue/income.  Because they are not imbeciles.  Fox stock dropped a billion in the first day.

And still they went ahead with it rather than at least put it off a year or two with court proceedings and appeals.  SCOTUS might have let them off the hook.

So why did they do it?  My theory is because with the change at the helm after Roger Ailes, they became a non conservative organization.  That slowly gave more and more time to Geroldo Rivera, Jaun Williams and the like.  Calling Arizona for Biden early in the 2020 election was all the proof any objective person needed to see.  Now they are trying to keep Tucker off the air for the duration of his contract.  A conservative organization would not do this.

What’s your theory, if I’m wrong?