Ugh. Just ugh.

@georgeob1,

It tells me that most of the public is conservative (sad to say)

@Advocate,

Quote:

It tells me that most of the public is conservative (sad to say)

No it doesn't. It tells you that most of the people who listen to talk radio are conservative. This is not the same thing as "the public" at all.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Well the liberals started one - with much publicity and fanfare, as well as significant start-up funding. However it bombed. What does that tell you?

It tells anyone with an ounce of common sense, that liberals are bright enough to think for themselves. That they don't need to be coached and given little memes to memorize and spout in postings and emails.

It tells anyone with half a brain that they don't need idiots like Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, with brains the size of gnats, to fill their heads with all manner of falsehood about the constitution or the law, to act as lead cheerleader for a bunch of dolts.

Odd that that would have to be explained to you, Gob1.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
It tells me that most of the public is conservative (sad to say)

No it doesn't. It tells you that most of the people who listen to talk radio are conservative. This is not the same thing as "the public" at all.

You exclude from "the public" radio listeners; you also have to exclude TV viewers, since Fox news makes almost 4 times the advertising revenue of MSNBC. So therefore, according to you, "the public" never watches TV or listens to radio. That narrows it down considerably <G>

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Come on High Seas,

"The public" is over 300 million people (270 million if you just count adults). Fox News has about 7 million viewers.

Do you understand why using this number to determine anything about "the public" is mathematically bogus?

FWIW, Dancing with the Stars has 12 million viewers.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Come on High Seas,....
Do you understand why using this number to determine anything about "the public" is mathematically bogus?

The population number you use is "mathematically bogus", being irrelevant; the number I'm using is US dollars. Read the source: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/cable_tv_economics.php

http://c2440732.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/piles-of-cash.jpg

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

It tells me that most of the public is conservative (sad to say)

Most of the US population is Conservative (happy to say the numbers are growing)

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Really now. You want to play dollars , High Seas?

Remember we are talking about how these figures give us any understanding of the American public. Their viewership is a very non-random sample (i.e. their viewers represent a specific demographic) that is fewer than 3% of Americans.

With dollars, the impact is even less significant.

Fox's impact in dollars is even more insignificant then their impact on eyeballs. From your link, Fox News pulls in $538.4 million. How does this rather insignificant part of our economy say anything about us?

We spend twice this on Budweiser. Silly Bandz do almost half this amount. Of course all this is dwarfed by the $10 billion we spend on pornography.

Arguing the Fox News sales figures mean anything about the public at large is bogus.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Arguing the Fox News sales figures mean anything about the public at large is bogus.

You don't even know the difference between "sales" and "advertising revenues" - and you have an opinion on the subset(s) of the population(s) targeted by political ads?! Your ignorance on market segmentation is too overwhelmingly vast to be cured in a couple of forum posts - however I'm delighted to see it and only hope it is shared by many others of your political persuasion. Thanks to California passing prop 20 and trouncing prop 27, CA is now immune to the gerrymandering plague afflicting the rest of the electorate. If you want to educate yourself on the relevant metrics start tracking the number of Democrats suddenly starting to fight redistricting. No, really - do it.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas, your use of facts and logic is troubling to liberals.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Yes, I've been noticing that for a while now. Thanks to another thread even found out examples of liberal solutions to math problems:

http://www.galleryhosted.com/media/images/original/85733332simplicity.jpg

0 Replies

@High Seas,

While your "argument" wasn't very compelling, the picture was all that was needed. It was highly pertinent, in the manner of a grade school student puffing up a report, but the thing that amazed the most was how compelling it made your "argument".

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Hey, by and large you liberals own the media. You should be celebrating it and yet you always want to deny it and at the same time exaggerate the influence of Fox.

Leaving aside the idiocy of the rest of your bullshit contentions in this post, i would point out to you that in the thread about the Haitian earthquake, you were quick to point out that Fox has the largest share of the television news market. Now you want to claim that their influence is exaggerated. But hey, whatever horseshit you can peddle in the name of your political partisanship, right?

I think you will find that I pointed out that Fox had the largest share of cable television news. If I didn't, I was clearly in error.

It remains the case that the rabid Fox detractors whether on Media-Matters or here in this forum still exaggerate the extent and nature of its influence.

And to save you some keystrokes that you can put to use on another spasm of vitriol elsewhere, I concede that you consider this response to be manure of one sort or the other.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

You will never be able to establish that i am a "rabid Fox detractor," that's must another example of your snide, over-the-top rhetoric. As for spreading vitriol, that's your stock in trade, not mine. Although you certainly do spread manure faster than a farmer, the point, which you are attempting to side-step, is that you want to portray Fox as having great influence when it suits your position, and to downplay that influence when it doesn't. Hypocrite.

2 Replies

By the way, i believe that Fox has the largest share of the broadcast news market. Let's go check.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

As for spreading vitriol, that's your stock in trade, not mine.

This kinda got lost there among your vitriolic vitriole, Set.

0 Replies

From the Wikipedia article on the Fox News Channel:

Quote:

FNC saw a large jump in ratings during the early stages of the Iraq conflict. By some reports, at the height of the conflict Fox News had as much as a 300 percent increase in viewership, averaging 3.3 million viewers daily.[30]

In 2004, FNC's ratings for its broadcast of the Republican National Convention beat those of all three broadcast networks. During President George W. Bush's address, Fox News notched 7.3 million viewers nationally, while NBC, CBS, and ABC scored ratings of 5.9, 5.0, and 5.1, respectively.

In late 2005 and early 2006, FNC saw a brief decline in ratings. One notable decline came in the second quarter of 2006 when Fox News lost viewers for every single prime time program, when compared to the previous quarter. The total audience for Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, dropped 19 percent. However, several weeks later, in the wake of the North Korean Missile Crisis and the 2006 Lebanon War, Fox saw a surge in viewership and remained the #1 rated cable news channel.[31][32] Fox still held eight of the ten most-watched nightly cable news shows, with The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes] coming in first and second places, respectively.[33]

FNC ranked #8 for all cable channels in 2006 and #6 in 2007.[34] The news channel surged to #1 during the week of Barack Obama's election (November 3–9) in 2008 and reached the top spot again in January 2010 during the week of the special Senate election in Massachusetts.[35] Comparing Fox to its 24-hour news channel competitors, for the month of May 2010 the channel drew an average daily prime time audience of 1.8 million versus 747 000 for MSNBC and 595 000 for CNN.[36]

In September 2009, the Pew Research Center published a report on public views toward various national news organizations. This report indicated that 72% of Republican Fox viewers rated the channel as "favorable", and 43% of Democrat viewers and 55% of all viewers share this opinion. However, Fox had the highest unfavorable rating of all national outlets studied at 25 percent of all viewers. The report goes on to say that "partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007".[37]

In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[38][39] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only channel to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the news channel, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score.[40]

I left in the footnote citations to demonstrate that one can check the sources used in the article.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

And the Lord be with you too Pooch

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I see--then you don't have a response to the accusation i made against you. No surprise there.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I see--then you don't have a response to the accusation i made against you. No surprise there.

You're right...yet again!

0 Replies

Ugh. Just ugh.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know