MeekAndMild
New member
Well, sometimes I still listen to their TV news, but I've taken to playing CDs instead of the radio on the way home because O'Reilly is starting to sound like a table saw which has hit a nail. 
Last edited:
The Rise and Fall of Fox News
- Thread starter Rich Lucibella
- Start date
Good example tonight-----CNN and FOX are doing straight reporting on the conflict in Israel. FOX has 2 correspondents commenting on the situation each giving ideas.
OTOH, MSNBC Headline-----"Cowboy Diplomacy in crisis" with Olbermann saying how this is the fault of the White House and the Bush policy. This followed by Bush picking up a baby for a photo and the baby cries. Oh yeah, big news story---now on to the Valerie Plame suit exactly 9 minutes in with no story of what's actually happening in Israel. All commentary and bashing with no reporting whatsoever.
OTOH, MSNBC Headline-----"Cowboy Diplomacy in crisis" with Olbermann saying how this is the fault of the White House and the Bush policy. This followed by Bush picking up a baby for a photo and the baby cries. Oh yeah, big news story---now on to the Valerie Plame suit exactly 9 minutes in with no story of what's actually happening in Israel. All commentary and bashing with no reporting whatsoever.
johnsonrlp
New member
I get all my TV news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I used to like Fox a few years ago. I do like Anderson Cooper.
BINGO!Roberta X said:
Many years ago, if my memory serves me, news broadcasts were not rated. We pretty much got news. Yeah, there was some slant to it, but not anywhere what it is today.
Somewhere in the sixties, ad sponsors really started pressing for ratings. Ulterior motive, of course. Why advertise on a program that had minimal to failing ratings?!
As this began to happen with (to?) the 3 networks, there were scads of articles in the paper presses, wondering how long it would take for ratings alone to drive the news...
Fox News was a breath of fresh air. At first. Then it became just as commercial as the rest of the media. Did anyone think it would really be non-commercial? Speak up, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Regarding Olbermann, at least going by what he said in a very good interview on CSPAN, it's not really so much about bashing Republicans as it is attacking those with power. Right now, that happens to be Republicans. We'll have to wait for Democrats to be in charge before we can evaluate that, but it's what he said.
He also said that there are many higher-ups at NBC news, and especially at GE (owners of NBC) that wish he took it easy on Bush. But, as long as his show makes money, they let him do it his way. As to MSNBC's "liberal bias" were any of you aware that they had (may still have) a policy that, whenever they have one of those worthless "panel discussion" segments, where you've got three or four "analysts" discussing some softball news questions tossed out by the host, there was required to be 2 conservatives for every liberal?
The media does, indeed, have a bias. It's called money. When Bill was having his little problems, these same "liberal" news organizations were running all Monica all the time. Why? Were they conservative then? Nope. Sex sells. When Bush was at 90% post-9/11, the news was all his way. Waving the flag and praising the leaders was what was miking money then. The "liberal New York Times" even had Judy Miller re-printing White House press releases as straight news. They ended up apologizing for that one, on page B-47, in 4 point type. Ditto CNN's "COUNTDOWN TO WAR!!!" tripe. It got ratings, and it sold advertising. And that's the point, these days. When the wind changed, they shifted their sails to catch it.
Years ago, TV network news wasn't required to make money. Then, we had Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite. The bean counters got put in charge, and we got Katie Couric and Connie Chung. I know which I'd prefer.
Remember, when you watch commercial TV, you are not the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customers.
--Shannon
He also said that there are many higher-ups at NBC news, and especially at GE (owners of NBC) that wish he took it easy on Bush. But, as long as his show makes money, they let him do it his way. As to MSNBC's "liberal bias" were any of you aware that they had (may still have) a policy that, whenever they have one of those worthless "panel discussion" segments, where you've got three or four "analysts" discussing some softball news questions tossed out by the host, there was required to be 2 conservatives for every liberal?
The media does, indeed, have a bias. It's called money. When Bill was having his little problems, these same "liberal" news organizations were running all Monica all the time. Why? Were they conservative then? Nope. Sex sells. When Bush was at 90% post-9/11, the news was all his way. Waving the flag and praising the leaders was what was miking money then. The "liberal New York Times" even had Judy Miller re-printing White House press releases as straight news. They ended up apologizing for that one, on page B-47, in 4 point type. Ditto CNN's "COUNTDOWN TO WAR!!!" tripe. It got ratings, and it sold advertising. And that's the point, these days. When the wind changed, they shifted their sails to catch it.
Years ago, TV network news wasn't required to make money. Then, we had Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite. The bean counters got put in charge, and we got Katie Couric and Connie Chung. I know which I'd prefer.
Remember, when you watch commercial TV, you are not the customer. You are the product. The advertisers are the customers.
--Shannon
P. S. --I work for a TV station. When I say the news is filler, I've seen it "up close and personal."
Some of it -- perhaps even most of it -- is honest filler. Which is to say the reporters do go out and cover the story they've been sent to cover and there can be hours of work behind a minute-thirty news story. But you can count on the story not being especially hard-hitting in any factual way unless it's something you could have found out for yourself with a little work; and you can count on it being looked at according to the prevailing wisdom: guns kill, government is mostly good except for a few cheats, etc. etc. It's wallpaper. Expensive, pretty wallpaper.
At least at the local level, there's no overt ulterior motive, just a constant struggle for ratings, a struggle that favors good looks, glitz and graphics over reporting with substance and depth.
It doesn't look to me as if any of the networks are immune to that pressure either, including Fox News. They all do what's safe, what's visually appealing.
Television's a visual medium. In terms of news, it's more like the Sunday funny pages than it is like the rest of a newspaper.
Some of it -- perhaps even most of it -- is honest filler. Which is to say the reporters do go out and cover the story they've been sent to cover and there can be hours of work behind a minute-thirty news story. But you can count on the story not being especially hard-hitting in any factual way unless it's something you could have found out for yourself with a little work; and you can count on it being looked at according to the prevailing wisdom: guns kill, government is mostly good except for a few cheats, etc. etc. It's wallpaper. Expensive, pretty wallpaper.
At least at the local level, there's no overt ulterior motive, just a constant struggle for ratings, a struggle that favors good looks, glitz and graphics over reporting with substance and depth.
It doesn't look to me as if any of the networks are immune to that pressure either, including Fox News. They all do what's safe, what's visually appealing.
Television's a visual medium. In terms of news, it's more like the Sunday funny pages than it is like the rest of a newspaper.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Roberta-
I really wonder about the wisdom of those marketing choices by news shows. New programs are a "destination location"...that is, they don't pick up a whole lot of channel surfers; rather, people consciously tune in for a reason.
For the TFL subset, obviously FOX's move toward sensationalism has caused less people to tune in. Which begs the question, "Just where are they making their gains?" Are we to assume there are vast numbers of formerly non-viewers who were lured by the increased tendency toward shallow propaganda and shouting matches, when they could just as easily be watching a movie or TV Show?
Let's face it: the very formula for FOX's meteoric rise to dominance was based on providing news, not bad theater.
Rich
I really wonder about the wisdom of those marketing choices by news shows. New programs are a "destination location"...that is, they don't pick up a whole lot of channel surfers; rather, people consciously tune in for a reason.
For the TFL subset, obviously FOX's move toward sensationalism has caused less people to tune in. Which begs the question, "Just where are they making their gains?" Are we to assume there are vast numbers of formerly non-viewers who were lured by the increased tendency toward shallow propaganda and shouting matches, when they could just as easily be watching a movie or TV Show?
Let's face it: the very formula for FOX's meteoric rise to dominance was based on providing news, not bad theater.
Rich
His compatriot Brian Wilson calls it a helicopter, not a chopper. He just doesn't know his helicopters. One night (a long while back) I listened as he said "and there is a Blackhawk helicopter, if I'm not mistaken." He was mistaken; it was a Cobra II. Makes you wonder what else these guys don't know, whether it is actually them or a "spotter" in the booth.
Redneckrepairs
New member
Faux is on here most of the time ( other than that i watch discovery , history , Stargate1 or deadwood over on hbo lol ) , But as far as news goes i can read Drudge Report as fast as they can LOL .
Rich,
I just solder things up and fill in here and there when the lower echelons take sick at the TV station (and not even that the past month, being home with a broken knee!). I don't sit in on the policy meetings.
But when I was in radio there was a thing about ratings: the station actually got better numbers if a lot of people just "sampled" the station, tuned in for a few minutes and tuned on -- and maybe tuned back -- than if the same number tuned in and stayed tuned in.
I would not be at all surprised if the same glitch (and I think it is a glitch) applies to television. That would explain the eye-catching graphics, the "weather radar wars," the pretty-pretty newspeople and the attention-grabbing, cryptic or suggestive "teasers" for what's cominng up after the break: they don't want you for the whole newscast or they don't care. They want to grab you when you surf by, no matter how many times that is. The teaser's telling you to tune back after the commercials are over, because sure as can be, you'll pick up the remote when the ads start.
Remember atomic physics (or was it Buddhism?) telling us we cannot measure a thing without affecting it? That's television news and ratings; the news is skewed to what produces the best numbers -- and that's highly dependent on how the ratings service collects and interprets the raw data.
I just solder things up and fill in here and there when the lower echelons take sick at the TV station (and not even that the past month, being home with a broken knee!). I don't sit in on the policy meetings.
But when I was in radio there was a thing about ratings: the station actually got better numbers if a lot of people just "sampled" the station, tuned in for a few minutes and tuned on -- and maybe tuned back -- than if the same number tuned in and stayed tuned in.
I would not be at all surprised if the same glitch (and I think it is a glitch) applies to television. That would explain the eye-catching graphics, the "weather radar wars," the pretty-pretty newspeople and the attention-grabbing, cryptic or suggestive "teasers" for what's cominng up after the break: they don't want you for the whole newscast or they don't care. They want to grab you when you surf by, no matter how many times that is. The teaser's telling you to tune back after the commercials are over, because sure as can be, you'll pick up the remote when the ads start.
Remember atomic physics (or was it Buddhism?) telling us we cannot measure a thing without affecting it? That's television news and ratings; the news is skewed to what produces the best numbers -- and that's highly dependent on how the ratings service collects and interprets the raw data.
johnsonrlp
New member
Does anyone know if Springer's ratings are down lately? Might be a correlation there.
I have to wonder about Rich's comment re. 'personal opinion'.
If the mainstream media appears 'left', who's to say whether it's the media actually being left-slanted or the viewer being right-slanted?
If it is indeed the media being left-slanted, is it really fair to accuse them of doing it intentionally with no proof?
If it's the viewer, is it really intellectually honest to reject them in favor of a more welcome slant? That tells me that you're really looking for a soothsayer instead of news.
Here's what I do know: Most of the major outlets claim that they are as objective as possible. Except for FOX. They openly admit that they intentionally slant their coverage. That makes a difference.
Nevertheless.... if you want facts, good luck finding them on television. I think the facts justify a fair amount of right-bashing these days. When I see it happening...I tend to blame the Republicans for their screwups rather than the media for reporting them. There's simply not as much call for left-bashing because they're not in charge of anything and can't really be blamed for all that's going wrong.
But the Dems do get bashed in the MSM and I find they deserve it when it happens.
I think the 'liberal media' charge is a crutch.
If the mainstream media appears 'left', who's to say whether it's the media actually being left-slanted or the viewer being right-slanted?
If it is indeed the media being left-slanted, is it really fair to accuse them of doing it intentionally with no proof?
If it's the viewer, is it really intellectually honest to reject them in favor of a more welcome slant? That tells me that you're really looking for a soothsayer instead of news.
Here's what I do know: Most of the major outlets claim that they are as objective as possible. Except for FOX. They openly admit that they intentionally slant their coverage. That makes a difference.
Nevertheless.... if you want facts, good luck finding them on television. I think the facts justify a fair amount of right-bashing these days. When I see it happening...I tend to blame the Republicans for their screwups rather than the media for reporting them. There's simply not as much call for left-bashing because they're not in charge of anything and can't really be blamed for all that's going wrong.
But the Dems do get bashed in the MSM and I find they deserve it when it happens.
I think the 'liberal media' charge is a crutch.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Interesting explanation, Roberta.
Thanks-
Rich
Thanks-
Rich
I think Fox does a decent job of covering fast-breaking events, like the most recent Isreal vs. The Abba-Dabbas cage match. But I learned a long time ago not to sit down and try to watch an entire broadcast from any of the major news outlets.
This is one venue that is actually much improved by internet access, as opposed to conventional media sources like television. I just go to the webpage, click on the reports that interest me, get the info, and then go onto something else. I'll often hit two or three news pages on the same story before I'm done.
This method renders irrelevant whether the news is slanted by FOX, CNN or whomever. It is up to me to gather the data available and process it for myself anyway, and this allows me to get the data when I want it, from whom I want it, and without the aggravation of talking heads trying to tell me what the hell I ought to think about it.
Works for me....and probably keeps my blood pressure down a few points in the process.
This is one venue that is actually much improved by internet access, as opposed to conventional media sources like television. I just go to the webpage, click on the reports that interest me, get the info, and then go onto something else. I'll often hit two or three news pages on the same story before I'm done.
This method renders irrelevant whether the news is slanted by FOX, CNN or whomever. It is up to me to gather the data available and process it for myself anyway, and this allows me to get the data when I want it, from whom I want it, and without the aggravation of talking heads trying to tell me what the hell I ought to think about it.
Works for me....and probably keeps my blood pressure down a few points in the process.
Roberta X,
I hope you heal up fine.
I appreciate your sharing and explainations as well.
At one time I was in the position to make decisions on buying TV and Radio advertising for a Retail Business. For me, the money was best spent on ads during Football games aired on the radio.
The "luckiest" TV time ads for us appeared - "Who Shot JR" during the TV Series "Dallas" - I mean everyone was glued to the TV. Our "package" was just lucky to be aired.
Never turn down Lady Luck anytime, anywhere , and anyplace.
-
When the Clinton Library was being built and the River Market surrounding it was promoted, so were the "playing down" of crime in that area.
News "portrayed" how safe it was for tourists. Advertising "portrayed" this.
Depending if one was Clinton fan or not - dictated the "portrayals" of news and ads.
Non fans brought out :
Monies for other things that a tax increase was ear marked for went to Surveillance Cameras.
Non fans : If the area is safe - why all the Cameras? Why did they [city gov't] steal the monies?
Fans: All the Camera's are because "city gov't' is going to take care of you, and bring in all this tourist money in and we can then buy more cameras to protect folks better in other parts of town.
One day some guy was reported by citizens to have a rifle near the River Market/Library area, and quite possible was on a roof of a bldg.
LEOs converged on that area including SWAT - could not find this guy.
Non Fans : Well them cameras did a lot of good, don't you feel safer?
Fans : You are not supposed to be on a roof or in areas where there are not cameras.
Ads for special home security services were heavily seen and heard on some stations on both radio and TV. Sales went up and these - excuse me- Rinky Dink specials were sold in areas , and not in others. Just follow the political neighborhood. Same neighborhood that saw a bunch of break ins the night a certain Senator from NJ book was to be sold at 12:01 am at a BookStore with the long lines of folks waiting.
BGs I do not think have a favorite political party...though do tend to lean to whomever makes life easier for them.
"But I had an alarm and "they said" for my special $ 29.95 a month I was gonna be safe."
bleat, bleat, bleat...
Currently, we have crime big time, all over the city.
Same song and dance - back and forth on the news, fillers, and gov't straddling the fence depending on getting monies , votes and "politickin'".
One "new" group in town - Katrina folks. We have some really good folks here, and they are not buying into any of the hype and expressed how they do not view the TV or Radio - including Fox with any "truth".
Pro fans of the Library and such - don't have a prayer trying to argue or sway them [Katrina folks] in beliefs.
"Honey I lived in a cow pasture and I know what cow poop looks like, feels like, , smells like an how it sounds".
Steve
I hope you heal up fine.
I appreciate your sharing and explainations as well.
At one time I was in the position to make decisions on buying TV and Radio advertising for a Retail Business. For me, the money was best spent on ads during Football games aired on the radio.
The "luckiest" TV time ads for us appeared - "Who Shot JR" during the TV Series "Dallas" - I mean everyone was glued to the TV. Our "package" was just lucky to be aired.
Never turn down Lady Luck anytime, anywhere , and anyplace.
-
When the Clinton Library was being built and the River Market surrounding it was promoted, so were the "playing down" of crime in that area.
News "portrayed" how safe it was for tourists. Advertising "portrayed" this.
Depending if one was Clinton fan or not - dictated the "portrayals" of news and ads.
Non fans brought out :
Monies for other things that a tax increase was ear marked for went to Surveillance Cameras.
Non fans : If the area is safe - why all the Cameras? Why did they [city gov't] steal the monies?
Fans: All the Camera's are because "city gov't' is going to take care of you, and bring in all this tourist money in and we can then buy more cameras to protect folks better in other parts of town.
One day some guy was reported by citizens to have a rifle near the River Market/Library area, and quite possible was on a roof of a bldg.
LEOs converged on that area including SWAT - could not find this guy.
Non Fans : Well them cameras did a lot of good, don't you feel safer?
Fans : You are not supposed to be on a roof or in areas where there are not cameras.
Ads for special home security services were heavily seen and heard on some stations on both radio and TV. Sales went up and these - excuse me- Rinky Dink specials were sold in areas , and not in others. Just follow the political neighborhood. Same neighborhood that saw a bunch of break ins the night a certain Senator from NJ book was to be sold at 12:01 am at a BookStore with the long lines of folks waiting.
BGs I do not think have a favorite political party...though do tend to lean to whomever makes life easier for them.
"But I had an alarm and "they said" for my special $ 29.95 a month I was gonna be safe."
bleat, bleat, bleat...
Currently, we have crime big time, all over the city.
Same song and dance - back and forth on the news, fillers, and gov't straddling the fence depending on getting monies , votes and "politickin'".
One "new" group in town - Katrina folks. We have some really good folks here, and they are not buying into any of the hype and expressed how they do not view the TV or Radio - including Fox with any "truth".
Pro fans of the Library and such - don't have a prayer trying to argue or sway them [Katrina folks] in beliefs.
"Honey I lived in a cow pasture and I know what cow poop looks like, feels like, , smells like an how it sounds".
Steve
I was an ardent Fox fan until a couple of years ago. I just couldn't take it anymore.
Now I only turn on the TV if there's a movie I want to watch.
Bill O'Reilly? It's hard to take someone seriously when he's hawking t-shirts and coffee mugs at the end of his show.
Hannity and Colmes? Sean Hannity is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republican party. I can't think of any issue on which he's disagreed with GW or Republicans in general. At least Alan Colmes will disagree with Democrats from time to time.
The non-stop coverage of stories of attractive white females who disappeared/were murdered are enough to drive anyone up the wall.
The addition of Greta Van Sustern may have been the proverbial straw. Her show is a panel of attorneys talking about other attorneys. That's not news, and it isn't even entertainment.
Brit Hume at least is serious, although his bias is fairly obvious.
I don't mean to be condescending to Rich or Oleg when I say that I get a goodly dose of my news from TFL and THR. Between the links to stories, and the posts from knowledgeable and articulate members, there's a ton to read.
The other portion of my news feed is the daily newspaper, although my bias filter has to be set on "high."
Now I only turn on the TV if there's a movie I want to watch.
Bill O'Reilly? It's hard to take someone seriously when he's hawking t-shirts and coffee mugs at the end of his show.
Hannity and Colmes? Sean Hannity is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republican party. I can't think of any issue on which he's disagreed with GW or Republicans in general. At least Alan Colmes will disagree with Democrats from time to time.
The non-stop coverage of stories of attractive white females who disappeared/were murdered are enough to drive anyone up the wall.
The addition of Greta Van Sustern may have been the proverbial straw. Her show is a panel of attorneys talking about other attorneys. That's not news, and it isn't even entertainment.
Brit Hume at least is serious, although his bias is fairly obvious.
I don't mean to be condescending to Rich or Oleg when I say that I get a goodly dose of my news from TFL and THR. Between the links to stories, and the posts from knowledgeable and articulate members, there's a ton to read.
The other portion of my news feed is the daily newspaper, although my bias filter has to be set on "high."
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Without cable news, we wouldn't have the missing blonde of the week and the neverending saga of Natalie Holloway.
Don't get me wrong, it is tragic what happens to these folks. I can only imagine the hell of their families. However, the pandering to the fantasy of kidnapped, raped or enslaved blondie white girls is rather disgusting.
I just try to catch headlines. For commentary - I like Russert and the Fox news sunday shows and CSPAN experts.
Hannity and Colmes are both becoming cartoons. O'Reilly is clown show now as Rush became. A sexual harassing, falafel waving egotist and a drug filled blimp who needs Viagra to bang hookers in the Dominican Republic. Both upstanding examples of morality to tout the conservative cause.
I was watching Russert the other day and they had Biden and Newt. While I disagree with Newt on lots of social issues - he had some testicles. Biden sounded like Chamberlain before WWII.
Don't get me wrong, it is tragic what happens to these folks. I can only imagine the hell of their families. However, the pandering to the fantasy of kidnapped, raped or enslaved blondie white girls is rather disgusting.
I just try to catch headlines. For commentary - I like Russert and the Fox news sunday shows and CSPAN experts.
Hannity and Colmes are both becoming cartoons. O'Reilly is clown show now as Rush became. A sexual harassing, falafel waving egotist and a drug filled blimp who needs Viagra to bang hookers in the Dominican Republic. Both upstanding examples of morality to tout the conservative cause.
I was watching Russert the other day and they had Biden and Newt. While I disagree with Newt on lots of social issues - he had some testicles. Biden sounded like Chamberlain before WWII.
News and journalism have never been about "just the facts." From the selection of the story, to the way it is described (i.e. what facts make it in and what are left out) to the editorializations inherent in the way the story is told (i.e. ever notice how main stream media folks say "gun" in a overdramatized almost guttural way?), journalism has always been about viewing points, ideologies and stances. Even saying "we only tell the truth, regardless of what it is" conveys a certain ideology.
So the question is, are the networks getting worse or are people just getting more fed up with BS, and seeing it now where they didn't recognize it before?
So the question is, are the networks getting worse or are people just getting more fed up with BS, and seeing it now where they didn't recognize it before?
Optical Serenity
New member
I agree, Fox makes even the slightest news seem so exciting.