Fox News losing independents

[TonyR]

Fox News is something of a proxy for the GOP, isn't it?!?

PPP has been conducting polls on how Americans view their media outlets for four years now. Fox is both the most trusted media source and the least trusted at the same time. This hasn’t changed much over the years. But its continued evolution into pure partisan propaganda, and its creation of an entire alternate reality in the last election cycle has had an impact, especially on the middle:

41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not. Fox has maintained most of its credibility with Republicans, dropping just from 74/15 to 70/15 over that period of time. But it’s been losing what standing it had with Democrats (from 30/52 to 22/66) and independents (from 41/44 to 32/56).

It’s the independent number that matters – as in the election. Guess which network is the only one a majority trusts? PBS. That alleged bastion of liberal bias – which Mitt Romney wanted to defund – is now trusted more than any other media source. Congrats, Roger Ailes. You’re doing for the liberal media what Karl Rove did for the Democratic party.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...-independents/

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...rust-poll.html

[Rohirrim]

I would have thought the election return fiasco (with award winning performances by Karl Rove, et al) would have ended any delusions the average, intelligent viewer might have about the legitimacy of that outfit, but then, that's not Fox's target audience, is it?

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I would have thought the election return fiasco (with award winning performances by Karl Rove, et al) would have ended any delusions the average, intelligent viewer might have about the legitimacy of that outfit, but then, that's not Fox's target audience, is it?

One would think. But then you see the comments and beliefs of many right here on this forum and you can see that they're still buying it hook, line, and sinker.

[Rohirrim]

Preaching to the troglodytes.

[Pony Boy]

The Rho and TonyR show ........jerking each other off.

PBS and the Huffington post would not approve of this X rated thread ...........

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Fox News is something of a proxy for the GOP, isn't it?!?

At the end of each month, cable news ratings are released to the public. And, like clockwork, Fox News dominates the top 13 or so programs, far outstripping its competitors.

January was ... a little different. To be sure, everything is relative in cable news: Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...#slide=2041275

[TonyR]

^ Yes, Pony, this is well known. Right leaning viewers are partial to Fox whereas left leaning viewers are spread among several sources. Also, Fox viewership skews old (see below), another bad sign for the GOP along with losing independents as I posted in the OP. Clearly you don't understand the significance of such things, just as it seems the party you support doesn't.

Well, viewers under 54 are doing the former anyway. I suppose I should know this but Fox’s prime-time really does skew old. A remarkable 1.6 million watched on average in primetime in January, but only 267,000 of them were between the ages of 25 and 54. That’s the lowest number of that demo since 2001. The culture has moved on, hasn’t it?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...and-msnbc-ctd/

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...t-year_b164723

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

The Rho and TonyR show ........jerking each other off.

PBS and the Huffington post would not approve of this X rated thread ...........

Speaking of ignorant troglodytes...

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

^ Yes, Pony, this is well known. Right leaning viewers are partial to Fox whereas left leaning viewers are spread among several sources. Also, Fox viewership skews old (see below), another bad sign for the GOP along with losing independents as I posted in the OP. Clearly you don't understand the significance of such things, just as it seems the party you support doesn't.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...and-msnbc-ctd/

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...t-year_b164723

Lolz. The guy who can't go 5 posts without linking to Andrew Sullivan, PoliticOBGYN complains about the disappointing well-sourcedness of others.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Lolz. The guy who can't go 5 posts without linking to Andrew Sullivan, PoliticOBGYN complains about the disappointing well-sourcedness of others.

^ The king of ad hominem chimes in! Your well formulated, fact rich rebuttal definitely added to the discussion!

[TonyR]

Regarding Dick Morris' split with Fox...

[W]hat really did him in, I think, was when it came out in December that he was, in all probability, running a scam on the Fox News viewers whom he implored to contribute to his super PAC to defeat Barack Obama. None of the money went to that cause, instead probably finding its way back into Morris’s pocket. It’s one thing to treat Fox viewers like fools—most of the network’s personalities do that every day. But it’s quite another to treat them like marks. If you do it as blatantly as Morris did, the entire brand is threatened.

http://prospect.org/article/why-fox-dumped-dick-morris

Bolding mine.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

^ The king of ad hominem chimes in! Your well formulated, fact rich rebuttal definitely added to the discussion!

For your reference, your willingness to paint Fox viewers with broad brush is textbook ad hominem. Which is what makes your prior response so delightfully ironic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

...your willingness to paint Fox viewers with broad brush...

If by "paint with a broad brush" you mean "cite referenced statistics" then yes, I'm guilty as charged!

[Arkie]

Fox news filled a big void in the market and became #1. If their market is changing, so will Fox. They're not stupid.

[Blart]

Cable news is dying. Literally.

The median age of a Fox News viewer is 65 (sixty five!) - and that's from a study in 2008. Fox is the oldest, but all TV viewers are turning into olds. One can assume a similar fate for AM radio listeners (in the age of streaming podcasts in one's car). There go two big conservative strongholds.


Corporations can control old media, but we're posting on a site run by some guy as a hobby, which is awesome. So long as we keep the net neutral, I'm hopeful.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

If by "paint with a broad brush" you mean "cite referenced statistics" then yes, I'm guilty as charged!

I'm not sure you're aware, but there's quite a logical leap from being more trusted by Republicans and being a mouthpiece "proxy" for the party itself.

It is possible to cite real statistics and then pontificate on top of them with meaningless bull**** as Andrew so skillfully demonstrated earlier.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I'm not sure you're aware, but there's quite a logical leap from being more trusted by Republicans and being a mouthpiece "proxy" for the party itself.

It is possible to cite real statistics and then pontificate on top of them with meaningless bull**** as Andrew so skillfully demonstrated earlier.

Do you dispute that Fox News is losing independents?

Do you dispute that Fox News viewers skew old and are getting older?

Do you understand the implications of each of these, and the related implications of demographic challenges the GOP faces in general?

And what do you specifically dispute that Sullivan stated?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Do you dispute that Fox News is losing independents?

Do you dispute that Fox News viewers skew old and are getting older?

Do you understand the implications of each of these, and the related implications of demographic challenges the GOP faces in general?

I don't dispute any of this. I disputed your "proxy" characterization . And pretty much every editorial conclusion AS read into his 'statistics', ie "Propaganda" etc etc.

How do you leap from the case that "people who disagree with me watch something I disagree with" to "what other people watch is essentially propaganda." Circular Reasoning 101.

And FWIW I don't generally watch FNC or any cable news for that matter. Not a fan of the format I guess.

[Blart]

"Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox." - Former George W. Bush speechwriter.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

...meaningless bull**** as Andrew so skillfully demonstrated earlier.

You're always bashing Sullivan. Do you ever read him? Do you really know who he is and what he stands for? Are you aware that he's a Catholic and a conservative? Yes, he supports Obama. But he also criticizes him when and where he feels necessary. Like this just today:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...-barack-obama/

You really ought to know who you're bashing, and why, before doing so. Because I think you're bashing him for what you think he is, rather than for what you know he is.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Blart

"Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox." - Former George W. Bush speechwriter.

"I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present, Fox has done the fairest job, has remained the most objective of all the cable networks,"

- Former Hillary Clinton Campaign Advisor and Democratic Governor

Anecdotes are easy.

[bombay]

Faux news isn't evolving into anything. They're the same over-the-top spinsters that they've always been.

[Requiem]

The South Park Elementary TV News program is just as legit as FOX.

[cutthemdown]

An article that just says but Obama still better then Bush who was really bad isn't Obama bashing.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

You're always bashing Sullivan. Do you ever read him? Do you really know who he is and what he stands for? Are you aware that he's a Catholic and a conservative? Yes, he supports Obama. But he also criticizes him when and where he feels necessary. Like this just today:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...-barack-obama/

You really ought to know who you're bashing, and why, before doing so. Because I think you're bashing him for what you think he is, rather than for what you know he is.

I'm pretty familiar with Sullivan. Used to read him. He's since jumped the shark and is no longer worth reading, IMHO

The one thing I've discovered in Sullivan (and many other professional Opinioneers) is that once an author/editorialist finds profit in his voice, you can no longer assume that what he espouses is grounded in conviction. In fact the timing around Andrew's switch to tailoring to a predominantly liberal audience was conveniently timed. Through a series of issues, private and public, he burned up all credibility among conservatives .

So what do you do when the people you're paid to write for can no longer take you seriously? You switch teams, and take on the mantle of The Converted. People absolutely love to see people they once disagreed with come around to their way of thinking. They lap that **** up. It's basically like catnip for the politics-inflicted. And so it becomes the last refuge for those who can't go back home for whatever reason. And in certain circles, they're given far more credibility for it than they deserve.

Sullivan's dripping condescension is the most glaring symptom of his true condition. Overcompensation for his own uncertainty. Protesting too much. Whatever you want to call it.