"Fox News' Chairman Roger Ailes untouched in Murdoch shuffle" (CNN) to the dismay of the far left who wanted to silence opposing viewpoints

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 2:39 AM GMT
    The far left was hoping Fox would be silenced as a voice that presents other than non-stop liberal bias. They are frustrated that MSNBC has become a non-player ratings-wise and hoped that somehow Fox would meet its demise.

    A similar situation happened with talk radio. The liberal Air America tanked because there was insufficient audience who wanted to hear their ideology and angry bile. So they tried to have their favorite tool, the Government, restrict the successful radio outlets to force them to air liberal bile. It hasn't worked, but the far left will try any measure to silence dissent.

    Remember, to a far left extremist, the end justifies the means, even if it means accepting and embracing dishonesty. That explains why many of them accept Hillary Clinton.

    --------------------------

    Fox News' Chairman Roger Ailes untouched in Murdoch shuffle

    Within 21st Century Fox, how important is Fox News and how unique is Roger Ailes?

    So important, so unique that Ailes will continue to report to Rupert Murdoch, even as the 84-year-old media mogul's sons James and Lachlan take over day-to-day responsibilities at the company.

    There will be no change in Ailes' reporting structure, an executive close to the elder Murdoch said on condition of anonymity Thursday afternoon.

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/11/media/fox-news-roger-ailes-21st-century-fox/

    --------------------------

    And certainly, the head of the powerful and highly profitable Fox News cable network, Roger Ailes, doesn’t care about the change. Ailes was quoted by Variety as saying that he will continue to liaise with Rupert Murdoch through the transition: “My job is to report to Rupert, and I expect that to continue.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleswarner/2015/06/11/rupert-murdoch-retires-so-what-will-change/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 2:51 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidAh, yes, good old Air America radio and MSNBC. Proving once again that liberals can't run a business.

    True, but the main factor is they were/are providing a product that most normal people don't want.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jun 18, 2015 3:37 PM GMT
    I don't think you should be talking about what "most people want" in a discussion about a network who, on their best days, get something like a 2-share. Prime time audiences are dwindling and the news networks are all losing viewers.

    I'll also point out that FNC is the only cable news channel that is available on basic cable. This is a big contributing factor to their ratings success over the others, but compared to broadcast networks, their audience is tiny. Include broadcast news in the ratings race and NBC is the frontrunner.

    Meanwhile, net-based news is growing and CNN is leading both FNC and MSNBC on line.

    IMO what people want is news, not commentary. This is why the cable news networks audiences continue to shrink. Also, IMO, liberals distrust corporate media, which is why Air America didn't last, but their best personalities, Thom Hartmann and Sam Seder, for example, continue to build audiences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 4:29 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said...I'll also point out that FNC is the only cable news channel that is available on basic cable. This is a big contributing factor to their ratings success over the others...

    1) Where did you come up with that one? You mean CNN is not part of basic cable but Fox is? Seriously?

    2) If Fox were not influential or perceived as such, why would left wing organizations such as Media Matters make Fox their main, continual target? Why would so many far leftists bemoan its existence?

    3) According to Gallup, the percentage of people who self-identify as liberal is 24. If you assume roughly half are far left, then the pool of potential audience of the far left diatribe is pretty small.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 5:01 PM GMT
    Basic cable with Time Warner here is

    A & E*
    ABC*
    ABC Family*
    AMC*
    Animal Planet*
    Azteca*
    BET*
    Bravo*
    Cartoon Network*
    CBS*
    CNBC*
    CNN*
    Comedy Central*
    CSPAN*
    CSPAN 2*
    CSPAN 3*
    CW*
    Discovery*
    Disney*
    E!*
    ESPN*
    ESPN 2*
    Food Network*
    Fox*
    Fox Business News*
    Fox News Channel*
    Fox Sports*
    Fox Sports 1*
    FX*
    Galavision*
    Golf*
    HGTV*
    HISTORY*
    HLN*
    HSN*
    Lifetime*
    MSNBC*
    MTV*
    National Geographic*
    NBC*
    Nickelodeon*
    Oxygen*
    PAC 12*
    Palladia*
    PBS*
    QVC*
    Spike TV*
    SyFy*
    TBS*
    Telemundo*
    The Weather Channel*
    TLC*
    TNT*
    truTV*
    TV Guide Network*
    TV Land*
    TWC DEPORTES*
    TWC SPORTSNET*
    Univision*
    USA*
    Velocity
    VH 1*
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jun 18, 2015 6:27 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Physiqueflex saidI don't think you should be talking about what "most people want" in a discussion about a network who, on their best days, get something like a 2-share. Prime time audiences are dwindling and the news networks are all losing viewers.

    I'll also point out that FNC is the only cable news channel that is available on basic cable. This is a big contributing factor to their ratings success over the others, but compared to broadcast networks, their audience is tiny. Include broadcast news in the ratings race and NBC is the frontrunner.

    Meanwhile, net-based news is growing and CNN is leading both FNC and MSNBC on line.

    IMO what people want is news, not commentary. This is why the cable news networks audiences continue to shrink. Also, IMO, liberals distrust corporate media, which is why Air America didn't last, but their best personalities, Thom Hartmann and Sam Seder, for example, continue to build audiences.


    Here are the facts:

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/06/17/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-june-16-2015/418411/

    And Fox News channel is NOT "the only cable news channel that is available on basic cable" - where do you get that from?


    Yes, TV by the Numbers is correct. FNC gets, at best, less than 2 Million viewers during prime time. Compare the numbers from yesterday to those of 2010, and you'll see that their audience has dropped by about a third.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-dominates-cable-news-ratings-in-2010-beating-cnn-and-msnbc-combined/

    I did err on the comment about basic cable. Thom Hartmann has made that point several times that I can remember but I didn't confirm it. I just did a random search of providers by zip code and found none but one where CNN, MSNBC, and FNC aren't all available in the same package. I believe where Thom went wrong was that this may have been true in FNC's early days but since then all of the other news channels have been moved down to the basic tier.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jun 18, 2015 6:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said...I'll also point out that FNC is the only cable news channel that is available on basic cable. This is a big contributing factor to their ratings success over the others...

    1) Where did you come up with that one? You mean CNN is not part of basic cable but Fox is? Seriously?

    2) If Fox were not influential or perceived as such, why would left wing organizations such as Media Matters make Fox their main, continual target? Why would so many far leftists bemoan its existence?

    3) According to Gallup, the percentage of people who self-identify as liberal is 24. If you assume roughly half are far left, then the pool of potential audience of the far left diatribe is pretty small.


    Of course Fox is influential. The amount of false information being repeated elsewhere that can be traced to them is proof. And, of course, FNC is the highest rated cable news channel so, of course, they are going to be a target. That doesn't make articles debunking information from Fox any less valid.

    Far less than half of those who self identify as "liberal" would be considered "far left", just as very few of those who are conservative would be considered "far right".

    None of this speaks to my point, which is that the majority of the nation, being pretty moderate, isn't impressed with the shenanigans on FNC or MSNBC. This also means that both Fox and MSNBC are ignoring the majority of potential viewers. I think TV news ratings demonstrates this pretty clearly.

    MSNBC and FNC combined have a fraction of the audience enjoyed by any of the three evening news broadcasts. NBC, CBS, and ABC have shows that are much closer to the ideal of news programs being true to the news and avoiding editorializing, and this is why they are far more popular than anything on cable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 7:12 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said...I'll also point out that FNC is the only cable news channel that is available on basic cable. This is a big contributing factor to their ratings success over the others...

    1) Where did you come up with that one? You mean CNN is not part of basic cable but Fox is? Seriously?

    2) If Fox were not influential or perceived as such, why would left wing organizations such as Media Matters make Fox their main, continual target? Why would so many far leftists bemoan its existence?

    3) According to Gallup, the percentage of people who self-identify as liberal is 24. If you assume roughly half are far left, then the pool of potential audience of the far left diatribe is pretty small.


    Of course Fox is influential. The amount of false information being repeated elsewhere that can be traced to them is proof. And, of course, FNC is the highest rated cable news channel so, of course, they are going to be a target. That doesn't make articles debunking information from Fox any less valid.

    Far less than half of those who self identify as "liberal" would be considered "far left", just as very few of those who are conservative would be considered "far right".

    None of this speaks to my point, which is that the majority of the nation, being pretty moderate, isn't impressed with the shenanigans on FNC or MSNBC. This also means that both Fox and MSNBC are ignoring the majority of potential viewers. I think TV news ratings demonstrates this pretty clearly.

    MSNBC and FNC combined have a fraction of the audience enjoyed by any of the three evening news broadcasts. NBC, CBS, and ABC have shows that are much closer to the ideal of news programs being true to the news and avoiding editorializing, and this is why they are far more popular than anything on cable.

    If you look at the big picture, today there are many ways people get their news, and there are multiple options for different viewpoints. This is a sharp contrast to the old days when liberals controlled the sources, the big 3 broadcast networks and the major papers.

    No one outlet is perfect and immune from errors, but the Fox information is both accurate and fair. Most do not separate their hard news from commentary programs, which are not intended to be neutral. It might also be noted in 2008 when the traditional media were all salivating over Obama, Fox was the one source that continued to give Hillary a "fair shake" as I recall she, herself, said. You might assume it was to divide the Democratic Party, but the fact remains the other outlets were heavily pro-Obama even in their so-called "hard news".

    I get news from various sources in the US and abroad, and my experience is the hard news segments on Fox are generally accurate and fair. This is based on their selection and placement of news items.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jun 18, 2015 8:04 PM GMT
    Well, I assume that most of us here are news junkies, but that doesn't describe the majority of Americans, to say the least. If you look at the figures for cable news channels audiences during the hard news programming, it's even smaller than during prime time, which is all commentary, so I'd say most of their viewers do separate the two. Meanwhile, the three broadcast news programs audiences have grown while cables opinion show audiences have shrunk. The best thing that could happen to Fox, or any so-called-news network for that matter, would be to drop their clear ideological bias and clean up their act. They might lose their base audience of those looking for reinforcement of already-held beliefs, but they'd gain far more viewers looking for clear, concise, and factual information.

    As to which candidates get coverage, ratings and polls are all that matters. If Obama was the frontrunner at the time you mention, that would explain why Fox wasn't covering him while everyone else was.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 9:19 PM GMT
    goebbels_news.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 11:25 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said...As to which candidates get coverage, ratings and polls are all that matters. If Obama was the frontrunner at the time you mention, that would explain why Fox wasn't covering him while everyone else was.

    Fox covered him and Hillary. The major outlets gave Hillary only moderate coverage while salivating over their savior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2015 7:07 PM GMT
    Looks like people are still looking at that thread on Fox from the left Salon website. So a bump so another viewpoint is seen.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 19, 2015 8:16 PM GMT
    Fox News is divisive and sensationalistic. They get their mediocre ratings by fear-mongering to a certain segment of the population that is prone to gun violence and domestic terrorism.