In depth video that breaks down/analyzes FOX news tactics

I wonder why their ratings are so high?

McGentrix wrote:

I wonder why their ratings are so high?

Because they sell entertainment.

Slackers at Fox News Channel, you're on notice! Your boss is not pleased. Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes is on the warpath following his network's recent ratings slump, and he won't hesitate to clean house to turn things around.

So far during the second quarter, the No. 1 cable news channel's primetime schedule has dropped 22% in its core 25-54 demo and 8% in total viewers. The first quarter was even worse.

Chief rival CNN has also dipped in recent weeks, but less dramatically, off 18% in the demo and 2% in total viewers.

Insiders say that, even though Fox News remains No. 1, Ailes is fuming over the complacency he senses among staffers.

Production values are slipping, and bookers aren't competitive enough, relying too heavily on the same pool of faces and settling for authors or actors after they've already been on CNN or … gasp … MSNBC.

A full-page "Now Hiring" ad that ran recently in a trade magazine asked, "Can you make the cut?" Says one Fox staffer, that question was not addressed to outside applicants: "That was aimed inside."

Commenting through a spokesman last week, Ailes left no doubt: "Anyone who displays launch-type intensity will continue to have a job at Fox News. Those who don't will not. And that includes talent."

But friends like Justan, Drew, and Amigo would have us believe that they are the only TV news outlet that is.
....
Said fellows will argue ad nauseum that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NPR, PBS, ABC and CBS et al are not biased, but Man they got it right about Fox!

This drives Justan et al mad, because they believe their biased news sources are unbiased, and damnation, they are not about to give an inch to members of the other effin tribe (Conservatives)!

What we all should be clamouring for is an unbiased source of news. Wouldn't it be great? We'll never get it though because for all the self-important protestations of journalists, almost none of them put the plain truth above their personal interpretations.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

But friends like Justan, Drew, and Amigo would have us believe that they are the only TV news outlet that is.
....
Said fellows will argue ad nauseum that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NPR, PBS, ABC and CBS et al are not biased, but Man they got it right about Fox!

Not exactly. I can't speak for others, but my main problem is to the degree that FOX slants their news. Clearly, people are people, and as hard as one might want a news source to be completely unbiased, that's just not going to happen.
The biggest problem here is how FOX seems to go out of their way to influence their viewers and be a mouthpiece for the administration. There have been organizations that investigated FOX's tactics (similar to the linked vid) that make it clear how FOX violates journalistic standards regularly and to an absurd degree. Their interviews with "experts" has something along the lines of an 80% conservative to 20% "liberal" ratio.

Do you really believe that there aren't similar studies available that paint the same extreme picture about the NY Times or ABC?

Selective outrage is pretty feeble.


You seem to want to say they are all bastards but FOX is really and truly bastards. Even if this were the case, with which I do not agree, does it really make sense to focus on FOX to the exclusion of the other media outlets? Is your argument that the Liberal media is biased, but not so blatantly as FOX?


They consistently use "some say" to insert editorial comments during what is supposed to be a serious news delivery. The line between editorials and newscasts is so blurred that people can't tell the difference anymore.

Is this really your big gun? That they consistenlty use "some say?"

This is beyond irresponsible. This is boarderline dangerous. Not in the "physical harm" sense, but in the sense that it polarizes political understanding in the country in a way that makes the opinions relied on not based on FACTUAL information, but based on slanted misinformation, and thus makes it damn near impossible for people to really engage in honest political debate. Just look at the percentage of people who actually believed we discovered "WMD" in Iraq. Fox viewers were at the top of the list. How can you engage in a real debate with someone when they are relying on false/misinformation?

And there is not a reciprocal group that relies on the NY Times for all of its facts? Of course this doesn't bother you because you believe that while FOX is venal, the Times is absolutely objective.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

This drives Justan et al mad, because they believe their biased news sources are unbiased, and damnation, they are not about to give an inch to members of the other effin tribe (Conservatives)!

You've read what I said above, but I just wanted to add that no other news source goes to such ends to provide misinformation. FOX is truly in a league all their own.

Nonsense.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

What we all should be clamouring for is an unbiased source of news. Wouldn't it be great? We'll never get it though because for all the self-important protestations of journalists, almost none of them put the plain truth above their personal interpretations.

I don't know about you, but I find that a combination of CNN and the BBC words pretty well. After those two, I skim over various other sources (right and left "slanted") and usually I can get a strong grasp of the issue. The only problem is that most Americans just don't have the time to do this.

I am happy to learn that you seek multiple sources of information upon which to base your opinion, but to suggest that CNN and the BBC are not biased is, frankly, ludicrous. The BBC may not view the world with an American slant but it is far more inclinded toward left-wing than CNN.

There are no unbiased new sources of which I am aware. None.

Watch or read the source with the bias with which you are comfortable, but don't for a moment believe that they are providing you with the unadulterated truth. None of them do.

Anyway, I can see you stand on the other side of many of the issues than myself. Thanks for actually presenting your arguments is a reasonable manner. Good to have someone on A2K who can offer the more conservative side of an issue without coming off like a complete kneejerk tool.

(We all know who I'm talking about, we've read their posts )

Sometimes I am considered reasonable and sometimes I am considered a kneejerk tool. It really doesn't matter here in cyberspace or in the real world for that matter. To the extent that you are willing to consider an alternative perspective, I am happy to engage you in a reasonable manner.

Again, I am assumingyou are "young." I was young once. That I am no longer young doesn't in and of itself mean that I am wise. What it does mean is that I have had decades more than you and the young to think about these issues and to match them up against my experiences. This, of course, doesn't insure that I am correct in my positions, but given the way the world works, it's a better bet that, in general, that the oldsters have a better realization of life than the youngsters.

We need the young to challenge the suppositions of the old, but don't make the mistake that the suppositions of the old are all conservative. There are plenty of geezers spouting Leftist crap, and despite what they might hope it makes them no younger than me.