Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Every Time I Come Around Your City Previous entry: More know-nothing racist yapping from Pat Buchanan

Why you can’t really compare Fox News to news networks

This is something that’s more than a little disturbing, especially in light of the role that Fox News has played in painting the target on the back of a man that a devout right wing nut then went and murdered.  It seems that rain or shine, in power or out, Fox News has steady ratings.  Worse, they continue to beat MSNBC and CNN in the ratings game, which is just going to make those news channels start to fantasize again about grabbing a piece of that for themselves by getting all wingnutty.  Which doesn’t work out as well as they’d hope.  Though, I suppose it works out for MSNBC to have a host who was a pro-bono defender of another domestic terrorist, as long as he keeps it quiet.

Anyway, MSNBC and CNN are being victimized by the huge ratings dip that you get after an election, but Fox News isn’t.  It’s hard to account for this, but I figured I’d kick around some theories and ask the Pandagonians to suggest some more.  Any of these theories could be a contributing factor—-often a phenomenon like this has multiple causes, so one doesn’t preclude the other.

Liberals and moderates have a life.  People want to be up on events and good citizens, but that shit is time-consuming.  And it’s especially so when the economy is tanking and people are scrambling harder than ever to keep up.  With that in mind, people want to spend their free time reading, watching entertainment-oriented TV, listening to music, having sex, spending time with family, or playing video games.  During an election season, people devote some of their precious free time to following the election, but when that’s not pressing, politics gets short shrift. 

But let’s face it: In an already anti-intellectual American culture, Fox News still sticks out as even less cultured, indicating that they’re pandering pretty hard to the people who don’t have the brain muscle to bother spending their free time on past times that might strain their brain.  I’m not saying that the people switching off Rachel Maddow to do other things will be using that time to read 19th century classics or anything, but they’ll probably feel the pull of entertainments that confound the morons who watch Fox News.  “30 Rock” and “Mad Men” are just too high brow for a lot of our countrymen, I’m afraid.

Moreover, the sort of people who watch a lot of Fox News buy into the alarmist conservative line that the outside world is too crime-ridden and full of scary minorities to risk leaving the house.  So they don’t get out as much, even when the weather is warm and practically begging you to go out into it.

Liberals and moderates have a broader view of politics than just keeping up with the TV news.  During an election season, the TV feels very important, because things can change so quickly that it feels like the most immediate medium.  Plus, everyone’s versed in the idea that the personability of the candidates are important, so you flip on the TV to experience how they sound, and what their mannerisms are like.  In lieu of actually seeing a candidate speak, in other words, you can see them on TV.  In a non-election season, however, the internet, newspaper, and books—-text-based sources, mostly—-seem to be more than enough.  Better in a lot of ways, because you get a deeper sense of the issues.  (This is true for me, at least.  Non-election season means I pretty much never watch the news on TV, except for short clips on the internet.) 

Fox News isn’t affected by this, because people don’t tune in to keep up with the issues.  You’re probably stupider after you watch it, anyway.  They tune in because it’s a 24/7 Two Minute Hate, and they get off on that.  This won’t be affected or disturbed by their non-existent need to diversify.  Which leads me to my third theory of why Fox News doesn’t get the ratings dip….

Fox News isn’t really a news station, and it’s unfair to compare it to the others.  This is painful to say, because it’s not like CNN and MSNBC are reading Edward R. Murrow levels any time soon (except perhaps Rachel Maddow).  But they are still news stations.  You watch them, and there will be some news, some analysis, and not too many bikinis.  But Fox News isn’t about the news.  The news is featured, often in weird and badly spun ways, but the point of Fox News is not the news.  It’s a propaganda station that also tries to entertain you with a whole lot of cheesecake, as this video demonstrates:

Granted, the toxic mix of a loud sound effects, constant screen movement, T&A, alarmist bullshit about nothing, and bigotry isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, entertainment-wise.  But it’s enough for a lot of people.  But it isn’t news, and comparing its ratings to news is unfair.  Its ratings should be compared to those of reality dating shows, which trade in the same T&A, race-baiting and scare-mongering, but just more honestly.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:33 PM • (69) Comments

There’s also this possibility:  the liberal/independent news audience splits itself between MSNBC, CNN, and the networks, but the wingnuts will only watch FOX News lest they accidentally stumble across a fact.  That’s why CNN and MSNBC generally lose ratings when they try to tilt to the right—not only do they not attract the loyal FOX viewers, they lose some of their liberal/independent viewers.

Comment #1: Mnemosyne  on  06/04  at  07:13 PM

Very well said. I’d expand a couple of your sub-points into another bold-face one, because it’s a major difference that deserves to be highlighted: Liberals and Moderates Read Books.

Funny thing is, I interviewed for a junior producer position at Fox News down in Charlotte, NC way back in 1991, when it was intended to be a low-cost distribution/packaging service and outlet for pieces from local Fox affiliates. The mission at the time definitely wasn’t to be the propaganda organ for the neoConservative movement—I believe that came along only as recently as the advent of the Cheney administration. I doubt that the guy I interviewed with, Paul Amos, would recognise it as the same cable channel he was running at the time.

Then again, the CNN I worked for 20 years ago isn’t the same CNN that exists today. I highly doubt that Time-Warner executives would be personally cheering on their beleaguered correspondents in Beijing over the wire the way Ted Turner was back then.

Comment #2: Gracchus.  on  06/04  at  07:30 PM

Over a period of many years Fox News has honed a self-reinforcing world view that is both addictive and insular to its audience—a “captive audience” in a very real sense. They’ve pursued their audience single-mindedly. I doubt there is much that could shake many of them loose from their daily Fox Fix.

Comment #3: weirdnoise  on  06/04  at  07:38 PM

Here’s a thought—some liberals opt out of TV all together, and that’s directly related to being liberal.  If you are conservative of the types we’ve got lying around, Bigger! Faster! Louder! More! conspicuous consumption is key.  So not only having a television, but having a huge expensive one, with all the channels ever, as the focal point of your living space might be very important.  Even if you don’t actually have enough disposable income to justify it, the conservative might feel the need to keep up with the Joneses.  But if you are a liberal, and have other values, you might have a TV but never watch it, or not have one at all, especially if you’re a broke liberal.

Comment #4: rowmyboat  on  06/04  at  07:40 PM

It may also be that the wingnuts are working themselves into more of a frenzy now having lost the presidential election.  So they are obsessing over hearing about everything wrong with Obama, and FOX is the major TV source for that stuff.  Meanwhile, the average moderate or liberal feels less need to be engaged now that President Obama is in office. Just a thought . . .

Frighteningly, Obama’s election may have precipitated Dr. Tiller’s assassination.  There was a strong piece I can’t seem to find now (RH Reality Check maybe?) pointing out that the worst of the anti-abortion violence occurred during the Clinton administration and now it seems to be starting again in the Obama administration.  The wingnuts are more energized when a liberal president is in power—that can manifest itself in more violence or in watching more Fox news, or both!

Comment #5: Laurie  on  06/04  at  07:40 PM

The Faux News Channel was started in ‘96 when Murdoch brought on Roger Ailes—as I recall they were a joke from the beginning, subsidized by Murdoch while it lost money for years, but it still managed to elevate the screeching against Clinton that led to his impeachment.

Personally I’ve never considered Faux a news channel, so I’m leaning heavily on the last explanation. But I expect the other theories are valid factors to some extent as well.

Comment #6: Geocrackr  on  06/04  at  07:41 PM

You’re just making this way too complicated.  If your entire viewership was composed of old white guys who weren’t getting any; you’d run Hooter segments too.

Comment #7: Magis  on  06/04  at  07:43 PM

Gracchus, I don’t think Fox’s focus, even today, is to be a propaganda outlet. They just know from long experience what their audience wants and the ecosystem they inhabit. CNN and others are tied, however weakly, to some form of journalistic ethics. Fox just works hard to give its audience what it wants.

Comment #8: weirdnoise  on  06/04  at  07:46 PM

It may also be that the wingnuts are working themselves into more of a frenzy now having lost the presidential election.  So they are obsessing over hearing about everything wrong with Obama, and FOX is the major TV source for that stuff.  Meanwhile, the average moderate or liberal feels less need to be engaged now that President Obama is in office. Just a thought . .

I think you’ve got it there.  That’s my belief.

Comment #9: Lady Vader  on  06/04  at  07:48 PM

One other factor you didn’t list - while the Republican base gets smaller and smaller by the day, they are much more ideologically aligned than the rapidly expanding Democratic base.  As such, their tastes in TV news consumption will probably line up a lot more homogenously than the tastes of their Democratic counterparts.  So sure, Fox News beats any one single other TV news outlet, but does it beat ALL of the other TV news outlets combined?  I’m inlcuding not just CNN and MSNBC, but also ABC and CBS in that mix.  Since every network that isn’t Fox News has been effectively branded as “liberal” (ha!) among the wingnut base, it could be that while Fox News has consolidated the 28% of the country that is wingnut into their viewership, the other 72% divides their viewing habits among all of the other TV news outlets, such that none of them are able to get a ratings pie slice as big as Fox News, though collectively they probably trounce them.

I saw a report somewhere the other day that indicated the 9 out of 10 Fox News viewers identified themselves as Republican, whereas the viewership on the other networks, while leaning Democratic, was not nearly so homogenous in its party identification, with a fairly big mix of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents among their viewers.

Comment #10: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  07:56 PM

Gracchus, I don’t think Fox’s focus, even today, is to be a propaganda outlet.

I’d disagree—as Geocrackr notes, Ailes sold Murdoch on the idea that this channel (which basically lay moribund between 1993 and 1996) could be useful to the latter’s neoCon agenda. The various Clinton scandals and pseudo-scandals offered them the opportunity to try out opposition propaganda, but it took a neoCon administration to allow Faux to achieve its full potential as the propaganda arm of American conservatism.

This is why people are worried about Murdoch’s acquisition of the WSJ—it’s one thing when the propaganda is limited to the op-ed pages, but it’s quite another when it starts seeping into the hard news.

Fox just works hard to give its audience what it wants.

Fox just works hard to give its owners and fellow conservative ideologues what they want: an audience of Know-Nothings that will consistently and un-thinkingly support their agenda. Not surprisingly a little T&A;goes along with that mission.

Comment #11: Gracchus.  on  06/04  at  07:59 PM

I think Laurie has it right.  It’s like the phenomenon in millenial cults:

- Charismatic leader makes a small group pf people believe the world will end in 1846.
- It’s 1847.  World hasn’t ended.
- The small group, rather than disbanding and going home actually becomes more committed to their belief system, rationalizes convoluted confirmations of their claims, and starts proselytizing like crazy. 

Psychologists call it “social confirmation” - when their beliefs are shown to be wrong, rather than changing their minds many people seek out others who believe the same thing.  The mutual reinforcement is comforting.  Converting others to the false belief wins bonus points (“Someone who didn’t think this way before now thinks the way I do - it must be right after all!”).

Comment #12: BABH  on  06/04  at  08:13 PM

Funny thing is, I interviewed for a junior producer position at Fox News down in Charlotte, NC way back in 1991

Did you interview for a local affiliate or the “News Channel”?  Fox News Channel didn’t exist until 1996.

Comment #13: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  08:22 PM

“News Channel.” It did exist, but in the very different form I mentioned above. Gotta go, but I’ll expand later if you like.

Comment #14: Gracchus.  on  06/04  at  08:32 PM

Fox News isn’t affected by this, because people don’t tune in to keep up with the issues.  You’re probably stupider after you watch it, anyway.  They tune in because it’s a 24/7 Two Minute Hate, and they get off on that.

My parents do this all the time—tune in for the Hate, I mean. Typically when I come home from work, they’ve got the whole marathon going—the “news,” Bill-O, Hannity.

Being hearing-impaired, and since my mother hates to have the closed-captioning on, I pretty much tune it out. If I thought there was any value in following it, I’d insist on turning the captions on, but I’m happy not to when it’s tuned in to Fox…

But here’s a funny thing—there is one word or phrase they repeat a lot, like a mantra.

“Obama… Obama… Barack Obama…President Obama…Barack Obama..President Barack Obama…Obama…”

I’m kind of like the dog in the Far Side cartoon—“what we say to dogs versus what they hear…” except that it isn’t my name I’m hearing.

Funny. Because when Bush was President, the last thing I wanted to hear over and over was “Bush Bush Bush…” Frankly I preferred to forget about him whenever I reasonably could.

That is one weird mindset they’ve got on the Right.

Comment #15: Mark Foxwell  on  06/04  at  08:35 PM

This is why people are worried about Murdoch’s acquisition of the WSJ—it’s one thing when the propaganda is limited to the op-ed pages, but it’s quite another when it starts seeping into the hard news.

The size of Murdoch’s media empire is truly frightening.  Everyone knows about his ownership of Fox News, but in addition he also owns:

Television

Fox Broadcasting Company

-Fox Television Stations

WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WTVT - Tampa
WHBQ - Memphis
KTBC - Austin

-DBS & Cable

FOXTEL
BSkyB
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.

Film

20th Century Fox Español
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios Baja
Fox Studios LA
20th Century Fox
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios

Newspapers

-United States

New York Post
The Wall St. Journal
Dow Jones

-United Kingdom

News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Literary Supplement

-Australasia

Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times

Magazines

InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
Big League
ALPHA

Books

HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Avon A
Avon Inspire
Avon Red
Collins
Collins Design
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
Harper Mass Market
Harper Pakerbacks
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Perennial
Perennial Modern Classics
HarperCollins e-Books
HarperLuxe
Rayo
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks

Children’s Books Group

Amistad
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children’s Books
HarperFestival
HarperTeen
Katherine Tegen Books
Julie Andrews Books
Rayo
Trophy

HarperCollins International

HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins India
HarperCollins New Zealand
Zondervan

Other

Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Scout Media
Rotten Tomatoes
AskMen
FoxSports.net
WhatIfSports
kSolo
Fox.com
AmericanIdol.com
Spring Widgets
News Digital Media
News.com.au
FoxSports.com.au
CARSguide.com.au
Careerone.com.au
Truelocal.com.au


http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp

Comment #16: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  08:36 PM

Most of the regular CNN viewers I know don’t especially like CNN, it’s just the ‘not-Fox” network.  there’s not much brand loyalty there.  The Faux viewers though, as has already noted, are devout.

Comment #17: Woodrowfan  on  06/04  at  08:37 PM

DTG in STL: I saw a report somewhere the other day that indicated the 9 out of 10 Fox News viewers identified themselves as Republican

That’s interesting. I wonder of that 9 out of 10 is comprised of people who choose to watch Fox News, or if it also includes captive audiences. Many of the gyms, waiting rooms, bars, restaurants, and other places with public TVs around here are tuned to Fox News. Sometimes you can’t help but look, and if, for example, you’re waiting a hour for a doctor’s appointment, you suddenly become a Fox News viewer whether you like it or not.

Comment #18: cycles  on  06/04  at  08:37 PM

I have noticed that when I leave Northern Virginia that the Tvs in public places generally seem to be tuned to Faux (except in Atlanta).  Around where I live it’s divided between CNN, MSNBC and ESPN.  You go past, oh, maybe Woodbridge, and it’s all Faux.

Comment #19: Woodrowfan  on  06/04  at  08:41 PM

“News Channel.” It did exist, but in the very different form I mentioned above. Gotta go, but I’ll expand later if you like.

Please do, I’d be curious.  Every article I’ve ever read on them, including on the corporate website for News Corp, lists their broadcast launch date as October 7, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news_channel

I certainly have no recollection of their existence prior to that…

Comment #20: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  08:43 PM

From the Fox News wiki:

In May 1985, Australian publisher Rupert Murdoch announced that he and American industrialist and philanthropist Marvin Davis intend to develop “a network of independent stations as a fourth marketing force” to compete directly with CBS, NBC and ABC through the purchase of six television stations then owned by Metromedia. In July 1985, 20th Century Fox announced that publisher Rupert Murdoch had completed his purchase of 50 percent of Fox Filmed Entertainment, the parent company of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation. A year later, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. earned $5.6 million in its fiscal third period ended May 31, 1986, in contrast to a loss of $55.8 million in the year-earlier period.

Prior to founding Fox News, Murdoch had gained significant experience in the 24-hour news business when News Corp.‘s BSkyB subsidiary started Europe’s first 24 hour news channel, Sky News, in the United Kingdom in 1989. With the success of his fourth network efforts in the United States, experience gained from Sky News, and turnaround of 20th Century Fox, Murdoch announced on January 31, 1996 that News Corp. would be launching a 24-hour news channel to air on both cable and satellite systems as part of a News Corp. “worldwide platform” for Fox programming, reasoning that “The appetite for news - particularly news that explains to people how it affects them - is expanding enormously.”

Exterior of the Fox News Channel studios in New York CityIn February 1996, after well-known former NBC executive and Republican political strategist Roger Ailes left America’s Talking (now MSNBC), Murdoch called him to start the Fox News Channel. Ailes worked individuals through five months of 14-hour workdays and several weeks of rehearsal shows before launch, on October 7, 1996.

At launch, only 10 million households were able to watch Fox News, with none in the major media markets of New York City and Los Angeles. According to published reports, many media reviewers had to watch the first day’s programming at Fox News studios because it was not readily available. The rolling news coverage during the day consisted of 20-minute single topic shows like Fox on Crime or Fox on Politics surrounded by news headlines. Interviews had various facts at the bottom of the screen about the topic or the guest. The flagship newscast at the time was called The Schneider Report, with Mike Schneider giving a fast paced delivery of the news. During the evening, Fox had opinion shows: The O’Reilly Report (now, The O’Reilly Factor), The Crier Report hosted by Catherine Crier, and Hannity & Colmes.

Comment #21: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  08:45 PM

That’s interesting. I wonder of that 9 out of 10 is comprised of people who choose to watch Fox News, or if it also includes captive audiences. Many of the gyms, waiting rooms, bars, restaurants, and other places with public TVs around here are tuned to Fox News. Sometimes you can’t help but look, and if, for example, you’re waiting a hour for a doctor’s appointment, you suddenly become a Fox News viewer whether you like it or not.

Probably doesn’t include the viewership in public places, because Nielsen Media Research only measures viewership in actual homes.

Comment #22: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  08:49 PM

I think another reason might be that Fox news is unabashedly conservative,  while CNN and MSNBC try to be balanced. It’s king of irritating that whenever “our” networks talk about gay issues, they always have to have some rabid homophobe on as a counterpoint, no matter who wacky, or untrue their points are. Works that way with lots of issues. For me, I’m way past all that crap, and I don’t really care to watch it anymore. I want to hear the FACTS. Not some crazy wackjob refute the facts. So that’s one of the major reasons I don’t often tune in to CNN or MSNBC. Too conservative for my tastes.

Comment #23: acoolerclimate  on  06/04  at  08:58 PM

I remember reading some time ago that someone had sued Fox News for lying to them, and a judge ruled that Fox News wasn’t a news channel, it was an entertainment station, and so Fox didn’t owe them any money.  So my vote goes with “fox news not actually news.”

Comment #24: Siobhan  on  06/04  at  09:00 PM

I second that liberals are less likely to have and consume television, whether cable or otherwise.  A fair number of liberals I know don’t have TV, haven’t in years, and haven’t missed it at all.  I’m in that bunch; I don’t know what to do when I have a TV on in front of me, and will often simply pick up a book rather than flipping through the channels at my parents’ place.  (Fortunately enough, they’re not crazy right-wingers - they’re rather apolitical - and so I don’t have to deal with the Fox noise machine even when I’m there.)

I infinitely prefer the internet for news, and use Twitter and Facebook and monitor blogs to keep abreast of developments.  I also listen to Maddow’s podcast regularly and Olbermann’s more infrequently.

Comment #25: Atheist Feminazi  on  06/04  at  09:04 PM

I think the reason Fox is doing so well is akin to the reason why subscriptions to The Nation magazine never fail to go up when there’s a Republican administration. Which is simply that the party or ideology that has fallen out of favor and has been shut out of political power needs some sort of vehicle or institution where its adherents can go, talk to like-minded folks, and keep the faith alive.

Keeping in contact with those kinds of institutions don’t feel so important when you’re winning, and your party basically controls things.  But when, all of a sudden, you no longer see your guys pushing the political agenda, controlling the political debate, voicing your viewpoints on TV—or at least, when their presence is diminished, because they’re forced to share the stage with the opposition—well, those are the times when your party’s, or your ideology’s, journals, blogs, television and radio shows, activist groups, etc., seem more vital.

I know that, for me personally, the liberal blogs seemed most necessary during the darkest days of the Bush administration, particularly following the 2004 election. Reading the liberal blogs helped me feel less alone and helped me believe that, even though we liberals were completely marginalized and things seemed totally desperate, there were plenty of other people out there like me, and that one of these days, the country would return to sanity, and liberalism would be back.

Which, strangely enough, is exactly what happened.

The weakness of this parallel, though, is that while liberals really were almost totally silenced and marginalized during this period, at least in mainstream media outlets, these days, the wingnuts tend to be vastly overrepresented.

But conservatives, I think, are more insecure than liberals, and they thrive on the fantasy that they’re being persecuted. They experience any reasonably honest reporting or fair debate as “liberal bias,” so they feel a much more urgent need need for blatant propaganda organs like Fox.

Also, conservatism, especially these days, is mostly pretty counter-intuitive—at least for those of us living in the reality-based community. So conservatives need much heavier doses of propaganda to keep their political faith alive.

Comment #26: Kathy G.  on  06/04  at  09:06 PM

The weakness of this parallel, though, is that while liberals really were almost totally silenced and marginalized during this period, at least in mainstream media outlets, these days, the wingnuts tend to be vastly overrepresented.

That’s because they have a very well-oiled, centrally controlled, top-down and extremely loud noise machine.

But you know what? The noise machine became so good it drowned out reality! This has been their complete undoing and it’s why they haven’t been able to be an effective opposition party.

Comment #27: Ben D.  on  06/04  at  09:30 PM

not to threadjack, and i hope i’m not, but along these lines, i noticed something on facebook a few minutes ago.  i was on the profile page of an acquaintance from childhood who i haven’t spoken to in many years.  i noticed that she belonged to a group called “LIFE - let’s see how many pro-life people are on facebook.”  of course, my first reaction was “ew, they got to her too!”, but then i was just too tempted and clicked on the page for the group.

along the right, there’s a box for “see related groups.”  i’m not sure how this is constructed, so if anyone has any insight as to the mechanism by which groups show up in the “related” box for a group, please enlighten me.  my theory is that they are groups that a lot of people in the displayed group are also members of.

anyway, the related groups for LIFE included 2 christian groups (duh), but also a group entitled “petition against the new facebook” and “we will not pay to use facebook. need as many members as possible to stop this.”

now, for those unfamiliar with facebook, it’s made some major changes over the course of its existence, one such overhaul being a move to what was known as “new facebook.”  i remember a lot of people joining this group to petition against it and generally being unhappy with the new page.  however, i was struck by how many people just seemed flat-out resistant to change tot he site at all.  an INTERNET site.  changing to try out new features. the horror!  now, regardless of the merits of “new facebook”, which has since been overhauled at least a few times since then, with arguably equally drastic changes, the idea that someone can join a social networking site and expect (or even desire) it to remain static over the years is laughable to me.  i spent a lot of time arguing with people over this, who just fundamentally did not seem to get it that the internet is constantly changing, evolving, etc, and social networking sites are no exception.  and taht if you just let them work, notify the site admin about specific features you like and don’t like, just like you would with any other BUSINESS, that is how to effect change.  for instance, the uproar over the new terms of service, which were changed after the public outcry.  but general “i don’t want changes!” foot-stomping is both unhelpful to the site administrators and contrary to the spirit of the internet in general. 

the second group, about making sure that facebook is always free, is even more infuriating, because it was all spawned by some silly bullshit rumor that circulated facebook, about how the owners are going to start charging for it and you better let them know you’re not ok by joining this group.  this happened on myspace several times.  it happened with hotmail about eleven billion years ago in a chain email.  hell, it probably happened on friendster, if anyone was left over there to care.  facebook came in and assured everyone (as myspace and microsoft had before them), that this would always be free, so simmah down, y’all!  and yet after this, i STILL knew people who wouldn’t buy it and who would remain members of this group (or in previous times, would still circulate the stupid chain email, to the annoyance of everyone who was not a moron).  this group still has over a million members in it!

anyway, the point of all this is that i thought it made sense that a group of anti-choicers on facebook would also be resistant to change, ignorant of how the internet works, luddites, and/or paranoid and stubborn.  ok maybe this was threadjacky and random, but maybe also add to the list of conservative attitudes regarding media:  liberals keep up with technology and how the internet and its communities change over time.  conservatives don’t.  come to think of it, this also explains why so many right-wing rant sites look like geocities pages circa 1997, with giant waving american flag gifs and such.  or maybe it’s just because the right-wing skews old?

Comment #28: chareth cutestory  on  06/04  at  09:36 PM

A funny side note on the Hooters photo.

Hooters contributes to the GOP

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=34619&last=HOOTERS+MANAGEMENT+CORPORATION&first;=

Oh, wait…that’s not funny….

Comment #29: Momento Mori  on  06/04  at  09:39 PM

Really, I think the video Amanda posted explains everything.  Back when my gym used to have Fox News on all the friggin’ time, I was struck by the way that, in the Fox News universe:

1. Most newsworthy incidents that aren’t about evil Democrats involve attractive young white women in some form of distress.  For one brief but dazzling period, Fox was the 24/7 Pamela Anderson network.

2. All social controversies occur at either the Playboy Mansion or a Hooters.

3. It’s normal for serious political analysts to wear pink miniskirts.  And to have long blonde hair, wear heavy makeup, and be 24 years old.  (Their male counterparts are twice their age and come to work fully dressed.  Why, who can say.)

Fox News is adept at creating a bubble of upper-middle-class white male privilege in a world that increasingly doesn’t give a shit about that stuff.  I can well believe that regular viewers find it a comforting retreat even while suffering directly from the disastrous policies its talking heads preach.  What’s more important, the foreclosure on your house or being reassured that hot chicks would be totally impressed to hear you vote Republican?

Comment #30: Shaenon  on  06/04  at  09:46 PM

Please do, I’d be curious.  Every article I’ve ever read on them, including on the corporate website for News Corp, lists their broadcast launch date as October 7, 1996.

This is an earlier incarnation, pre-Ailes. They didn’t actually launch, but the intention and business plan was there. At the time (late 1990), the situation was as follows:

1. The Fox TV network had a respectable number of local affiliates (and hence local news operations) nationwide in the U.S.

2. Murdoch had been running Sky News (24-hour news via satellite) successfully in Europe for a couple of years.

3. The only serious 24-hour news cable operation in the U.S. was CNN (where I’d worked during and after college), and it was finally bringing in lots of revenue from all those cheesy ads.

Murdoch put all this together and saw what seemed to be a low-cost market opportunity:

1. There was room for at least one more major 24-hour cable news brand in the U.S.

2. Fox didn’t need to build or operate bureaus from scratch like Turner did, because of the local domestic newsrooms and Sky News. They’d produce the bulk of the content, with the national-level production kept to a bare minimum (as in CNN’s early days).

3. News Corp had a core competency in satellite operations and 24-hour news via BSkyB.

So they came up with Fox News Channel (which was the name they used, at least in 1991). The idea was that the local affiliates and Sky would send packages via satellite to a central newsroom/operations facility (similar to the CNN Atlanta HQ). The HQ would distribute the packages back down to other affiliates, and also produce their own framing content (basically bare-bones anchor intros) out of the HQ and build their own competitor to CNN in the process.

By the time I interviewed, they’d set up the HQ in Charlotte, NC. They chose that location basically because it was a “right-to-work” (i.e. non-union) state. In some things, Murdoch is consistent.

When I got there they were about half staffed up on the editorial side, basically running a satellite feed farm attached to this huge warehouse-type building where they were starting to build out offices and a production studio.

I didn’t end up taking the job, and lucky me because within a few months they put a hold on the editorial side of Fox News Channel for reasons I’m not familiar with (I assume they found out doing a stripped-down “CNN on the cheap” and getting an audience wasn’t quite as easy or cost-effective as they first thought). FNC reverted back to a feed farm for a few years, until Ailes convinced Murdoch to give it another go as the propaganda organ we know all too well.

There you have it: ProtoFaux.

Comment #31: Gracchus.  on  06/04  at  10:04 PM

Where else would they get their news?  They won’t watch any other news channel.  They won’t read most newspaper, if they read at all.  They won’t look at any other news sites. They won’t listen to any radio other than Rush, etc.  FOX is the only “news” source that consistently supports their world view and FOX has convinced them that every other source of news in the entire freaking’ world has a liberal bias and an ulterior motive (irony of irony).  Other news outlets have to fight for their share of viewers but FOX has created a captive audience.

Comment #32: BadKitty  on  06/04  at  10:29 PM

On the ‘free’ Facebook thing: the value of the personal information you enter into the system is high enough that the number of people who would drop out of Facebook if it went the pay route would probably be worth more than the membership fees they could get.

Comment #33: BlackBloc  on  06/04  at  10:38 PM

I think part of it too is generational. People already mentioned all the other ways liberals and progressives recieve news, information, and entertainment. In my experience in rural Illinois conservatives aren’t just primarily white and male, but also older. While certainly there are older people who are web savvy, many aren’t. If you aren’t comfortable with a computer you’re going to be more inclined to recieve your electronic media through the television. While liberals and progressives are chattering away here and at other blogs or listening to podcasts or whatever, these older conservative white guys are watching Fox because they already know how to work the television and the remote control.

I can go weeks without catching Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or BBC World news or whatever, because I know that anything important will either wind up in my in-box via various activist groups, in a friends status update on facebook, or will end up on the blogs I read daily as part of my routine, same as checking my email or brushing my teeth. Remove my internet access and I would probably spend alot more time watching television news, afterall, the Nation only comes out weekly.

As to why they watch Fox instead of CNN or MSNBC or PBS or any other news channels, I would assume they do so because they don’t like hearing news they disagree with all the time. I know when i try to watch Fox or read conservative blogs I get irritated rather fast.

Comment #34: jessilikewhoa  on  06/04  at  10:43 PM

I don’t know a lot of people or places where Fox is watched, but all the ones I do have it as noisy moving wallpaper. It’s just on, and people watch or not as they choose. Most liberals I know, in contrast, actually pay attention to what they watch, and channel-hop accordingly.

So it’s a sort of combination of Two Minutes Hate and sleep learning…

Comment #35: paul  on  06/04  at  11:09 PM

Fox News is skewing the information in the same way that right wing operatives buy up all kinds Ann Coulter and Mike Savage books to artificially make them best sellers.

Comment #36: Ursula  on  06/04  at  11:30 PM

I remember reading some time ago that someone had sued Fox News for lying to them, and a judge ruled that Fox News wasn’t a news channel, it was an entertainment station, and so Fox didn’t owe them any money.  So my vote goes with “fox news not actually news.”

The lawsuit you are probably thinking of wasn’t precisely about the Fox News Channel, but rather a Fox owned and operated local affiliate, WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida.  It involved a husband and wife who were investigative reporters for the station and were trying to run a story about the dangers of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone.  The Fox people wanted the reporters to include statements from Monsanto that they knew to be false in their report, and when the couple refused, they were both fired by the affiliate.  They sued Fox News (the corporate parent of the affiliate), and initially won, but ultimately a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no law against falsifying the news in the United States….

http://www.fair.org/extra/9806/foxbgh.html

Comment #37: DTG in STL  on  06/04  at  11:47 PM

I’m not concerned that all the dead-enders have clumped onto one station, or to one talk radio show.

Fox News may outdraw MSNBC 2 to 1, but it’s outdrawn about 5-1 by The Mentalist.

Comment #38: norbizness  on  06/04  at  11:51 PM

Uhm… right before I logged on here, I turned on the Tv to get the news.  COmmercials on both local stations.  Said, why waste 5 minutes on this, I can get my weather on NOAA - NOW, and see what’s most up to date with local online papers and, of course, Pandagon.

I’d imagine many liberals can make the same assessments and opt for the computer screen.

Comment #39: phylosopher  on  06/04  at  11:58 PM

I can’t imagine having to keep my legs rigidly clamped for any length of time. If Fox relies on thigh exposure for ratings, can they at least provide their anchoresses short shorts? I did have a mental image of Bill O’Reilly sitting in suitcoat, tie, and boxer briefs—now I have to wash out my mind’s eye.

Also, looking at the second picture, I was irresistably reminded of the flotation devices depicted in the airline safety video.

Comment #40: Hector B.  on  06/05  at  01:03 AM

Really, I think the video Amanda posted explains everything.  Back when my gym used to have Fox News on all the friggin’ time, I was struck by the way that, in the Fox News universe:
.....

Shaenon on 06/04 at 08:46 PM

Personally, my anti-FOX campaign includes asking them to turn to another station or turn it off, whether that be in a gym or waiting room.  Most of the time, no one will turn it back, unless requested, so it keeps others from being subjected to, or innundated with the blather.

Comment #41: phylosopher  on  06/05  at  01:04 AM

“I think part of it too is generational. People already mentioned all the other ways liberals and progressives recieve news, information, and entertainment. In my experience in rural Illinois conservatives aren’t just primarily white and male, but also older. While certainly there are older people who are web savvy, many aren’t. If you aren’t comfortable with a computer you’re going to be more inclined to recieve your electronic media through the television. While liberals and progressives are chattering away here and at other blogs or listening to podcasts or whatever, these older conservative white guys are watching Fox because they already know how to work the television and the remote control. “

jessilikewhoa, total slutmobile on 06/04 at 09:43 PM

There’s also that rural/urban/ and comfortable/really (rural) poor dichotomy.
You can’t always get consistent feed on a dial up, which is still what many rural communities have - even I still can’t get cable because I’m between two new subdivisions with feeds from opposite sides and no one wants to spend the money to get it to my place 500 feet farther down the road - I’m just one customer and not worth running the cable… satellite is out of the price range/cost effectiveness equation - and I’m within commuting district of a large metro area! 

It’s always a reality check for me to deal with those living in the real boonies - to get cell service, one guy has to drive a mile down his driveway. 

So yeah, a lot of those rural folks are “clinging” to Faux and broadcast TV in general.

Comment #42: phylosopher  on  06/05  at  01:14 AM

The lawsuit you are probably thinking of wasn’t precisely about the Fox News Channel, but rather a Fox owned and operated local affiliate, WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida.  It involved a husband and wife who were investigative reporters for the station and were trying to run a story about the dangers of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone.  The Fox people wanted the reporters to include statements from Monsanto that they knew to be false in their report, and when the couple refused, they were both fired by the affiliate.  They sued Fox News (the corporate parent of the affiliate), and initially won, but ultimately a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no law against falsifying the news in the United States….

http://www.fair.org/extra/9806/foxbgh.html

DTG in STL on 06/04 at 10:47 PM

This ended up in a segment in the expose film “The Corporation.”

Comment #43: phylosopher  on  06/05  at  01:15 AM

One word: PHOTOSHOPPED! That’s why they are mostly all stills. It’s much easier to alter a single frame than a series of frames. Until I see the actual video around the frame at 2:23, I’ll think this exposé is nothing but a silly fraud.

Oh, Douchey McDoucherson.

How does it feel watching your party flail itself into ever shrinking approval ratings and membership numbers?

How does it feel knowing that our black Democratic president keeps hovering around a 67% approval rating while your party can’t seem to break the 30% mark?  That Venezuela is currently more popular among Americans than the Republican Party?

How does it feel watching 4 states in the past 3 months legalize gay marriage?

How does it feel looking at the 2010 midterm elections and seeing poll after poll that says that the Republicans are only gonna lose even more ground next time around?

I imagine right now, what you must be feeling has to be akin to the feeling a fat, pale, balding white man in his 50s feels when he’s naked, and he looks down, and he can no longer see his own genetalia from all of the beer and pork rinds he’s gorged himself on over the years.

Sad, pathetic, angry, puny, irrelevant, impotent, flaccid little man.  That’s what you are, buddy.

Comment #44: DTG in STL  on  06/05  at  01:20 AM

Fox’s penchant for using attractive young women as “window dressing” is the only reason I could ever imagine for even pausing - same for the “money honeys” on CNBC.  I don’t pause, however, unless there are actual legs being exposed, and even then I can only stomach a few seconds at a time.

However, the only shows I can tolerate on MSNBC remain the weeknight politics lineup: Maddow, Olberman, etc.  At the weekends, though, ew.  It’s like it’s a different network.

Comment #45: Oriscus  on  06/05  at  01:49 AM

Something that’s always struck me about Fox is that their “news” is so rabidly conservative, always pushing “family values” (yeah, right), and yet much of their other programming (“Cops” is the first example that comes to mind) is so very not family- or kid-friendly.

Comment #46: NobleExperiments  on  06/05  at  02:10 AM

You know what sucks?  When you go somewhere and have Fixed News on the TV.
What’s worse?  When it’s your workplace.
Worse than that? When it was orders from people above those whom you normally see that changed it to that.

The District Manager changed it to that garbage.  She was only following orders.  Now I’m stuck being inundated by that utter shit every time I go to work.  Worse yet, it seems the slobbering idiots in this area actually want it there.  I’d write a letter or something, but pretty much anything I do will lose me my job.

I wonder how hard it would be to install some kind of remote-activated device to change the channel without arousing suspicion…

Comment #47: Blue Fielder  on  06/05  at  03:10 AM

I think some perspective is in order here.  I did a bit of Googling and here’s what I could find for total viewers for the network shows and cable for the last few days (if my #‘s are way off, corrections welcome):

ABC: 7,530,000
NBC: 7,170,000
CBS: 5,930,000

Total: 20,630,000

P2+ Total Day (P2 = viewers OVER 2 YEARS OLD, as if 3 year olds are such discerning newsies!)

FNC: 1,416,000 viewers
CNN: 668,000 viewers
MSNBC: 407,000 viewers
CNBC: 242,000 viewers
HLN: 331,000 viewers

Total: 3,064,000

Network + cable: 23,694,000
*****

The last census (2001) indicated 207,000,000 adults (18+) in the US, so let’s use that though it’s obvious people under watch the news too.

If we take the total of network & cable, a mere ca. 9% of US adults watch TV news.  If we do just cable, which seems to be the focus of Amanda’s post, a pitiful 1.5% of US adults watch cable news.  Obviously, if we figure in radio news (especially of the wingnut variety) and newspapers and the ‘Net, the figures are higher.  I get my news from blogs and the Los Angeles Times, I never ever watch TV news.

What I’m saying is: I think we give an outsized amount of credit for the influence that TV news, especially cable, has in this country.  I think people that watch cable news and read blogs get a distorted view of things and that a VAST majority of this country doesn’t know who Sean Hannaty or Rachel Maddow are, nor do they care. Joe & Betty Shlabotnik in Keokuk, IA *might* know who Atrios or Michelle Malkin are, but it’s not very likely.  The words “circular firing squad” come to mind….....

Comment #48: Henry Holland  on  06/05  at  03:30 AM

Is this a vote? I vote for number three. At least primarily though the other two (which really seem to boil down to ‘There’s better things to do than obsess about “the other side”’) have merits.

My only example was probably about five or six years ago when I was flipping around and for some reason stopped on the flagship show of the Head Nozzle on that station and he was railing against some frat house or something having the temerity of hosting a video shoot for some amateur porn. I believe he was calling for some kind of action from the college (Cincinnati, I think) like he called for Pepsi to drop Luda as a spokesman.

I think the porn in question was something similar to GGW or something, so the frat wasn’t exactly free from sin, so to speak, but devoting time to being upset about college kids potentially engaging in sexual activities? Now that’s hard hitting…

Comment #49: Santa Claustrophobia  on  06/05  at  03:47 AM

I always assumed it was because committed liberals in the counter to committed conservatives were more likely to do things like watch video clips or download the podcast or TIVO the one or two shows they expected to have some decent news or insightful commentary (Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert, Anderson Cooper) because they didn’t want to deal with all the progaganda, crap, and filler, whereas die hard conservatives of that old white male set were more likely to do what my grandpa used to do with game shows and old movies and leave them up on the television 24/7 and fade in and out as needed.

One counts for ratings, one doesn’t.

There’s also the income problem. Most of the young people I know don’t own cable or even basic TV and tend to get their shows through the internet or through things like Netflix in order to save more money for rent and food.

I think the main problem comes in that most people who want to know about what’s going on, usually listen mostly to what people they trust say is happening in the news and comparing and contrasting it to what they might have read. As such, the devoted Fox watcher or 700 club watcher will have a giant mess of crazy by which to poison a much larger sample of the population.

Comment #50: Cerberus  on  06/05  at  07:09 AM

I hate the TVs in waiting rooms phenomenon.  I can’t fucking read my book the way the volume is WAY UP LOUD.  And it usually seems to be some dopey news channel or talk show.

What happened to nice quiet waiting rooms, in which people could converse or read?  I asked the person at the counter to please turn the TV down since I couldn’t hear myself think and was reading and re-reading the same sentence for the last ten minutes and was told they can’t do it, it’s done from the central office.  WTF????

People don’t read anymore.  That’s the problem.  When you don’t read and glean information for yourself, you become beholden to whatever dumb shit the TV is spewing out, liberal or conservative.

Comment #51: speedbudget  on  06/05  at  08:58 AM

Don’t forget, Fixed News has gotten itself in the Basic tier of cable/satellite services, while MSNBC comes only with the more expensive packages. This lends credence to the economic factor as one reason for ratings differences.

We have to hand it to them: Fox does a great job of catering to a market and instilling brand loyalty. They have done a wonderful job at so discrediting actual news channels that anything NOT shown on Fox becomes suspect to them. I was trying to have a substantive conversation with a wingnut friend of mine on Facebook and when I told him that “Glenn Beck says” does not constitute a credible authority for me, he couldn’t understand what I meant. Everything *other* than Fox News is “the liberal press” and obviously lying, wrong, or deluded.

Comment #52: Vir Modestus  on  06/05  at  09:56 AM

Hatred pays. And sells.

Comment #53: ginmar  on  06/05  at  10:00 AM

I dunno, I’m seeing lots of generalizations here like “liberals don’t watch as much TV.”  I’m not sure I think that’s true.  For every person on the left that says “kill your TV” I suspect there’s a rightwing Xtain fundy who thinks all TV is evil and doesn’t watch much either.

I think we’re overlooking an important part of the problem, RW talk radio.  Well before Faux News on TV came along, their potential audience was prepped by the rapid growth of talk radio that was (and still largely is) dominated by the righties.  How many people, especially in areas away from large urban areas, have had nothing but RW talkers and RW Xtian stations to listen to on their radios?  Before I got a car with XM radio I know my wife and I would struggle on a trip to find a PBS or NPR station to listen to once we got away from the city.  If we couldn’t find one that came in clearly then what was left to listen to on the radio?  Pre-packaged music we’d heard a million times already or RW talkers. 

RW radio conditioned millions of people to listen to RW propaganda as entertainment and then along comes Faux News and WOW!  You can hear the same propaganda but with eye candy added.  Since the propaganda always included the old “every other media is liberal”  BS they don’t have to worry as much about the competition.

What we ended up with is basically a large cult.  Listen to a Faux News fan and they all repeat the same points “they give you both sides of the issue!” “They only report the facts and let the viewer decide!” “Everybody else is leftwing!”  It’s all complete nonsense but they’ll repeat it over and over like a mantra.  It’s just like listening to any true-believer, whether it be a fundy Xtain, a Scientologist, a 9-11 twoofer, or an anti-vax nut.  They all repeat the same untruths over and over.  When’s the last time you heard someone gush over CNN or a network news channel the same way?

I really am not sure what we can do about it.  If President Obama succeeds and gets this country back on the right track it’ll help.  People will be less likely to be suckered into the RW propaganda if they can see with their own eyes that it’s lies.  But there are always people who will believe anyway, despite what the evidence says.

Comment #54: Woodrowfan  on  06/05  at  10:15 AM

On the subject of TVs in waiting rooms and so forth, what you need is TV-B-Gone

Comment #55: Dunc  on  06/05  at  10:17 AM

Has anybody else seen the TVs at gas stations now, on top of the pump?  Sunoco TV???? ARGH!

Comment #56: Woodrowfan  on  06/05  at  10:34 AM

You call that cheesecake ? I think you’re really reaching on that one.

Besides, you miss the most obvious reason - Foxnews (soi disant) excels in stroking rightwing egos and making them feel right, and justified: and after the arse-kicking they’ve had in the last 6 months, they are desparate for that.

Liberals might have felt the same way in 2005, but there was no channel devoted to kissing their butts or you might have seen the same pattern of viewership then.

Comment #57: firefall  on  06/05  at  10:38 AM

“So yeah, a lot of those rural folks are “clinging” to Faux and broadcast TV in general.”

If you’re really from the boonies, where I grew up, and don’t have a satellite, you aren’t watching Fox News, though.

I can’t stand cable news, even the supposed liberals on MSNBC, so I watch zero TV news in general, except in event of a national election or major terrorist attack on the United States. I can’t stand the sight of Keith Olberman. Maddow seems okayish, but it’s nothing I don’t get better from liberal blogs. I listen NPR for national news, read my local mid-sized daily paper for local news and get opinions from the web.

Comment #58: witless chum  on  06/05  at  10:46 AM

Here’s a thought—some liberals opt out of TV all together, and that’s directly related to being liberal.

This is me. I can’t bear any form of visual/audio news - it’s always soundclips and opinions, and little to no facts. The only news show I can watch is the Daily Show and I don’t even tune in that often.

Incidentally, there was a Fox News TV in the pizza buffet we visited on vacation last week. The important news story was that the McCains were doing something. I was like, McCain is still relevant? Really? Ate and dashed, but it *felt* like the whole thing was election sour grapes along the lines of “this was the rightful president, look on him and weep for what was lost”. Geez.

Comment #59: Essie Elephant  on  06/05  at  10:54 AM

My almost-mother-in-law had Fox on for noise.  She was an elderly woman who clung aggressively to her ignorance because she was a PATRIOT! and she had 2 sons working for the Navy.  Any hard evidence that challenged her WeAre#1ShiningLightOnTheHill delusions upset her greatly.  She wanted to continue to believe the lies about what it meant to be an American, so she did the tv-watching equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears and going LA LA LA LA.

There is probably a lot of that going on in the patriot and conservative communities. Conservatives see themselves as good people and want to continue to see themselves as good patriots.  I think they’d rather have a TV station tell them lies than have rubbed in their faces what they’ve done to the world with their voting, spending and consumption habits. They took the Blue Pill.  I feel sorry for them because the ones I know, and read in the blogosphere, are earnestly decent.  There is a huge mismatch between what they believe in and thought they were voting for (fiscal conservatism/small govt/country/familyvalues) and what they actually got (neocons/PNAC/Empire/Pipelinistan/BigGovt/Debt). 

For what it’s worth, however, there’s a whole lot of political betrayal and both “sides” of the political spectrum, and that a whole lot of blue-pill liberals are being snookered by this same media machine.  The NeoCons have simply rebranded themselves and are sliming the halls of power as blue dog dem Clintonistas. I think a lot of people who voted for Obama thinking he’d put an end to the NeoCon empire are soon going to be engaging in the same kind of denialism.

I reject the right/left paradigm as corosive and false and I don’t have a TV.  There is no such thing as a “progressive” TV station; if you think MSNBC and CNN are looking after your interests you are just as deluded as any Fox viewer.  The corporatist machine OWNS the conventional media.  ALL of it. The powers-that-be are throwing us scraps.  To find truth you have to actively hunt it down yourself.

Comment #60: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker  on  06/05  at  11:07 AM

Others have hit on this, but put simply: look at the demographics. Fox’s are old, old, old. Older folks tend to be more conservative. My mother’s (now deceased) husband put Fox on 24/7. She still watches 24/7. It will be interesting to see Fox’s ratings in 20 years.

Comment #61: louC  on  06/05  at  11:12 AM

Having just returned from a road trip, and having been on others in recent months, I see this.

a) every damn truck stop plays Faux News 24/7
b) many motels associated with truck stops play Faux News 24/7
c) bars, diners, etc at those truck stops play Faux News 24/7

You get off the highway at an exit with 2 truck stop gas stations (you know the type: gas and a integrated fast food restaurant, which was a greasy diner 10 years ago), a Super 8 and Red Roof, an a couple of other diners or fast food restaurants, and every one of them has at least one tv blaring off in the corner, every single one of them tuned to Fox News.

Usually, though, few people are watching. The workers have tuned out the tv in the corner a long time ago. Most of the customers are just trying to get their business done and back on the road. And then there are the two old guys sitting way too close to the tv, half-watching and yapping some racially-charged garbage at one another.

Comment #62: hp  on  06/05  at  11:52 AM

Something that’s always struck me about Fox is that their “news” is so rabidly conservative, always pushing “family values” (yeah, right), and yet much of their other programming (“Cops” is the first example that comes to mind) is so very not family- or kid-friendly.

Well, to be truthful, as much of an ideologue as Rupert Murdoch is, he’s still a businessman first and foremost, and making money is still his top priority.

Case in point - a few weeks ago, Newshounds reported on Bill O’Reilly going ballistic over the creator of The Family Guy, Seth McFarlane, for referencing O’Reilly in a very negative light on the adult cartoon show (I think he portrayed Billo as a Nazi).

Billo went as far as calling for his viewers to boycott the show.  Here’s the problem.  Seth McFarlane has the same ultimate boss as Bill O’Reilly - Rupert Murdoch.  And just like The O’Reilly Factor is a hot commodity in the Fox media empire, so is The Family Guy.  And that’s what happens when you control such a monstrous media empire.  Despite the fact that the crazy Australian ultimately writes his paycheck, McFarlane is hardly a Rupert Murdoch stoolie - quite the contrary, he is a very active Democratic activist and donor.

All of that is why I don’t always automatically lump in Fox Broadcast with Fox News, even though both are ultimately owned by the same guy.  Fox Broadcast has given us The Simpsons and House, for instance.  Granted, it’s also given us wingnut fantasy 24.  But the point remains - ultimately, Rupert Murdoch’s number one concern is how big Rupert Murdoch’s bank account is - and if that means part of what he sells is gonna offend the sensibilities of the family values crowd, so be it, a long as it makes him richer.

Comment #63: DTG in STL  on  06/05  at  12:23 PM

I really am not sure what we can do about it.

What we can do about it is wait for them all to die.  Which will happen sooner rather than later.

Here’s the one piece of hope in the cable news wars - while Fox News is arguably the king of ratings, their audience is getting older, and they are failing to capture the youth.  For the first time in forever, MSNBC came out with the highest ratings in May 2009 among 18-34 year olds.  Fox’ stranglehold on the ratings revolves around an audience that is mostly over 50 years old.

Kinda like the current GOP.

They will die before we will.

Comment #64: DTG in STL  on  06/05  at  12:33 PM

I solved the “FOX News at the gym” problem for $9: I bought a programmable remote.  I use it at the gym to change it from FOX News to anything else when I see it on in my field of vision on the treadmill.  Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass if it bothers anyone.  No one complains when it gets changed to ESPN, the local teams’ games (in my case, Astros/Rockets/Texans), or network TV, so there you go.  And I live in an EXTREMELY conservative portion of Houston, so I have to use the remote a lot.

Comment #65: bouj  on  06/05  at  01:26 PM

Here’s a blast from the past:

It wasn’t any coincidence that while CNN was running their news on Sunday morning as usual(9 AM EST) and mentioned the sentencing in the course of things, Faux ran a banner “Saddam Sentenced” all the time.

“Fair and balanced.” Yeah, right.

# posted by The Dark Avenger : 11:15 PM

Comment #66: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  06/05  at  02:26 PM

Is there race-baiting on reality dating shows? I’m not asserting there isn’t, as I don’t watch such shows, I just don’t know why reality dating shows would have more race-bating than the rest of the media

Comment #67: Hershele Ostropoler  on  06/05  at  07:52 PM

I’m not sure about how that video is presented. Obviously, FOX makes a point that the only female anchors they hire are young and conventionally attractive, and I don’t know whether the short skirts are mandated. But it bothers me when the mere presence of women who happen to be young and attractive is framed as “cheesecake” or “selling sex” - as if it’s the women’s fault that network executives exploit them.
The video would have been more effective I think if it showcased actual footage of the “news” that FOX covers, like ... oh let’s check the most popular items on their site right now…

  * Eva LaRue: Jen Aniston Has a Better Body Than Angelina Jolie
  * The Hottest ‘80s Video Vixens
  * Wanted: Male Prostitutes at Nevada Brothel in Hopes of Boosting Business
  * The Great Bikini Debate Rages: Stripes, or Polka Dots?

And with that, I’m off for a disinfecting shower.

Comment #68: snobographer  on  06/06  at  11:52 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.