If FoxNews is so 'bad', then why so many viewers?

[Coda]

Here are the stats from Wednesday:

CABLE NEWS RACE WED., JUNE 21, 2006
VIEWERS

FNC O'REILLY 2,149,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,735,000
FNC GRETA 1,353,000
FNC HUME 1,240,000
FNC SHEP 1,185,000
CNN KING 1,007,000
CNN COOPER 912,000
CNN DOBBS 793,000
CNN ZAHN 625,000
CNNHN GRACE 497,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 251,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 246,000

Is it that CNN and MSNBC are just awful networks? I've been watching these stats long enough to say that this is not an anomaly.

[Root Doctor]

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."--
H. L. Mencken

[Enforcer]

If Britney Spears is so "bad," then why so many listeners?

[Enforcer]

Paul B, that's hilarious.

[lynn]

The stupidity of that question is astonishing, which is why so many people watch Fox news.

I blame Ronald Reagan.

[crawjo]

You guys have it all wrong. The reason Fox News gets the most coverage is because they are fair and balanced. O'Reilly's show is a refreshing no-spin zone, where only the truth comes out. The American people want to know the truth, not some biased representation of it, and so they appreciate the kind of hard-nosed journalism that Fox News offers to its viewers.

[Gary Sisco]

Numbers equals right (so long as he agrees with the numbers....)

By this logic, the National Enquirer is the best American newspaper. No other has anywhere near the circulation. No other can even dream about it.

[Noj]

Boy, that Coda sure knows how to make an argument! He showed you guys.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm sure he'd think the same of a Congress if its party control changed, hey.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

If Rod Stewart is so "bad," then why so many listeners?

Fixed

[larrycohen]

News has become entertainment. I never watch it, but I assume Fox is more entertaining than the other networks.

[Gary Sisco]

So Clinton must've been a hell of a popular guy in Coda's world. After all, he was actually elected twice. No annointment by Scalia was necessary.

[Coda]

Clinton is very popular today and was when the was the president. I think his best qualities are his communication skills followed closely by a very likeable personality.

To bad this thread deteriorated so quickly.

[Brian Olewnick]

To examine your post at least somewhat objectively, look at the major network (including cable) news sources. On some scale 0-100 where 50 represents politically middle of the road by American standards , 0 equalling Michael Moore, 100 equaling Pat Buchanan, Fox is really the only one on the plus side of 50, ie, the only one with an overt Republican bias, certainly in its editorial programming and more than a bit in its actual news coverage. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and PBS all lean, slightly or a little more, to the Democratic side. (fwiw, I think PBS' 7PM report with Bill Moyers is vastly superior to anything on the other channels). So if you're a viewer wishing to see a newscast that tilts things a bit to the Dem side, you have five or six possibilities, thus splitting the viewership. If you're a Republican and want to see a broadcast tilted your way, there's really only Fox. It's not so surprising then to find that Fox has more viewers than the others even if the general population is split roughly 50/50. Hell, if anything, the ratio strikes me as surprisingly low.

[Gary Sisco]

It never had a chance, Coda. The premise begged mockery, let's face it.

What's better, a world-class fine-dining experience or McD's? Hey, billions can't be wrong. Gotta be the McD's.

Brian raises preference, however, which is a different issue. Coda was asking how something so popular could be "bad," not preferred.

Truth is, tv, period, regardless of its "bias" (nothing political can be objective in any case) is the worst source of "news" apart perhaps from radio "talk shows." They're just about even, I'd say, in badness, sourcewise. Television by its nature requires some kind of entertainment, if only a phonily induced fear or suspicion. There isn't enough time on any "news" program to present more than a headline. Even an "in-depth" look at something will only equal a paragraph or three.

And now a word from our sponsors ... speaking of bias.

[Gary Sisco]

The population is not split 50/50 between repubs and dims, either, Brian. At least a third of the population identifies with neither "major" party -- and it's they who necessarily, that being the case, decide elections. Each party's loyalist vote is a given but neither has a loyalist base enough to win a majority of votes or even close. So therefore it is inaccurate to say that the population is split 50/50.

Another factor would be that most of the population doesn't vote, so who knows where they stand on what or why.

It's pretty clear form polls that there is a close divide on various issues but that does not translate into party support. Bush's numbers today actually reflect his party's loyalist numbers. Not many, in other words. He has the support of just about one in three, not one in two.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Coda

To bad this thread deteriorated so quickly.

How did it deteriorate? You equated popularity with quality in the initial post. People argued that your logic is fallacious. What direction, exactly, would have been satisfactory for you?

[Gary Sisco]

Agreement, clearly.

[Gary Sisco]

Coda starts the same slide as Brian, however. I mentioned how Clinton could have been anything but popular in *Coda's* world -- not in general -- given the large number of people who liked him. How could he have been "bad" and still had so many people not only liking him but voting for him, twice? Even after the whole "Monica" business, this was still the case. By Coda's logic, then, Clinton must have been "good." Had to be or else so many wouldn't have liked him.

[Gary Sisco]

It's a funnily illogical logic, though -- almost impossible not to mock.

German fascism, it's too often forgotten, was a real, majoritarian, *mass* movement. How could it have been bad?

[Gentle Giant]

If this thread is so bad, then why so many posters? Actually, there are fewer than a dozen individual folks who've posted, so maybe the numbers DON'T lie!

[Gary Sisco]

Numbers never lie.

People do.

[walto]

0 equalling Michael Moore, 100 equaling Pat Buchanan, Fox is really the only one on the plus side of 50

I'm not sure I agree with this, FWIW. For one thing, Buchanan is all over the place and doesn't really count as any sensible end of this admittedly limited continuum. (He's both pro-protection and anti-Israel, e.g.). The actual continuum is probably more like Moore to Coulter, but the mainstream media tends to make fun of both of those pundits--just as everybody does here. As to being "Republican" or "Democrat"--Fox is Repub. but most of the other listed channels seem to me like they're nothing at all. PBS is probably slightly Dem., maybe CNN too.

[Gary Sisco]

I disagree. Buchanan is a very traditional kind of American rightwing nutcase. He personifies Know Nothingism.

[Brian Olewnick]

fwiw, I don't think the issue in the original post was quality per se, more, "How come Fox draws so many more viewers than other networks? Wouldn't you expect it to be roughly equal to CNN? (say)" My response was, simply looked at in terms of viewers' political preferences and their expectations on seeing them, to a greater or lesser extent, mirrored on their chosen newscast, the numbers aren't surprising at all, given the far greater amount of Dem-leaning broadcasts and a roughly equal, two-way cross-section of political allegiances (whether party-declared or not).

It's not the same thing as the Britney Spears example where she "outvotes" thousands of competitors. Here, there are 7 specimens, six blueish and one red and a buying public half reddish, half blueish.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by walto

As to being "Republican" or "Democrat"--Fox is Repub. but most of the other listed channels seem to me like they're nothing at all. PBS is probably slightly Dem., maybe CNN too.

Whether they're Dem-leaning or not in any objective sense, they're certainly perceived as such by the vast majority of Republican viewers, I think it's safe to say.

Oh and feel free to substitute Coulter for Buchanan if you like...

[walto]

they're certainly pereceived as such by the vast majority of Republican viewers,

No question about that.

[Gary Sisco]

Repubs view everyone but themselves as dims.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Coda

Clinton is very popular today and was when the was the president. I think his best qualities are his communication skills followed closely by a very likeable personality.

To bad this thread deteriorated so quickly.

In what way? I think you are skating points. Brittney spears is WAY more popular than all the best musicians in the world. And most of the best musicians in the world are almost unknown, or at best appreciated by small groups of educated listeners.

Look at the top shows on TV. Does popularity denote taste, or intelligence. You have shot yourself in the foot with this logic Coda.

[Gary Sisco]

She's WAY more popular than any politician of any party, far's that goes.