Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: MSNBC Floundering

Ultimate Peach





Posts: 3232
(3231 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 12:22 PM
The current hardcore, rot-gut liberalism served-up and shoved down viewers throats is failing faster than the Obama presidency.

Not surprising, the only revenue generator show on this entertainment/ fake news channel is their most conservative one, Morning Joe.

As ratings plunge, MSNBC faces shakeup

Insiders say to expect more news, less bombast, and fresh voices.

By Dylan Byers

3/19/15 5:37 AM EDT

It would be hard to imagine a news event better tailored to MSNBC’s Venn diagram of “lean forward” liberals and “place for politics” political junkies. Yet when Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ presumptive 2016 presidential nominee, held a news conference about her private email use last week — a media frenzy that functioned, albeit inadvertently, as the informal launch to her highly anticipated campaign — less than 13 percent of the total cable news audience was tuned to the network.

The low turnout wasn’t a fluke: Year-to-date, MSNBC’s daytime viewership is down 21 percent overall and 41 percent in the coveted 25-to-54-year-old demographic, putting it in fourth place behind Fox News, CNN and CNN’s sister network HLN. Its prime-time ratings are down 24 percent and 42 percent, respectively. In both daytime and prime time, MSNBC is bringing in its smallest share of the demo since 2005, the year before Keith Olbermann’s scorched-earth admonitions of the Bush administration ushered in the current era of Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton.

In a memo to staff in December, MSNBC President Phil Griffin conceded that the network is suffering: “It’s no secret that 2014 was a difficult year for the entire cable news industry and especially for MSNBC,” he wrote. But change was coming, Griffin promised, with “more announcements in the New Year.”

The extent of that change could be vast: In the months ahead, MSNBC is likely to shake up the bulk of its programming, moving some shows and canceling others, high-level sources at NBCUniversal told POLITICO. With a few exceptions — notably “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “Morning Joe” — every program is at risk of being moved or canceled, those sources said. “All In with Chris Hayes,” a ratings suck that currently occupies the 8 p.m. time slot, will almost certainly be replaced. Network execs are also considering moving some weekday shows, like “Politics Nation with Al Sharpton,” to weekends.

“The plan is to re-imagine what the channel is,” one high-level NBCUniversal insider with knowledge of the network’s plans said, “because the current lineup is a death wish.”

The changes, which Griffin has already set in motion with the cancellation of the little-watched daytime shows “Ronan Farrow” and “Reid Report,” are likely to be hastened by the arrival of new NBC News Group Chairman Andrew Lack, who will serve as Griffin’s boss.

Lack, a former NBC News president, is likely to rein in MSNBC’s ever-leftward drift and focus instead on creating more news-driven programming, with more involvement from NBC News talent. This could become a radical change of course for MSNBC, where partisan, opinion-based programming has come to dominate the vast majority of the network’s lineup in both daytime and prime time. Lack is likely to keep Griffin at MSNBC’s helm, network sources said, because his seven years as president make him best-suited to implement the changes.

Griffin and Lack declined to be interviewed for this article. Rachel Racusen, a former Obama administration spokeswoman who now serves as the network’s vice president of communications, denied that the network is considering plans to move or cancel Hayes and Sharpton: “Contrary to rumors that have already been reported on, there are no plans to move either Rev. Sharpton’s or Chris Hayes’ shows,” she told POLITICO.

For many media watchers, Griffin’s decision to pull the shows of Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid — both have become “correspondents,” in one form or another — seemed to reflect an acknowledgement that opinion-based programming wasn’t working in daytime. (Griffin replaced the shows with a two-hour segment of “MSNBC Live,” which is more news-focused and less overtly ideological.) By the same token, MSNBC’s defenders will often argue that the network’s woes are due to Americans’ waning interest in politics and liberals’ disenchantment with President Barack Obama. This argument usually ignores Fox News’ sustained success — it is and has long been the No. 1 cable news channel, through administrations Republican and Democratic.

In fact, MSNBC’s problems run deeper than the news-opinion divide, several industry insiders said. The network’s programming has grown stale, they say, while its principal rival, CNN, has been ascendant. Much of the younger talent consists of entertainers with no reportorial chops who can be hard to take seriously. Veteran hosts seem to have grown tired of trumpeting liberal outrage night after night, these critics say, and have become caricatures of themselves. The calculus for Griffin and Lack, then, is not just about balancing news and ideology. It’s about creating compelling programming.

“MSNBC got boring,” one former NBCUniversal executive said. “You’ll hear a lot of people talking about it being too far left, too political — all that matters is that it’s entertaining.”

The MSNBC of today is a radically different animal than the one Lack helped create as president of the news division in 1996. At the time, Lack and his colleagues envisioned the network as a smarter version of CNN, with straightforward news programming and analysis from across the political spectrum. MSNBC would effectively function as a 24-hour cable platform for NBC. In theory, the channel would give NBC News a huge leg up over its competitors, who were limited to their morning and evening broadcasts.

That all changed in 2006 with Olbermann’s diatribes against the Bush administration, Republican lawmakers and conservative media. Inspired by Olbermann’s success, the network began to rebrand itself as the liberal answer to Fox News — a savvy business calculation, given Roger Ailes’ success in turning that network into the right’s most influential media platform. Griffin became president in July 2008, when “hope and change” were sweeping the nation, and gave Rachel Maddow, Olbermann’s substitute host, her own show the next month. It soon became the highest-rated show on MSNBC.

Since then, and especially after Olbermann’s departure in 2011 (he had been suspended for political donations), Griffin began building the prime-time lineup around Maddow. Liberal opinion shows began to dominate more and more of the lineup, bleeding backward from prime time into the early evening and the afternoons. Maddow’s own influence within the network grew as well. In March 2013, her own disciple, liberal magazine writer Chris Hayes, was given a prime-time show at 8 p.m.

For some NBC insiders, the failure of “All In” — Hayes is a distant third place to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, both in total and in the demo — is indicative of the limits of Griffin’s reactive approach to programming. Unlike Ailes, Griffin didn’t set out to create a partisan network because he believed in the ideology. He did it because it made sense from a business perspective. Olbermann was popular, so he gave Maddow a show. Maddow was popular, so he gave Hayes a show. The problem is that not every disciple is as good as the mentor. Maddow was a groundbreaking liberal voice, an entertainer and the first openly gay prime-time news anchor. Hayes was just a smart kid from Brown University.

Hayes is now the most likely host to be moved from prime time, according to several NBCUniversal sources. Schultz and Sharpton, the network’s loudest trumpeters of liberal outrage, could also be relocated, possibly to weekends. Schultz, who was already moved to weekends once before, is seen as unpalatable, a Rush Limbaugh of the left. Sharpton is a walking conflict of interest for the network because of his role as a prominent civil rights activist. (Racusen, the MSNBC spokeswoman, said there were no plans to move either.)

In the place of shows like “All In,” Griffin and Lack may consider experimenting with more nonideological programming, sources there said. “8 o’clock is a done deal. That’s going to change,” one high-level NBCUniversal source said. “There is going to be a change at 8 o’clock, and it’s not going to be a liberal. It’s going to be a nonideological, down-the-middle program.”

Maddow, the network’s marquee attraction, will continue to anchor at either 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., sources said. Chris Matthews, the NBC stalwart who has hosted “Hardball” since 1999, is also likely to stay. He is seen as an immense asset in presidential campaign seasons, and his program has seen impressive ratings gains since consolidating to one hour (it previously aired at both 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.). Several sources said Lawrence O’Donnell, who wraps up the prime-time schedule at 10, is also likely to ride out the current transition.

Dayside will go through its own changes. And in a strange twist of fate, the model show for the liberal network’s future may be the one hosted by a conservative.

Despite its own ratings setbacks, “Morning Joe,” the three-hour morning talk show anchored by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, is among the network’s most influential — and lucrative — programs. MSNBC made around $300 million last year, sources with knowledge of the financials said, and while it’s impossible to know how much of that is attributable to “Morning Joe,” sources described the program as a “cash cow.” (Nearly half of MSNBC’s income comes from subscriber fees, and that percentage is set to go up significantly when MSNBC increases its rate this year.)

The success of “Morning Joe” depends more on the quality than the quantity of its viewers. The show typically draws a better-educated, wealthier and more influential audience than any other morning show on television. At its best — when the bookings are big and the conversation is focused — it has the power to set the daily agenda in politics, media and publishing. The problem, as many NBCUniversal sources rush to point out, is that, since 2012, the show has often lacked focus. However, one source close to the show said Scarborough has become “re-engaged” in the run-up to the 2016 presidential race. Spread across MSNBC daytime, the “Morning Joe” model would mean more shows that blend news, analysis and informal banter, anchored by prominent personalities and boosted by big political bookings. (POLITICO reporters and editors are frequent guests on “Morning Joe” and other MSNBC programs.)

However the programming lineup shakes out, the biggest challenge for MSNBC could be learning how to cope with an unrivaled Hillary Clinton candidacy. MSNBC rose to prominence on the coattails of a historic Democratic presidential candidate. But the current presumptive nominee has offered far less to be enthusiastic about.

“Hillary is not the ideal candidate for MSNBC to ride,” one television industry executive said. “A coronation without any real race is not good for them either.”

Indeed, after Clinton’s news conference about her private emails, the usually forgiving afternoon hosts at “The Cycle” hosted a very critical conversation about the former secretary of state’s poor handling of the so-called scandal. Gone was the enthusiasm of the “hope and change” era, gone was the promise of an uplifting campaign that could usher in a new era of progressivism.

Gone, too, were the viewers.

 

____________________

 
Replies:

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 12:59 PM
Do you mean that Rev. Al Sharpton’s show isn’t a ratings hit?

My oh my.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5655
(5654 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 02:44 PM
Hint to MSNBC, go for non-partisan reporting of news, not opinion.
Give the facts and the effects, but don't go into theorizing about the ramifications.
Don't repeat the same thing over and over for hours on end, and don't give those "I think what's going to happen" type reports. Show what is happening, not conjecture.

If you do that, you'll at least pull back some of the viewers from CNN.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 02:47 PM
Didn't someone already post that the numbers of people who watch any of these channels are an insignificant amount of the US population?

If the Food Network and HGTV have more viewers than Fox and MSNBC how can a drop in the "news channels" viewership matter to anyone except the executives running the channels?

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 03:15 PM
quote:
Didn't someone already post that the numbers of people who watch any of these channels are an insignificant amount of the US population?

If the Food Network and HGTV have more viewers than Fox and MSNBC how can a drop in the "news channels" viewership matter to anyone except the executives running the channels?

_______________________________________________________________________

No.
Keller tried to diminish Fox News’ most watched, most trusted status by using the entire U.S. population do show a low number. His statistical analytics failed. He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.

The Food Network and HGTV do not have more viewers than Fox News.
For the two months ending Feb. 28th, Fox News beat every cable/satellite network of any type.

MSNBC had virtually no ratings.

Yet another reason NBC News has brought back a it’s former news chief Andy Lack to run the news division. Luck announced his first two priorities were to find a new NBC Nightly News Anchor and revamp the failing MSNBC.


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 03:20 PM
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1222
(1222 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 03:22 PM
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 03:33 PM
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.

______________________________________________________________________

According to Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac you are wrong.

The "majority of Americans" quip you made had/has nothing to do the the results.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 03:37 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1222
(1222 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 04:03 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?



quote:
Fox News has always had the oldest skewing audience in cable news. With a median age of 68.8 years, Fox’s audience is over six years older than either CNN or MSNBC. It’s even worse for their top rated program (O’Reilly) who’s average viewer is over 72 years old. And their Great Blonde Hope (Kelly), who was specifically brought in to draw younger viewers, also exceeded Fox’s average with her typical viewer voyeur being over 70.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=15580

Average age 68 years old and losing young viewers

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-thei r-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-thei r-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 04:20 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?



quote:
Fox News has always had the oldest skewing audience in cable news. With a median age of 68.8 years, Fox’s audience is over six years older than either CNN or MSNBC. It’s even worse for their top rated program (O’Reilly) who’s average viewer is over 72 years old. And their Great Blonde Hope (Kelly), who was specifically brought in to draw younger viewers, also exceeded Fox’s average with her typical viewer voyeur being over 70.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=15580

Average age 68 years old and losing young viewers

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-thei r-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-thei r-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0

______________________-_______________________________________

You quote a website who's whole purpose is to trash Fox News?

Man, you are desperate.

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac Polls are independent and unbiased.

Do you have a legitimate source for your "data"?



 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69301
(69662 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 04:37 PM
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Total Day P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FOXN 1,234 221 467
CNN 379 106 183
MSNBC 312 61 122
CNBC 194 84 100
FBN 53 7 18
HLN 222 95 130


Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)

FOXN 2,335 447 879
CNN 458 120 219
MSNBC 651 108 240
CNBC 508 272 244
FBN 22 5 10
HLN 271 80 126



http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/03/18/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday- march-17-2015/376459/



It wasn't jkeller, it was me, muletroll

2 million viewers out of 319 million people........ whether you want to believe it or not, all 3 (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) are viewed by < 1% of the US population.....

 

____________________

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 04:50 PM
All of those numbers, even Fox News, are horrible ratings, which goes to show that mainstream America is not watching cable news. It's clear that most people, liberal and conservative, get their news from other mediums. Mobile apps have taken over. Cable TV has been a long running joke in the media biz. Conan blasts himself all the time for failing to stay on network TV. Any performer knows that cable TV is bottom of the barrel nowadays. So comparing cable news numbers proves a very small and silly point. It basically just says that out of all the older, out-of-touch, technically-challenged Americans, most watch Fox News. Congrats!
 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1222
(1222 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 04:53 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?



quote:
Fox News has always had the oldest skewing audience in cable news. With a median age of 68.8 years, Fox’s audience is over six years older than either CNN or MSNBC. It’s even worse for their top rated program (O’Reilly) who’s average viewer is over 72 years old. And their Great Blonde Hope (Kelly), who was specifically brought in to draw younger viewers, also exceeded Fox’s average with her typical viewer voyeur being over 70.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=15580

Average age 68 years old and losing young viewers

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-thei r-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/business/its-viewers-are-graying-but-thei r-passion-pays-for-fox-news.html?_r=0

______________________-_______________________________________

You quote a website who's whole purpose is to trash Fox News?

Man, you are desperate.

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac Polls are independent and unbiased.

Do you have a legitimate source for your "data"?





No actually every website I pulled up stated the same thing Mule. Fox News has the oldest average viewership of any news network at 68yrs old and they were losing viewership in the 25-54 year old demographic.

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2013-ratings-fox-news-1-for-12-straight-year s-sheds-viewers-too/209975

Don't believe it? then please provide independent unbiased links to prove otherwise.

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1222
(1222 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 04:54 PM
quote:
All of those numbers, even Fox News, are horrible ratings, which goes to show that mainstream America is not watching cable news. It's clear that most people, liberal and conservative, get their news from other mediums. Mobile apps have taken over. Cable TV has been a long running joke in the media biz. Conan blasts himself all the time for failing to stay on network TV. Any performer knows that cable TV is bottom of the barrel nowadays. So comparing cable news numbers proves a very small and silly point. It basically just says that out of all the older, out-of-touch, technically-challenged Americans, most watch Fox News. Congrats!


^Pretty much this^

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:11 PM
quote:
All of those numbers, even Fox News, are horrible ratings, which goes to show that mainstream America is not watching cable news. It's clear that most people, liberal and conservative, get their news from other mediums.... So comparing cable news numbers proves a very small and silly point. It basically just says that out of all the older, out-of-touch, technically-challenged Americans, most watch Fox News. Congrats!


Why then do so many left of center folks get their knickers twisted over what goes on at FOX? Even the White House takes shots at them from time to time. A quick look at other message boards is the same. Liberals highly upset and venting frustration at FOX. Crude and juvenile stuff.

Since nobody is watching, and the few that do are old and hopeless basket cases, what does it matter?

Something doesn't compute.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:18 PM
You're right Alloak. It doesn't matter to the vast majority of Americans and shouldn't matter to good Progressive Americans.

But I've found, that in general, people have a negative reaction to liars. I don't watch either station. I can't deal with the sliminess. In my opinion pundits are vultures. Both channels perpetuate the 48 hour news cycle, which I think contributes to the dumbing down of America.

Haven't there been several surveys or polls conducted that found people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who don't watch Fox News?

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:21 PM
quote:
You're right Alloak. It doesn't matter to the vast majority of Americans and shouldn't matter to good Progressive Americans.

But I've found, that in general, people have a negative reaction to liars. I don't watch either station. I can't deal with the sliminess. In my opinion pundits are vultures. Both channels perpetuate the 48 hour news cycle, which I think contributes to the dumbing down of America.

Haven't there been several surveys or polls conducted that found people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who don't watch Fox News?



____________________________________________________________________

Well they sure ain't watchin' MSNBC.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:25 PM
quote:
quote:
Didn't someone already post that the numbers of people who watch any of these channels are an insignificant amount of the US population?

If the Food Network and HGTV have more viewers than Fox and MSNBC how can a drop in the "news channels" viewership matter to anyone except the executives running the channels?

_______________________________________________________________________

No.
Keller tried to diminish Fox News’ most watched, most trusted status by using the entire U.S. population do show a low number. His statistical analytics failed. He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.

The Food Network and HGTV do not have more viewers than Fox News.
For the two months ending Feb. 28th, Fox News beat every cable/satellite network of any type.

MSNBC had virtually no ratings.

Yet another reason NBC News has brought back a it’s former news chief Andy Lack to run the news division. Luck announced his first two priorities were to find a new NBC Nightly News Anchor and revamp the failing MSNBC.



No, genius, I did nothing of the sort. You can't get who posts what right, no wonder you screw up everything else.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3232
(3231 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:25 PM
quote:
quote:
All of those numbers, even Fox News, are horrible ratings, which goes to show that mainstream America is not watching cable news. It's clear that most people, liberal and conservative, get their news from other mediums.... So comparing cable news numbers proves a very small and silly point. It basically just says that out of all the older, out-of-touch, technically-challenged Americans, most watch Fox News. Congrats!


Why then do so many left of center folks get their knickers twisted over what goes on at FOX? Even the White House takes shots at them from time to time. A quick look at other message boards is the same. Liberals highly upset and venting frustration at FOX. Crude and juvenile stuff.

Since nobody is watching, and the few that do are old and hopeless basket cases, what does it matter?

Something doesn't compute.


Excellent observation.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:26 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?



Yeah, just like our "facts" are always on the mark.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:28 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?



Yeah, just like our "facts" are always on the mark.

__________________________________________________________________

Yea, I didn't think you had any creditable facts to support your opinion.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:28 PM
quote:
quote:
All of those numbers, even Fox News, are horrible ratings, which goes to show that mainstream America is not watching cable news. It's clear that most people, liberal and conservative, get their news from other mediums.... So comparing cable news numbers proves a very small and silly point. It basically just says that out of all the older, out-of-touch, technically-challenged Americans, most watch Fox News. Congrats!


Why then do so many left of center folks get their knickers twisted over what goes on at FOX? Even the White House takes shots at them from time to time. A quick look at other message boards is the same. Liberals highly upset and venting frustration at FOX. Crude and juvenile stuff.

Since nobody is watching, and the few that do are old and hopeless basket cases, what does it matter?

Something doesn't compute.


Pointing out lies has nothing to do with ratings. Would you ignore a media outlet for lying if very few watched it?

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:29 PM
quote:
quote:
You're right Alloak. It doesn't matter to the vast majority of Americans and shouldn't matter to good Progressive Americans.

But I've found, that in general, people have a negative reaction to liars. I don't watch either station. I can't deal with the sliminess. In my opinion pundits are vultures. Both channels perpetuate the 48 hour news cycle, which I think contributes to the dumbing down of America.

Haven't there been several surveys or polls conducted that found people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who don't watch Fox News?



____________________________________________________________________

Well they sure ain't watchin' MSNBC.



Or Fox. I guess they don't trust them.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4397
(4408 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/19/2015 at 06:30 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
He assumed that the entire population watches the news which they do not. He also assumed that everyone who has a TV watches the news which they do not.


Wow. I thought his point was just the opposite. That, since the majority of Americans DO NOT watch the news all the clamor about most trusted and most watched is HORSE $HIT.


Not to mention the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. It is the most trusted by conservatives which proves nothing as they obviously are not going to watch a liberal news network.

_________________________________________________________________________

The Nielsen ratings and Quinnipiac poll did not say that the majority of Fox's demographics are geriatric conservatives. That is you assumption.

If you think so is that just an assumption or do you have factual data to support it?



Yeah, just like our "facts" are always on the mark.

__________________________________________________________________

Yea, I didn't think you had any creditable facts to support your opinion.



Where did I post an opinion on this? Or did you confuse me with someone else again. You should see a doctor. Your memory is nonexistent.

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com