The Democrats won the White House and Congress in 2008, but the cable news network they love to hate, Fox News, won the viewership trophy for the seventh consecutive year. And not by a photo finish: Fox News had an average of 2.1 million prime-time viewers, up 40 percent from 2007. By comparison, CNN averaged 1.3 million viewers in 2008 and MSNBC 920,000 viewers. The new year’s changes at Fox include the departure of token liberal Alan Colmes and the arrival of inexplicably popular conservative Glenn Beck.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
95 Comments
All the more reason for liberals and democrats to control television the same way they are planning on controlling conservative talk shows on radio.
With an Unfairness Doctrine.
We can’t have those pesky Americans listening and watching whatever they want.
Do these numbers include the ‘eveeel libaruls’ who tune in to inform themselves of the day’s Conservative talking points in order to be prepared? Do they include those who still think of Faux as another comedy channel?
“who tune in to inform themselves of the day’s Conservative talking points”
Oh yes. Just like the survey which shows conservatives give more to charities of their time and money. And the American Red Cross reports on conservatives giving morer blood.
“who tune in to inform themselves of the day’s Conservative talking points”
And since that is the reason conservative talk show is so popular, then I guess democrats should drop the fairness doctrine.
God must love stupid people; He made so many.
lindainks55
Posted January 2, 2009 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
Do these numbers include the ‘eveeel libaruls’ who tune in to inform themselves of the day’s Conservative talking points in order to be prepared? Do they include those who still think of Faux as another comedy channel?
———————
What this says Linda is that all liberals aren’t as dumb as those on the WEBlog. They want real news so they turn to the most unbiased source available, FOX. Does that tell you how far out of the mainstream libs like you and BJ are?
BillO the clown:
“So anyway I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda’ kissing your neck from behind…and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I’d just put it on your p***y but you’d have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business…” –as quoted in a sexual harassment suit filed against him by a Fox News producer.
I don’t own a television and therefore have never seen Fox news. However their numbers indicate why Brent Castillo’s column is a value. He explains the conservatives position in a reasonable manner that I can understand. Although I seldom agree.
When you are number one, everyone is gunning for you.
But when you add the numbers of the Clinton News Network and PMSNBC, you get identical numbers to Fox. 50-50 nation.
“And guys, if you exploit a girl, it will come back to get you. That’s called ‘karma.’” –in his book, “The O’Reilly Factor For Kids,”
Popularity is the very crumbs of greatness.
Lots of people like “Survivor” and “American Idol” too.
Fox uses whoosh whoosh noises and blaring thundering music to snatch the attention of an American public with the attention span of a very small child. That it is popular in doing so should sadden us.
“Now it’s so bad that I spend an enormous amount of money protecting myself against evil.” –on being Bill O’Reilly
I guess you’d have to label all the ‘liberal’ news stations against fox, to have a comparison of what viewers watch.
“Fox News, won the viewership trophy for the seventh consecutive year”
This is sad and scary
But it gives me hope that good marketing will be able to sell unneeded goods to ‘consumers’ for years to come.
I like Fox News, but thank goodness the TV has an off/on switch and a mute.
Fox has been blocked in my house for eight years.
Even though Fox is blocked by some liberal controlled regions, they’re still No.1. How can that be?
“donndublin
Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
Even though Fox is blocked by some liberal controlled regions, they’re still No.1. How can that be?”
Huh?
As far as I am aware of the only liberal controlled region where Fox is blocked is beber’s house.
They do use simple words at Faux News, and since half the population is of below average intelligence it would be the station those half most easily understand. And, of course, popularity doesn’t measure whether what is presented is factual or not.
#
BlueJay
Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
Popularity is the very crumbs of greatness.
Lots of people like “Survivor” and “American Idol” too.
__________________________________________________
BJ,
Do you think those shows are on FOX news?
“donndublin
Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
#
BlueJay
Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
Popularity is the very crumbs of greatness.
Lots of people like “Survivor” and “American Idol” too.
__________________________________________________
BJ,
Do you think those shows are on FOX news?”
They share a demographic
“lindainks55
Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
…And, of course, popularity doesn’t measure whether what is presented is factual or not.”
50% of people believe in aliens…
“50% of people believe in aliens… — brian_nuevo
——-
Well, half of them are below any average we might quote too. ;-)
lol
60% of liberals believe in God.
Sidebar: Do the networks compete to see who’s anchors have the shortest miniskirt and longest legs? It seems to be a primary qualification for hosting the cable news.
Just wondering.
They share a demographic
_________________________
Really? Got any proof?
“HLP
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
They share a demographic
_________________________
Really? Got any proof?”
Anecdotal evidence, but I would be very surprised if Fox News fans and reality TV fans are not similar, demographically speaking.
“American_Way
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
Sidebar: Do the networks compete to see who’s anchors have the shortest miniskirt and longest legs? ”
Univision would win.
(Esos mujeres tienen lindas piernas)
From the RCP article in the OP:
“Fox News finished the year with an average of 2.1 million prime-time viewers, up 40% from 2007. CNN was second at 1.3 million and MSNBC third at 920,000.”
—
I think “prime time” is nutty time for Fox. During the day their newscasts don’t seem too bad (although the only time I watch any cable news is at the YMCA, after work, when it’s on in the men’s locker room).
Prime time is when Fox brings out the more colorful set of characters they keep around to keep the conservative cocoon warm and fuzzy. It ain’t news, it’s opinion in prime time.
Hardly shocking.
I’d be far more interested in knowing how viewership is distributed among the networks at a time when Americans want news, not opinion.
For example: what channel do Americans go to for breaking news?
That’s the metric that seems more relevant to me.
Mere body-count doesn’t mean much in the real world of media ratings.
As with most polls (and that’s what the ratings are) there are all sorts of ways to interpret the data.
Most newspaper stories about radio and television ratings go for the superficial 12+ ratings when true media clout is determined by demographics.
Faux Noise Channel’s audience is ancient and they are sucking dead bunnies in the demographics advertisers want. For one thing, BillO the clown has been losing to Olbermann on MSNBC big time in demographics not assuming the old fart who tuned in Steve Doocy in the morning and has dozed in and out of consciousness on the Barco-Lounger all day and has forgotten where he put the clicker.
Monkeyhawk
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Mere body-count doesn’t mean much in the real world of media ratings.
As with most polls (and that’s what the ratings are) there are all sorts of ways to interpret the data.
——————
So Bush isn’t such an unpopular prez afterall. It is only the polls that show he is and ‘there are all sorts of ways to interpret the data.’
#
okobserver
Posted January 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
What this says Linda is that all liberals aren’t as dumb as those on the WEBlog. They want real news so they turn to the most unbiased source available, FOX. Does that tell you how far out of the mainstream libs like you and BJ are.
________________________________________________
Hmmmm….
I watch Fox News a lot. I wouldn’t go so far as to say “the most unbiased source available”, but at least Fox doesn’t get hung up on a single subject for days at a time like CNN and MSNBC. If you pay attention to the political aspect of Fox, you know for sure what ALL of the conservatives are thinking.
I love Rachel Maddow and Keith Oberman. One of these days Oberman is going to cause Billo to have a heart attack (if he had a heart).
X that might have been a little exageratted. I tend to lose patience with people that think there are absolutes. Nothing is all black or all white including the news coverage we receive. And it really has nothing to do with the intellectual ability of the watcher.
“okobserver
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
Monkeyhawk
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Mere body-count doesn’t mean much in the real world of media ratings.
As with most polls (and that’s what the ratings are) there are all sorts of ways to interpret the data.
——————
So Bush isn’t such an unpopular prez afterall. It is only the polls that show he is and ‘there are all sorts of ways to interpret the data.’”
Probably true.
I bet with rich, white, Protestant males, over 60, who enjoy John Wayne movies, and live further than 50 miles from a town with more than 75,000 people he is a superstar.
“okobserver
Posted January 2, 2009 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
…And it really has nothing to do with the intellectual ability of the watcher.”
Possibly. However, those of a much higher intellectual capacity most likely consume their new media from a variety of sources (conservative, liberal, domestic and international) to get a truely unbiased view of the world.
new = news
Maddow isn’t bad but Oberman is so in the tank for Obama that you really can’t count on honesty in his reporting. The network even finally realized this. Matthews and his tingly leg also was so Obama I quit watching him. He used to be my equalizor.
Brian as you can see from my last post that crossed with yours – I do exactly that. If you never hear other sides to your beliefs you become stagnant.
I try to get several points of view and then make up my mind.
Calling Fox News “the most unbiased source available” is just kind of stunning. Perhaps you meant more accomodating and in agreement with your biases.
“okobserver
Posted January 2, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
Brian as you can see from my last post that crossed with yours – I do exactly that. If you never hear other sides to your beliefs you become stagnant.
I try to get several points of view and then make up my mind.”
That is a wise way to do it.
I wish more people would listen to opposing views before making up their minds, rather than listening only to the side that tells the story the way they want to hear it.
Steven I am talking about their coverage of the news. I don’t call Greta, O’Reily or Hannity as news commentators.
Fox News? Isn’t that the channel which refers to President Obama as a “magical negro”? Just because it has the word “News” in it’s title doesn’t actually make it so. While we were in a recession, and right before the huge call for a bailout, they were announcing how great the economy was. Oh, and how WMD were found in Iraq. C’mon, if it’s news it’s propaganda, but it’s more of a news parody channel that isn’t funny like that Half Hour News Hour show.
No Maggot that was the LA Times. You really should get out more.
Maggotpunk
Posted January 2, 2009 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
Fox News? Isn’t that the channel which refers to President Obama as a “magical negro”?
—
The GOP ca1863: Emancipation Proclamation, a set of 2 executive orders issued by a Republic president in the midst of civil war
The GOP ca2009: 116 years later, willing to throw out 1863 just to get the votes of a few more cranky old white people.
Ready, fire, aim! lol
146, woops
I think those numbers are padded by those of us who tune into Fox News for its comedic value.
“which refers to President Obama as a “magical negro”? ”
I always thought it was Shaq:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm925998080/tt0116756
okobserver, I wasn’t aware the LA Times had a ticker at the bottom of the screen.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Fox_News_ticker_Lets_hope_magic_0101.html
. . . to get a truely unbiased view of the world. – brian_nuevo
Why do we continue to fool ourselves; there IS NO SUCH THING as a “truely unbiased view of the world.” There never was.
What I find funny is that the same folks who tout the polls and popularity to bash Bush and advance Obama (perhaps legitimately), condemn those same polls when it reports what they don’t like.
These are the same folks, BTW, who fear Fox. Their favoriate candidates won’t participate in debates sponsored by Fox; they fear Fox too. beber (perhaps boober is more appropriate) is so fearful he blocks Fox from his TV.
Why such levels of abject fear?
“Emancipation Proclamation, a set of 2 executive orders issued by a Republic president in the midst of civil war…”
The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t “free” anybody.
It was a political move (brilliant) to change the public mood (it wasn’t looking good for the North).
Lincoln is incorrectly known as the Great Emancipator.
“GMC70
Posted January 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
. . . to get a truely unbiased view of the world. – brian_nuevo
Why do we continue to fool ourselves; there IS NO SUCH THING as a “truely unbiased view of the world.” There never was.”
That is just plain silly.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
“HLP
Posted January 2, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
They share a demographic
_________________________
Really? Got any proof?”
Anecdotal evidence, but I would be very surprised if Fox News fans and reality TV fans are not similar, demographically speaking.
_________________________________________________
“Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or UNTRUE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
“donndublin
Posted January 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
“Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or UNTRUE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence”
Hey donnie, I KNOW what anecdotal evidence means (in fact there are several definitions.) Keep reading and you might find the meaning it has in the context wherein I wrote it. Maybe it could be your word of the day today.
“there IS NO SUCH THING as a “truely unbiased view of the world.” There never was.””
Of course there is. To say otherwise is beyond foolish.
#
fleettwood
Posted January 2, 2009 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
“there IS NO SUCH THING as a “truely unbiased view of the world.” There never was.””
Of course there is. To say otherwise is beyond foolish.
__________________________________________
It’s beyond foolish to not answer your phone.
That is just plain silly. -brian_nuevo
Why? I can no more separate my personal biases, my personal rose-colored glasses, from what I see and hear than I can stop breathing. Neither can you. Everything you and I see and hear is processed though the filter of who we are, our experiences, our personal biases and outlooks.
The same is true for the news business. Just as neither you nor I can separate who we are from how we see the world, neither can reporters, or editors, or copy-proofers. They can try, and do, to greater or lesser degrees of success. But the bias is no less there. Reports who deny same simply lie to themselves (a skill human beings have much experience in, BTW).
Every editorial decision as to how much time to give a story, where to place it in the news slot (whether lead or buried later in the broadcase), the particular words used, etc., reflect a bias, conscious or unconscious. Often it’s quite subtle; the use of favorable word here, one tinged with a pejorative there. But it’s there.
Sometimes it’s obvious.
Try a little game. It’s called “Name that Party,” and it’s especially apropos with print media. When a Republican is caught with some corruption or scandal, the party label nearly always will be up front, right with the name. When a Democrat is the source of scandal, the party ID will often be buried in the story, if named at all. Try it; you’ll be surprised how often that is the case.
Denying bias exists is like denying the sun rises.
Should be “Reporters who deny same simply lie to themselves ”
Sorry. Poor editing on my part. I’ll punish myself later.
If you want what’s really news, you need to go beyond our borders.
News in this country is a pre-packaged product designed to sell to as many viewers as possible.
Pure Pablum.
And okobserver, I wasn’t making any indication as to the intellect of anybody. I watch both liberal and conservative news to get a more balanced idea of what’s going on.
I love Oberman for his comedic value. he cracks me up. Let’s not forget what ALL of these people are…talking heads.
The song came with 40 others on an album from conservative satirist Paul Shanklin, a personal friend of Saltsman. The song is a parody of a 2007 Los Angeles Times column of the same title and is written to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon.”
http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/12/magic_negro_flap_might_help_sa.html
————-
Maggot and Brian as you can see the term was coined by that liberal rag the LA Times. It was then made into a song by Paul Shanklin. Nowhere do I see FOX News as the source.
Maggot do you ever google? It helps to keep you from appearing uninformed.
X that is right. It helps if you just think of them as entertainment for that is what they are.
It helps if you just think of them as entertainment for that is what they are.
===========================
Russsssssssssh too?
Wow! Wouldn’t know that by the comments made by democrats in office!
If you want what’s really news, you need to go beyond our borders. News in this country is a pre-packaged product designed to sell to as many viewers as possible. – XXX
While that’s certainly true, is there any reason to think that news outside our borders is any different? Foreign news either 1) has the same commercial intent; i.e. to drive ratings and sell product, or 2) is the mouthpiece for a government. On balance, I’d say the latter is worse.
As Jefferson put it, “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
As many sources as possible is the best policy. Refusing to listen to a particular source because you dislike their point of view is simply willful blindness.
There may be many views, but only one set of facts.
There may be many views, but only one set of facts.
Theoretically. But this is the real world, where one’s ‘facts’ depend a great deal on the perspective one has.
okobserver whines,
“Maggot do you ever google? It helps to keep you from appearing uninformed.”
Funny, I posted a link which provides the video. Even when the facts are put before you plainly you still ignore them. Oh well, such is the refuge of the conservative mind.
There may be many views, but only one set of facts.
Bery interesting Berber. But stupid.
So Roach, Texas Tech really did win the game?
HARDEE-HAR-HAR, libs all bent outta shape by Foxnews.
No spin must be in!
We Report, You Decide must be devine!
Fair and balanced can’t be silenced!
Hannity and Colmes plays in millions of homes!
THE brightest unbiased!
Got’s the libs panties all twisted up over it.
It says a lot about Americans.
No surprise though.
It says a lot about Americans.
So what’s this say about you? Suggesting we nuke them all….
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/01/pro-con-did-israel-have-cause-to-launch-airstrikes/#comment-495405
Why I don’t like the Main Stream Media, any of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
And if you think it just stopped, you’re fooling yourself.
Oh brother, Pleefer is back with yet another kooky conspiracy theory.
Hearing of the Proclamation, more slaves quickly escaped to Union lines as the Army units moved South. As the Union armies conquered the Confederacy, thousands of slaves were freed each day until nearly all (approximately 4 million, according to the 1860 census) were freed by July 1865.
I generally watch countdown then switch to Hannity and Combs. If there is nothing else on the other cable news channels that catch my eye then I watch Fox. I did it once before but it is a good example of the differences in reporting. If two Senators went nuts with guns in the Senate. A Republican and a Democratic Senator the Democratic Senator killed 10 people before he is stopped. The Republican kills 25 people before his is stopped.
ABC states that two Senators pulled guns and killed 35 people before being stopped.
Fox states that a Liberal Senator killed 10 innocent victims and when a Conservative Senator tried to stop him with his own firearm. 25 people got in his way!
“good example of the differences in reporting”
Interesting comment. It’s like a cop investigating a robbery.
1st witness: Scared to death, fell to grown – but saw the suspect was wearing purple sneakers.
2nd witness: Noticed the car was an oldsmobile
3rd witness: Counted four of them and their skin color.
4th witness: Caught the license plate.
Piece it all together and you might have most of the story.
Some say Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are like that regarding the walk of Jesus.
For those who think all the commentators are fair and balanced, that is not their job; that is the job of an actual news reporter. The commentators actually are supposed to give their view of the news. Therefore, there will be individual opinion. That is why some of us watch both liberal and conservative news shows and liberal & conservative commentators.
Did you know that Media Matters chose Sean Hannity as “Mis-informer of the Year” for 2008.
If you are interested in seeing some of the items which led to Hannity’s “award,” google Media Matters & Hannity.
Dog you are just kidding of course. If you want to see someones party affiliation you had better watch FOX. Not so the networks or MSNBC.
BTW, I’m not keen on Fox or any of our manufactured media in the USA.
Half a million dead in Darfur and 2.5 million homeless displaced innocents. Hardly a word in the world press. Israel and Gaza pale in comparison.
We should ask ourselves why that is.
http://www.genocideindarfur.net/?gclid=CO-47OzN8ZcCFQrFGgodShAGCw
It makes sense that so many cons like Faux News…I mean, they like hearing only one side of everything and living in make-believe-land.
Well Fox is a Circus Soap Opera so no wonder so many people watch it, it’s just a form of entertainment. Nobody takes Fox seriously, I thought Fox News was a joke the first time I heard it a long long time ago, I thought it was just another one of their sitcom programs.
OKobserver some of Fox’s commentators do hit the nail on the head but only randomly. The problem with Fox is that they tend to dismiss and blame far to much to Liberals. It is the counter point to everyone that blame Bush for everything though he has no control over it. Oberman lost some of his creditability in my eyes because he to is one sided. The simple truth is that reality is not about Conservatives or Liberals when it comes to every minute action in the day.
On CNN and MSNBC, there are commentators whose politics I cannot guess.
CNN has Lou Dobbs for one. MSNBC had Tim Russert.
Faux “news” HAS no such person. They are each and everyone of them cons.
BlueJay,
I find Lou Dobbs to be a “regular” conservative but not a rabid one. He seems pretty serious in his manner of presentation. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I disagree. I guess that makes him a 50-50 guy in my view.
Wolf Blitzer tries not to show too much of his personal feelings but once in awhile, they leak through. I still haven’t decided where he stands on several subjects.
The only thing more real than Fox news is the Jerry Springer show!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!
What I think is sad is that so many STUPID people think Fox news is real news!! It’s nothing but a forum for Rupert Murdoch’s political views.
Jesus, talk about gullible…
The issue with most “news programs” like Fox, Rush, Oberman.. is that they aren’t really NEWS. They are “entertainment” that is packaged to appear as a newscast. I suppose it’s a reflection on the viewers or listeners should they decide to attach feelings of factual importance to what they see and hear.
The “Americans want it fast, cheap” WEBlog thread could also apply to news and information. USA Today makes money on McNews; just enough content to let you know you’ve read something but not enough depth to help you form an independent opinion. Why? Because our society can’t turn a page without derailing the train of thought.
Purveyors of “real” news like the Christian Science Monitor get rewarded with plummeting sales and circulation until they cease print publication. Reading, thinking, and considering, and the results thereof, are not seen as having value by a significant percentage of consuming Americans. Those of us who do will find our sources gradually disappearing or drifting into dubious credibility.
Have fun, kids!
I’d have to disagree with you regarding USA Today, Mr. Lingo.
“just enough content to let you know you’ve read something but not enough depth to help you form an independent opinion.”
——
That is the beginning. From there you read as many sources as you can find in order to form your opinion. There has to be a beginning and USA Today does an excellent job of touching on most news.
I listen to NPR.
I listen and read NPR too. My other daily stops are Rueters, Boston Globe, Washington Post, BBC News, and Google News. From each of those I find other news destinations.
I also like the BBC. I used to watch World News International, but my cable service no longer offers it. It was the best, most objective news source I’ve ever seen.
NPR and the BBC ? — no wonder ! — is that it Caruso ? — people who observe only 1 or 2 “news” sources I would consider brain-washed — sad — very very sad — man !! talk about preped-filtered-liberal-canned-biased “news” — LOL