CNN

[byu71]

I would agree. FoxNews perfected the ideological news style that purports to be "fair and balanced" while telling a very specific ideological story to one group of people. They realized that they could make more money by telling a small group of people what they wanted to hear and to call everything else ironically "bias." The Fox Model replaces objectivity and a large diverse audience with a dedicated and but narrow group of folks who go nowhere else. The model forces Fox to go right, because that is the hook.

MSNBC has tried to duplicate the Fox model on the left, they just aren't very good at it.

Are you serious? What is your training? Not to be mean, but you have never taken a marketing class have you?

You think O'Reilly's ratings are a small band of conservative radicals. The Five's ratings are a group of small conservative radicals.

Now looking at the MSNBC ratings, yes I can see an appeal to a small group of radicals.

[pellegrino]

I don't think this is a big deal. Slightly amusing, sure.

Can you elaborate why you don't think it's a big deal? I realize that it's all a show, but don't you think that staging the newscast in such a way affects the credibility of the news organization at least a little bit?

[VirginiaCougar]

Are you serious? What is your training? Not to be mean, but you have never taken a marketing class have you?

You think O'Reilly's ratings are a small band of conservative radicals. The Five's ratings are a group of small conservative radicals.

Now looking at the MSNBC ratings, yes I can see an appeal to a small group of radicals.

Ouch, nice little personal attack - an ironic one at that. Yes, I am arguing that Fox recognized that they didn't have to compete for large national numbers, that they could succeed with much smaller viewership numbers if they made them dedicated viewers (which the ideology does). Fox survives on a much, much smaller piece of the TV viewership pie than the more objective television news of past generations. Its viewership skews both strongly conservative and older in age.

Its a brilliant strategy for making money, particularly in our media age when there are so many TV viewing choices. The only thing harmed is the news, the real news which they abuse with abandon for profit. The reason MSNBC bothers you so much is that it is on the left and you like the flavor of Kool-Aid Fox offers more. Talk to a strong liberal, they make the same argument you make, just reversing the two stations.

In the end, they are two sides of the same coin. You can actually read about the "Fox Model" in the marketing/TV industry if you would like - it is very well known.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would agree. FoxNews perfected the ideological news style that purports to be "fair and balanced" while telling a very specific ideological story to one group of people. They realized that they could make more money by telling a small group of people what they wanted to hear and to call everything else ironically "bias." The Fox Model replaces objectivity and a large diverse audience with a dedicated and but narrow group of folks who go nowhere else. The model forces Fox to go right, because that is the hook.

MSNBC has tried to duplicate the Fox model on the left, they just aren't very good at it.

This is exactly right. And yes, they do it better than MSNBC.

[Non Sequitur]

Can you elaborate why you don't think it's a big deal? I realize that it's all a show, but don't you think that staging the newscast in such a way affects the credibility of the news organization at least a little bit?

It's just a backdrop. You have never seen two news people standing next to each other, talking back and forth. That only takes place in studios with chairs. It would be weird to see them hanging out on the same corner, chatting.

[pellegrino]

It's just a backdrop. You have never seen two news people standing next to each other, talking back and forth. That only takes place in studios with chairs. It would be weird to see them hanging out on the same corner, chatting.

I'm aware of that, but the fact remains that they're misrepresenting the backdrop. I'm asking if that undermines their ability to accurately represent the news.

[Non Sequitur]

...I'm asking if that undermines their ability to accurately represent the news.

On the list of things that undermines their ability to accurately represent the news, this is somewhere in the middle of the third page.

[Surfah]

On the list of things that undermines their ability to accurately represent the news, this is somewhere in the middle of the third page.

Then why did the videos and GIFs go viral?

[pellegrino]

On the list of things that undermines their ability to accurately represent the news, this is somewhere in the middle of the third page.

please elaborate as to why you think that. One could ask if they're willing to fabricate the backdrop for drama's (or whatever) sake then what else are they willing to fabricate/misrepresend?

[Non Sequitur]

Then why did the videos and GIFs go viral?

For the same reason that videos of kittens playing the piano go viral. Neither are important, but both are amusing.

[Surfah]

For the same reason that videos of kittens playing the piano go viral. Neither are important, but both are amusing.

I actually agree with you in that it should be far down the list of things that undermines their credibility, but I think the perception that Pelle is talking about in fact does. At best this certainly doesn't help after what happened in Boston which should and did undermine their credibility.

[byu71]

This is exactly right. And yes, they do it better than MSNBC.

Just so I am clear.

You think Fox is as extreme to the right as MSNBC is to the left?

And if people think Fox isn't as extreme as MSNBC it is because they have been fooled?

[VirginiaCougar]

Just so I am clear.

You think Fox is as extreme to the right as MSNBC is to the left?

And if people think Fox isn't as extreme as MSNBC it is because they have been fooled?

Yes.

(Actually, my bad - I see after posting this that the question wasn't directed at me. My answer is the same, but again my mistake for answering something you asked JL.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just so I am clear.

You think Fox is as extreme to the right as MSNBC is to the left?

And if people think Fox isn't as extreme as MSNBC it is because they have been fooled?

Pretty much.

[dabrockster]

Ouch, nice little personal attack - an ironic one at that. Yes, I am arguing that Fox recognized that they didn't have to compete for large national numbers, that they could succeed with much smaller viewership numbers if they made them dedicated viewers (which the ideology does). Fox survives on a much, much smaller piece of the TV viewership pie than the more objective television news of past generations. Its viewership skews both strongly conservative and older in age.

Its a brilliant strategy for making money, particularly in our media age when there are so many TV viewing choices. The only thing harmed is the news, the real news which they abuse with abandon for profit. The reason MSNBC bothers you so much is that it is on the left and you like the flavor of Kool-Aid Fox offers more. Talk to a strong liberal, they make the same argument you make, just reversing the two stations.

In the end, they are two sides of the same coin. You can actually read about the "Fox Model" in the marketing/TV industry if you would like - it is very well known.

Are you saying FoxNews has a smaller viewership/group and they focused on that group??

Doesn't FoxNews pretty much dominate the ratings (Viewership) on a nightly basis?? Your example doesn't make sense to me at all...