The Victorious Opposition

You gotta love it when CNN cites a “non-partisan fact checking blog” to get the scoop on the skit. It’s almost an admission of guilt, in and of itself.

To me, the success of Fox “News” says more about the sorry state of our country than anything else could. “Fair and balanced” == “mouthpiece of the GOP, unless we can find hacks more rightwing than the GOP to put on the air”. MSNBC carries the water for the Democrats, but they don’t spew “fair and balanced” while being irredeemably partisan.

What’s the over/under on how long until Lou Dobbs is on Fox primetime or Sunday mornings?

the sorry state of our country

Let me clarify that. I’m not bashing Republicans or the Tea Partiers with that. It’s more broad. Part of it is the emergence/prominence of right-wing hacks, but that’s only part of it. I’m speaking more broadly about the fiscal state of the nation, the degree of partisanship (for which the Democratic leadership deserves much, probably most, of the blame) that prevents any coming together to solve common concerns, the radical expansion of government that is disenfranchising so many, even moderates (both parties share blame, although Obamacare is certainly way over the top). Things like that.

And yet, the numbers do not bare out your analysis or fortify your ill informed thesis. There are more independents and Democrats that watch Foxnews then the other networks, based on polls taken every month on what people watch. It is the fringe that base Foxnews only on prime time programming. Fox is on 24/7, I got “America’s Newsroom” on right now, and I have found that their coverage of events as they take place is second to none.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a lib buddy of mine that I hit with every Friday. He never watches Fox but when the Ft. Hood shooting went down he told me that he was glued to Fox because all the other networks were so far behind in their coverage. We hear this all the time.  In Desert Storm and the Iraq war, Fox had more impeded reports than anyone.

You can continue to peddle that weak “Fox is a mouthpiece for the GOP” but it is not born of any facts or substance.

I agree that Fox News is actually good stuff.  While the loudmouth pundits are admittedly right-wing and deserve some comparison to the “mouthpiece of the GOP” thing, overall the channel isn’t overly biased in its actual news coverage, and MOST IMPORTANTLY (to me, at least) is that in all aspects of the channel, certain minority viewpoints (like mine, the libertarian one) get expressed, which I appreciate very much so.  It’s much harder and more uncommon to find members of Reason or the Cato Institute expressing their opinions and not being marginalized or alluded to as crazy fringe lunatics on the other channels.  I’m serious, dammit.

You can’t base your impressions only on Beck, O’reily, and Hannity, because they are commentators and their shows are advertised as opinion based. And that is 3 hours a day, on a news channel. Shepard Smith has two shows each day and he makes no bones about his libertarian bent. And the actual news reporters, those that take up most of the coverage, never betray their particular leanings and always have both sides when dealing with political issues.

You can continue to peddle that weak “Fox is a mouthpiece for the GOP” but it is not born of any facts or substance.

Fox is clearly a mouthpiece of the GOP. This isn’t even remotely disputable. If they didn’t peddle their “fair and balanced” nonsense along with it, I wouldn’t make a big deal about it. Fox is neither fair nor balanced. Nor is MSNBC, but they don’t pretend to be.

As I said, the fact that so many people watch Fox is because of the sorry state things are in right now, combined with the fact that people like watching train wrecks. I used to watch O’Reilly for the train-wreck factor, but I got tired of it after a while.

Most people get their actual news from the web (or twitter, unfortunately) these days. Which is why so many of the “news” channels are really just opinion channels for most of their on-air time. Even Headline News has primetime crap on it now.

Fox is clearly a mouthpiece of the GOP. This isn’t even remotely disputable

To you it might not be, but you can’t get past your own personal bias to see what is clear to most people.

• When it comes to audience breakdown by political lines, CNN and MSNBC showed more Democrat viewers while FNC, more Republican. But the minority party viewership is much stronger at Fox News than its competitors: 33% of Fox viewers are listed as Democrats, while 18% of CNN and MSNBC viewers say they are Republicans.

“Currently 51% of regular CNN viewers are Democrats, up from 45% two years ago. Nearly four-in-ten regular Fox News viewers are Republicans (39%), about the same as in 2006,” reports the survey.

So a network is going to cater to only 40% of its audience, while alienating the other 60%?, Do you know how silly that sounds?

This article shows the percentage of Independents that watch Foxnews:

• Among Democrats, 17 percent watched it several times each week or more

• Among Independents, 46 percent watched the station several times each week or more

• And among Republicans, 55 percent watched it several times each week or more

That’s almost half of all the Independents out there, but they are too stupid to know that they are being duped, right?

As I said, the fact that so many people watch Fox is because of the sorry state things are in right now,

Pure, unadulterated horse manure, and it goes a long way in displaying your elitism, your condescension and antipathy for what you perceive as the unwashed and ignorant.

None of what you are showing me in any way disproves the fact that Fox is a GOP mouthpiece. Nor does the fact that non-Republicans watch Fox change the fact that Fox is a GOP mouthpiece. People who are pissed off about the state of the country are going to watch the station that is pissed off about the state of the country. That happens to be GOP mouthpiece.

Unless you want to acknowledge that Fox is pure entertainment value. Lord knows, Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc are tons more entertaining than anyone on CNN or MSNBC. They compete with Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert in pure entertainment value.

Doubt me on this? Then take Fox’s word for it:

Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective. The channel has taken pains recently to highlight its news programs, including the two hours led by Shepard Smith, its chief news anchor. And its daytime newscasts draw more viewers than CNN or MSNBC’s prime-time programs.

That’s right. The “news hours” (9 out of 24) are objective.

It’s amusing that Fox’s news hours are getting more viewers than CNN’s or MSNBC’s entertainment hours, but it doesn’t change the fact that Fox itself doesn’t consider these shows drawing all the viewership that you are touting as part of their “fair and balanced”.

So yeah, this is another “elitist” badge I’ll wear with pride.

BTW - looks like Obama caved in his war with Fox. I believe I used the term “self-defeating” for this little spat…

People who are pissed off about the state of the country are going to watch the station that is pissed off about the state of the country. That happens to be GOP mouthpiece.

Except that the last poll taken (from my first link above) was taken in 2008, when Bush was still president, so according to you people are watching a network that tries to put a happy face on a bad economy? weak.

Look, they don’t need you watching, their numbers are fine without you, but your feigned superiority in displaying your high brow news discrimination is amusing. You go on thinking that those watching Foxnews are neanderthal knuckle draggers, unable to use simple tools, while you are the more enlightened, that’s cool.

No, I think that those watching Fox News are watching for the opposition factor or the entertainment factor. Fox News itself doesn’t consider that stuff news, or even objective. It’s not in what they consider their “news hours”.

As I said up top, it’s the hypocritical “we’re fair and balanced” when they are anything but fair and balanced and don’t even pretend to be at a management level that causes me to continue to rag on Fox.

Anyone who thinks Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc are “fair and balanced” needs their head examined. These guys clearly shills for the GOP, just like Maddow and Olberman shill for the Democrats. The difference is that one side pretends they aren’t shills.

You don’t need to be “enlightened” to figure this out.

Fox is clearly a mouthpiece of the GOP. This isn’t even remotely disputable.

Yes!  Clearly!  Indisputably!! 

What ridiculous nonsense, dwex.  Maybe you think it’s a mouthpiece of the GOP, but to make such firm statements without leaving any room for honest disagreement, you’re the one who ends up looking like a tool.

None of what you are showing me in any way disproves the fact that Fox is a GOP mouthpiece.

So, it’s richtaylor’s job to disprove the notion, or is it yours to prove it?  Please dwex, show me the evidence that FNC is the arm of the GOP you claim it to be, and not just a conveyor of some opinions that are shared among conservatives and Republicans.

I’m curious if you think that MSNBC, CNN, HLN and the nets are equally arms of the Democratic party, or do you only reserve your ridiculous ideas for the network that airs conservative views?

Let me note my own views on the matter.  I think FNC certainly leans right overall, when accounting for the personalities that comprise its opinion programming.  But taking their news programming itself, I think they have the least bias of all the major TV news organizations.  The reason is that they seem to avoid the tunnel vision that permeates the rest of the networks, which seem to all stick to a main narrative.  FNC does a good job of airing multiple perspectives and letting the viewer draw his or her own conclusions.  They aren’t afraid to take on stories that the other nets seem to ignore (because those stories don’t fit the conventional narrative).  Their breaking news coverage is almost always more timely and informative.  Yeah, sometimes they’re over-the-top and a little too sensational, but this is something common to ALL TV news.  When you go through all these aspects, it’s easy to see why they are the hands-down leader in TV news.

So, it’s richtaylor’s job to disprove the notion, or is it yours to prove it?

Rich posted things that he claimed disproved my assertion. They didn’t.

Please dwex, show me the evidence that FNC is the arm of the GOP you claim it to be

Gee. You’d think that if I believed this, I might already have done so.

I’m curious if you think that MSNBC, CNN, HLN and the nets are equally arms of the Democratic party, or do you only reserve your ridiculous ideas for the network that airs conservative views?

Gee, you’d think that maybe I might say something about this in my very first comment in the thread:

MSNBC carries the water for the Democrats, but they don’t spew “fair and balanced” while being irredeemably partisan.

And then I might say it again:

Fox is neither fair nor balanced. Nor is MSNBC, but they don’t pretend to be.

Or even one more time:

These guys clearly shills for the GOP, just like Maddow and Olberman shill for the Democrats. The difference is that one side pretends they aren’t shills.

But maybe none of that was clear enough.

Ugh, I wrote a few comments in response, then deleted them.  This argument is pointless, because “fair and balanced” is a subjective term to begin with, and there’s no way any of us could say anything to change your opinion of Fox.

But one thing I will point out is that you dodged my question about all the other news channels like CNN, HLN, and the networks.  Also, despite repeating your point on MSNBC, you didn’t specifically address whether you think they are equally “arms of the Democratic party”.

These guys clearly shills for the GOP, just like Maddow and Olberman shill for the Democrats. The difference is that one side pretends they aren’t shills.

Oh and I find it hard to believe that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann accept that they are shills for Democrats.  Are you seriously claiming that they don’t “pretend they aren’t shills”?

You don’t need to be “enlightened” to figure this out.

But you do need to be enlightened to be able to tell the difference between news reporting and commentary or opinion analysis, you apparently cannot.

Rich posted things that he claimed disproved my assertion. They didn’t.

And I think they clearly did, so now where does that get us?

It has been proven to you that in the prime time slots (populated by the personality types, yes, but the other networks do the same thing so it is an apples to apples comparison)Foxnews dominates. In the other time slots anchored by an avowed libertarian, ah, same results, what do you know? Brett Baier? ditto. What about a business guy, one who shy’s from politics but presents a business angle on the news?
Cavuto kicks ass

The same can be said with the WSJ report, and all the business shows on Saturday.

The only thing that is indisputable here is you sticking with your weak arguments, and failing. You don’t like Foxnews, who cares? certainly not me, but the facts are clear to those that will look at them, take a peak.

What is the correlation between having high viewing figures and having no bias?

This argument is pointless, because “fair and balanced” is a subjective term to begin with.

Well, actually it isn’t. But thats what Fox News claims, meaning that I could claim that Kos is fair and balanced if you subjectively agree with their agenda.

But you do need to be enlightened to be able to tell the difference between news reporting and commentary or opinion analysis, you apparently cannot.

Or nor, apparent;y can Fox, as they call themselves ‘Fox News.’ It’s right their in their URL. If your argument is that its okay for them to be biased in their ‘opinion’ sections, then don’t refer to it as a news channel. It’s a TV channel, with some news programmes on during the daytime.

In the TV news industry (in which I work from time to time) - it is pretty much a given that Fox has a hard GOP bias. It’s not a secret, but it is a good business model. People watch mor if they’re outraged.

What is the correlation between having high viewing figures and having no bias?

None that I can see. If the product you are peddling is popular with the folks, regardless of bias, then people will watch, but that is not the point of the post.

But thats what Fox News claims, meaning that I could claim that Kos is fair and balanced if you subjectively agree with their agenda.

And that would be true is kos presented opposing views for balance (which Fox does), if kos had some right leaning writers then they could legitimately claim the moniker “fair and balanced”.

Or nor, apparent;y can Fox, as they call themselves ‘Fox News.’ It’s right their in their URL. If your argument is that its okay for them to be biased in their ‘opinion’ sections, then don’t refer to it as a news channel. It’s a TV channel, with some news programmes on during the daytime.

Sorry, but that is not how news stations work. It’s not hard, when the “news” channel is presenting a “news” program, it is clearly labeled as such. When they are presenting personality shows (Glen Beck, The O’Reily Factor, Hannity)they make no pretense that the show is news, it is opinion. All the news networks do this. Are you telling me that because CNN has “The Larry King Show” on at prime time, that they are not a news network? Please….........

it is pretty much a given that Fox has a hard GOP bias.

Well, believe what you like, but why is Shephard Smith doing so well? He is a libertarian. Why do all the “business” shows dominate the other networks? And why do the actual “news” shows (those hosted by news anchors that report the news, offering no analysis) also garner more viewers than the other networks?

Again, most people know the difference between news reporting and commentary. All those Democrats and Independents (check the above links) that watch Fox, do so for the actual news reporting because in that area, they are second to known.

the actual “news” shows (those hosted by news anchors that report the news, offering no analysis)

Here is the point - There is no such thing. Take it from a guy who has had the job of writing the words that the news anchors say. You seem to think that the anchors just go down and see whats happening and then report what they see…

I admit, this is my experience with UK news, but it is with Sky and ITN, so I’m sure theres not a whole lot of difference.

The station hears of a possible story. The news editor will make a call on if this story is going to be covered. He then tells the programme editor what he wants the story to be. The prgramme editor will then assign one or two producers, some ‘talent’ and a cameraman to come up with a package with a set time limit. The producer will be given an angle to pursue, and sent off. The producer makes the package and sends the rough to the editor, and waits by the phone for about an hour. The package is run by the news and programme editors, who come back and make any changes to fit in with the narrative of the programme (yes ‘news’ programmes have ‘narratives’. )

The package is then rendered, graphics put in etc etc, and scripts written for the anchors from the news editors notes.

The point is that the angle, the bias, the spin, call it what you will - is more often than not decided before the ‘journalist’ has even been given the assignment. If Fox (or MSNBC or whoever)only presented the boring facts of each story, then it would be terrible TV and no one would watch. By creating a narrative you are creating good TV, which makes money, which is what the station has to do for its shareholders.