True enough. But do you really want an American media scene that's the equivalent to the British newspaper world, where people seek out sources of information that essentially confirm their preexisting prejudices? Because that seems to be the niche Fox News has found for itself.
I want a media that's directly accountable to us, which is more or less what we have now. I don't really like Fox News; I just don't think it's the anti-christ.
Given that we have hundreds of newspapers, three channels devoted to the news, two government funded news sources, local news sources, blogs and periodicals, you can get whatever kind of news coverage you want. I don't begrudge Fox for their business model. If people want to buy their product, more power to 'em.
This is both a nonsensical comparison and a dodge of the real issue raised by the article. The whole "conservatives have Fox News and liberals have everything else" seriously misrepresents the ideological spectrum involved. To find a news outlet that tilts as unabashedly to the left as Fox does to the right, you have to go to the tiny Pacifica Radio Network with its endless diet of Chomsky, Pilger, and all Mumia all the time.
I disagree. I don't think Fox News's hard news coverage is that bad.
And nobody has accused the other major news outlets of doing what Fox News does, which is to have management interfere in the sourcing and creation of news stories on a daily and ongoing basis.
I'd have to dig up the story, but ABC news has been accused of exactly the same thing by one of its former disgruntled employees. The key words on both is 'accusation'. Even if the stories are true, news sources are allowed to have editorial positions.
You simply can't equate a news outlet that has an ideal of fairness and objectivity that it sometimes fails to live up to with a news outlet that very systematically puts all of its news through an ideological sifter.
I'm skeptical that any of the networks have an ideal of fairness and objectivity. Ignoring the left right spectrum, they all have a corporate bias (the best example is the abysmal coverage of the FCC regulations). I see them all in it to make money.
You mean like liberal PBS, filled as it is with flaming liberals like John McLaughlin, William Buckley Jr., and William Bennett? With those commies around, it's amazing that conservatives can get a word in edgewise.
You mean like conservative Fox, filled with hard-line conservatives like Allen Colmes, Geraldo and Gretta Van Schuster?
<Between those three people, btw, they have two and a half hours every night.>
With this I agree completely. Fox has every right to compete in the free marketplace of ideas and find an audience of likeminded viewers.
You know, it's not just likeminded viewers. I was going to look for the numbers, but luckily they're in Drew's article:
Not only conservatives like what they see. A new Pew Research Center survey shows that, of the 22 percent of Americans who now get most of their news from Fox (compared with a combined 32 percent for the networks), only 46 percent call themselves “conservative,” only slightly higher than the 40 percent of CNN fans who do so. Fox is thus exposing many centrists (32 percent of Fox’s regular viewers) and liberals (18 percent)
Let's generously assume that half the centrists are closet conservatives. That's still 48% non-conservative audience. If Fox News is just a right wing source, why do so many of those not on the right-wing watch it?
Just as its critics have a right to point out that as a source of information, it's only slightly more reliable than, say, The Weekly World News,
Question: If Fox News is so much worse than all the other cable news services, why does it do so well in the ratings? Can there really be that many people who care enough to tune in to the news every day, but want to be fed their ideology from the TV? Or is it more likely that Fox is just doing a better job in presenting engaging material? I don't like any of the three networks, but from where I'm sitting, Fox does the best job of presenting the events between the three.
The Beeb, of course, blows all three out of the water.
In my opinion, it is. YMMV, as always.
From drew's article:
The numbers make clear just how stunning Fox’s rise has been. Starting with access to only 17 million homes (compared with CNN’s 70 million) in 1996, Fox could reach 65 million homes by 2001 and had already started to turn a profit. A year later, profits hit $70 million and are expected to double in 2003. Though CNN founder Ted Turner once boasted he’d “squish Murdoch like a bug,” Fox News has outpaced its chief cable news rival in the ratings since September 11 and now runs laps around it. This past June, Fox won a whopping 51 percent of the prime-time cable news audience—more than CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC combined. The station’s powerhouse, The O’Reilly Factor, averages around 3 million viewers every night, and during Operation Iraqi Freedom the “No Spin Zone” drew as many as 7 million on a given night; CNN’s Larry King, once the king of cable, has slipped to 1.3 million nightly viewers.
Fox enjoys especially high numbers among advertiser-coveted 25- to 54-year-old viewers, and it is attracting even younger news junkies. As one CNN producer admits, Fox is “more in touch with the younger age group, not just the 25–54 demo, but probably the 18-year-olds.” Even more attractive to advertisers, Fox viewers watch 20 to 25 minutes before clicking away; CNN watchers stay only ten minutes. Fox’s typical viewer also makes more money on average—nearly $60,000 a year—than those of its main cable rivals.
Ultimately, everything we say here is pointless. Fox is the indisputable winner in the one area that matters most to all non-government networks. Vote with your clicker.
St. Louis must be destroyed!
Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease. THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.
"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.