CNN matching Fox News Ratings

[drz-400]

Might have something to do with all the Pom Pom boys for Donald Trump on Fox news.

 

[Absentglare]

I don't see this coming true at all.

Oh come now, that's quite a reach there!

Middle ground/Argument to moderation applies to truth, not opinion.

I love CNN, and for hard unbiased news they are my go to guys.

So no, I don't see CNN wavering in journalistic integrity or moving to a model of false presentation; facts are facts, and they'll continue reporting them. But there's nothing wrong with them bringing in conservative commentary, or covering more conservative issues. They're very good at unbiased presentation, and I'm sure they'll continue. And quite honestly, good news coverage should cover events concerning both ends of the political spectrum, and from multiple perspectives. My hope is that CNN starts a pattern of depolarizing the news viewing audience; that's what I'd do if I were able to shape a news station.

But if you'd like to see an example of more even handled approach improving quality, look at the newly evolving MSNBC - they're a joy to watch for daytime coverage again, particularly on primary days! They may be my election-day haunt this year!

FTA, they credit their ratings growth to the injection of conservatism :

"“We have added many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices. And I think that we are a much more-balanced network and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.”"

Lies sell, we've known that since at least William Randolph Hearst. You can claim that Fox is "unbiased" but you can also see how they didn't call it a "public option" but a "government-run health insurance plan." Of course it is still factually accurate, but it is also rhetorical so as to be deliberately misleading.

When your only goal is to present the truth, that is what should be considered least biased. Any other goal is an artificial bias that is imposed. Adding more conservatives can qualify. The distinction there is - what was CNN before, neutral or liberal ? Certainly, some would argue liberal. I can see how it would appear that way, but i suppose i just think it's a reflection of reality's well-known liberal bias. My concern is that i've always considered CNN a reasonably unbiased source for news, but it sounds like their ulterior motive, to cut into Fox's market share, could get in the way of that.

 

[Jack Hays]

CNN Takes a Victory Lap in Midst of 2016 Campaign | TVNewser

Very interesting. CNN credits their success to being less liberal. Fox is of course still doubling their overall ratings, but CNN is matching them in the target demos during primetime.

This is not so much about gaining on Fox -- their ratings still double CNN -- but rather about the collapse of MSNBC.

 

[TobyOne]

CNN has always been a liberal news outlet similar to the networks. The fact that they're compared to MsNBC and Fox may put them in the center of that small crowd but they have never been unbiased.

CNN was running the least biased show.

Their ratings suffered for it because the people that watch the news so regularly are often invested in some ideological lean, and CNN did not pander to either lean.

They've now caved on that, planning to lean right, probably acknowledging that their goal is ratings and the right is far easier to lie to.

 

[TobyOne]

Its not misleading at all. Its accurate. The fact that you think "public option" is more accurate just reflects your own bias.

A more meaningful example comes from CNN just this morning when CNN reported that there is no evidence that Clinton "willfully" broke any laws. Thats misleading because you don't have to willingly break a law to make it a crime. This is the type of partisan reporting that CNN is known for.

FTA, they credit their ratings growth to the injection of conservatism :

"“We have added many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices. And I think that we are a much more-balanced network and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.”"

Lies sell, we've known that since at least William Randolph Hearst. You can claim that Fox is "unbiased" but you can also see how they didn't call it a "public option" but a "government-run health insurance plan." Of course it is still factually accurate, but it is also rhetorical so as to be deliberately misleading.

When your only goal is to present the truth, that is what should be considered least biased. Any other goal is an artificial bias that is imposed. Adding more conservatives can qualify. The distinction there is - what was CNN before, neutral or liberal ? Certainly, some would argue liberal. I can see how it would appear that way, but i suppose i just think it's a reflection of reality's well-known liberal bias. My concern is that i've always considered CNN a reasonably unbiased source for news, but it sounds like their ulterior motive, to cut into Fox's market share, could get in the way of that.

 

[TobyOne]

And this is just nuttery which explains your nuttery viewpoint.

FTA, they credit their ratings growth to the injection of conservatism :

"“We have added many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices. And I think that we are a much more-balanced network and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.”"

Lies sell, we've known that since at least William Randolph Hearst. You can claim that Fox is "unbiased" but you can also see how they didn't call it a "public option" but a "government-run health insurance plan." Of course it is still factually accurate, but it is also rhetorical so as to be deliberately misleading.

When your only goal is to present the truth, that is what should be considered least biased. Any other goal is an artificial bias that is imposed. Adding more conservatives can qualify. The distinction there is - what was CNN before, neutral or liberal ? Certainly, some would argue liberal. I can see how it would appear that way, but i suppose i just think it's a reflection of reality's well-known liberal bias. My concern is that i've always considered CNN a reasonably unbiased source for news, but it sounds like their ulterior motive, to cut into Fox's market share, could get in the way of that.

 

[Grim17]

Yes, add more conservatives, by forcing themselves to go right.

Making themselves artificially right to accommodate the right wing bias that the conservative entertainment complex yearns for. Perhaps you've heard of the middle ground fallacy ?

They are not "going right" they are "going centrist". To achieve this, they add people with conservative viewpoints together with the people they already have with liberal viewpoints, and this creates a balance in their coverage.

Your problem is, you can't acknowledge the fact that CNN has always presented the news with a liberal bias, even when the president of the network publically admits it. CNN is adding people with conservative viewpoints because they have always been severely lacking at the network.

.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I didn't say all, I said the guys I liked are for Trump. Namely O'Reilly and Hannity. That's their prime time lineup anyway. So while I did hear that refreshing talk coming from CNN I am not so sure where you heard that on Fox News. I think a few prominent Fox News pundits are against Trump. Namely Rove, krauthammer and Kelly, and two of them don't have shows on Fox news, but then again is that so surprising that those people are against Trump??? Who else are you talking about?

Every single one including O'Reilly and Hannity--that would be Baier, Hemmer, VanSustern, the Five, all anchors and all the contributors now lead every broadcast with focus on Trump's negatives and how most people don't want him and how can he turn that around or can he turn that around? They spend a lot more time on the people who have refused to give endorsements than on the ones who have endorsed Trump. I haven't checked CNN or MSNBC recently, but I'm sure they're doing the same thing. I get so tired of it I just want to scream and I'll admit I turn the channel pretty frequently when they start doing that..

 

[AlbqOwl]

They are not "going right" they are "going centrist". To achieve this, they add people with conservative viewpoints together with the people they already have with liberal viewpoints, and this creates a balance in their coverage.

Your problem is, you can't acknowledge the fact that CNN has always presented the news with a liberal bias, even when the president of the network publically admits it. CNN is adding people with conservative viewpoints because they have always been severely lacking at the network.

.

And. . .they're trying to boost their ratings out of the basement and somebody figured out if Fox is successful giving conservatives a voice, then maybe that is what CNN should do too. But it's tough for anchors and contributors who are hard core leftists to do that.

 

[NeverTrump]

Every single one including O'Reilly and Hannity--that would be Baier, Hemmer, VanSustern, the Five, all anchors and all the contributors now lead every broadcast with focus on Trump's negatives and how most people don't want him and how can he turn that around or can he turn that around? They spend a lot more time on the people who have refused to give endorsements than on the ones who have endorsed Trump. I haven't checked CNN or MSNBC recently, but I'm sure they're doing the same thing. I get so tired of it I just want to scream and I'll admit I turn the channel pretty frequently when they start doing that..

Lolz all the people that you mentioned are basically for trump even though they don't outright say it tho some especially on the five do say it!!!!

I've seen in recent months fox news stack the coffers with disenfranchised conservatives who are none too happy with Republicans and get rid of liberals who argued their side well. Why are they reporting on people who don't endorse trump and his negatives?? Because it's a piss poor effort at concern for the candidate that even you can't see it. They are STILL talking about trump and I couldn't take it. At least CNN covers other topics

 

[AlbqOwl]

Lolz all the people that you mentioned are basically for trump even though they don't outright say it tho some especially on the five do say it!!!!

I've seen in recent months fox news stack the coffers with disenfranchised conservatives who are none too happy with Republicans and get rid of liberals who argued their side well. Why are they reporting on people who don't endorse trump and his negatives?? Because it's a piss poor effort at concern for the candidate that even you can't see it. They are STILL talking about trump and I couldn't take it. At least CNN covers other topics

Perhaps you could post some evidence of ANY of them endorsing Trump in any way?

 

[Absentglare]

They are not "going right" they are "going centrist". To achieve this, they add people with conservative viewpoints together with the people they already have with liberal viewpoints, and this creates a balance in their coverage.

Your problem is, you can't acknowledge the fact that CNN has always presented the news with a liberal bias, even when the president of the network publically admits it. CNN is adding people with conservative viewpoints because they have always been severely lacking at the network.

.

You're changing the labels to make your fallacy less apparent.

They were about presenting the news. Now, their motivation is to gain viewership. It's what we call a conflict of interest- sacrifice journalistic integrity to entertain conservative lies.

 

[Jack Hays]

You're changing the labels to make your fallacy less apparent.

They were about presenting the news. Now, their motivation is to gain viewership. It's what we call a conflict of interest- sacrifice journalistic integrity to entertain conservative lies.

Hmmm. Then I wonder why it was said in the 1990's that CNN stood for Clinton News Network?

 

[Grim17]

You're changing the labels to make your fallacy less apparent.

They were about presenting the news. Now, their motivation is to gain viewership. It's what we call a conflict of interest- sacrifice journalistic integrity to entertain conservative lies.

Their "journalistic integrity" has never measured very high. They have always been known for their liberal bias and I for one am glad to see that they are finally taking steps to correct the imbalance.

I'm sorry if you're not happy with balance, but there's still ABC, NBC and CBS if liberal biased news is what you want.

 

[jonny5]

So what?

<-debate forum

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

watching TV all day, why don't these liberals have jobs? oh wait...their job is to vote democrat.

 

[NeverTrump]

Perhaps you could post some evidence of ANY of them endorsing Trump in any way?

Well since you seem to be so concerned with the way Fox News is reporting. It seems like you haven't been paying attention to what has been happening on the network that you seem to be poorly defending. Also please note these are the same people that liberals claimed were a wing of the Romney political machine and that they "picked" Romney from the beginning.

Here is Sean Hannity walking back a statement he made when he suggested that a Cruz Super Pac attacked Melania Trump with the tweet war. Cruz himself condemned the ad and the super pac was not a part of it.Sean Hannity forced to admit Ted Cruz had ZERO connection with Melania Trump ad | RedState

For further reference. Here is Sean Hannity endorsing Trump on Twitter with glee and now he has taken up Sarah Palin's (An ex-Fox News employee/Trump Supporter) obsession to try to bring down speaker Paul Ryan why??? I wonder if it's because he's not in love with Trump like they are??? Ya think? : BREAKING: Top Fox News Host Just Endorsed TRUMP For President! WOW

But wait! It doesn't stop there! Here is how the false Cruz Super Pac accusation went from a suggested snark to a full blown conspiracy theory. Thanks in part to Fox and Friends when they had on Trump's special son to explain it all to them: Trump's son blasts 'disgusting' Cruz over Melania ad: 'It's sick he did that' | Washington Examiner. No Push back at all from anybody from Fox and Friends. in fact, Ainsley Earhardt set the thing up!!!!!

Eric Bolling of the Five has been one of Trump's earliest cheerleaders, but you have to be a special kind of stupid if even Trump thinks your conspiracy theories are stupid: Even Trump thought Eric Bolling?s crackpot GOP convention conspiracy theory was dumb » The Right Scoop -

Greta herself has been a pretty neutral force but she comes with her own brand of kookiness. She has insisted that people who think Trump's Campaign manager should have been fired are biased against the guy. Really??? Bias??? that's what's going on here. Yeah right.... Greta: How Can Reporters Who Called on Trump to Fire Campaign Manager Say They Will Cover This Election Fairly? - Fox Nation

Then there was the whole Trump/Bill O fight where Trump wouldn't come on Bill O's Show because Bill had Krauthammer on as a usual guest and sometimes even right after Trump himself where Krauthammer would criticize Trump. My guess is Bill was trying to show some sort of balancing act but that has since went out the window: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bill-oreilly-critical-friend-donald-trump/2016/04/06/id/722675/

Oh and let's not forget the phony Fox News boycott and when he skipped out on the debate, in which Fox News made nice with Donald Trump because they didn't want to suffer and get ratings taken away by say, Oh I don't know CNN!!!!! http://deadline.com/2016/01/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-ratings-for-fox-news-gop-debate-1201692226/

So No.... They don't support Trump at all. If you can't read between these lines I don't know what to tell ya. I'll just leave you with this tidbit from one of Fox News' most balanced pundits: Gutfeld: 'Noted Conservatives' Suddenly Demanding GOP Unity After Cheering Disruption

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well since you seem to be so concerned with the way Fox News is reporting. It seems like you haven't been paying attention to what has been happening on the network that you seem to be poorly defending. Also please note these are the same people that liberals claimed were a wing of the Romney political machine and that they "picked" Romney from the beginning.

Here is Sean Hannity walking back a statement he made when he suggested that a Cruz Super Pac attacked Melania Trump with the tweet war. Cruz himself condemned the ad and the super pac was not a part of it.Sean Hannity forced to admit Ted Cruz had ZERO connection with Melania Trump ad | RedState

For further reference. Here is Sean Hannity endorsing Trump on Twitter with glee and now he has taken up Sarah Palin's (An ex-Fox News employee/Trump Supporter) obsession to try to bring down speaker Paul Ryan why??? I wonder if it's because he's not in love with Trump like they are??? Ya think? : BREAKING: Top Fox News Host Just Endorsed TRUMP For President! WOW

But wait! It doesn't stop there! Here is how the false Cruz Super Pac accusation went from a suggested snark to a full blown conspiracy theory. Thanks in part to Fox and Friends when they had on Trump's special son to explain it all to them: Trump's son blasts 'disgusting' Cruz over Melania ad: 'It's sick he did that' | Washington Examiner. No Push back at all from anybody from Fox and Friends. in fact, Ainsley Earhardt set the thing up!!!!!

Eric Bolling of the Five has been one of Trump's earliest cheerleaders, but you have to be a special kind of stupid if even Trump thinks your conspiracy theories are stupid: Even Trump thought Eric Bolling?s crackpot GOP convention conspiracy theory was dumb » The Right Scoop -

Greta herself has been a pretty neutral force but she comes with her own brand of kookiness. She has insisted that people who think Trump's Campaign manager should have been fired are biased against the guy. Really??? Bias??? that's what's going on here. Yeah right.... Greta: How Can Reporters Who Called on Trump to Fire Campaign Manager Say They Will Cover This Election Fairly? - Fox Nation

Then there was the whole Trump/Bill O fight where Trump wouldn't come on Bill O's Show because Bill had Krauthammer on as a usual guest and sometimes even right after Trump himself where Krauthammer would criticize Trump. My guess is Bill was trying to show some sort of balancing act but that has since went out the window: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bill-oreilly-critical-friend-donald-trump/2016/04/06/id/722675/

Oh and let's not forget the phony Fox News boycott and when he skipped out on the debate, in which Fox News made nice with Donald Trump because they didn't want to suffer and get ratings taken away by say, Oh I don't know CNN!!!!! http://deadline.com/2016/01/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-ratings-for-fox-news-gop-debate-1201692226/

So No.... They don't support Trump at all. If you can't read between these lines I don't know what to tell ya. I'll just leave you with this tidbit from one of Fox News' most balanced pundits: Gutfeld: 'Noted Conservatives' Suddenly Demanding GOP Unity After Cheering Disruption

First, I suggest you really scrutinize your own sources for lack of objectivity and putting very questionable spin on their analysis..

Second, Hannity has not endorse Trump. He has endorsed whomever the GOP nominee is and he has unashamedly said from the beginning that he wants a conservative Republican to win. This is nothing new. Hannity has ALWAYS been in the tank for those right of center. It is his schtick and he does not represent Fox News; he is simply one of the featured programs on it.

And finally, it is absurd that nobody at Fox can say anything positive about Trump without being accused of endorsing him. I am telling you I have watched all this from the beginning and there has been far more negative attention given to Trump at Fox (and everywhere else) than there has been positive. But if it had ALL been negative, Fox would lose all credibility as well they should. Ask CNN and MSNBC how their almost 100% anti conservative slant has worked out for them.

 

[NeverTrump]

First, I suggest you really scrutinize your own sources for lack of objectivity and putting very questionable spin on their analysis..

Second, Hannity has not endorse Trump. He has endorsed whomever the GOP nominee is and he has unashamedly said from the beginning that he wants a conservative Republican to win. This is nothing new. Hannity has ALWAYS been in the tank for those right of center. It is his schtick and he does not represent Fox News; he is simply one of the featured programs on it.

And finally, it is absurd that nobody at Fox can say anything positive about Trump without being accused of endorsing him. I am telling you I have watched all this from the beginning and there has been far more negative attention given to Trump at Fox (and everywhere else) than there has been positive. But if it had ALL been negative, Fox would lose all credibility as well they should. Ask CNN and MSNBC how their almost 100% anti conservative slant has worked out for them.

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. I gave you mostly right wing sources of which I thought you would be happy with. I guess you don't really care about that... Then, especially since you know Hannity has been for Trump from the beginning!!! You just lied. That's one part of their prime-time lineup. I like Hannity a lot, but had to stop watching him because he's a Trump Cheerleader and I only listen to him once in a while when I want to hear that. Which is what I said from the beginning of my posting here.

You keep saying all you hear on Fox News is negative Trump. Well then, post your sources!

 

[AlbqOwl]

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. I gave you mostly right wing sources of which I thought you would be happy with. I guess you don't really care about that... Then, especially since you know Hannity has been for Trump from the beginning!!! You just lied. That's one part of their prime-time lineup. I like Hannity a lot, but had to stop watching him because he's a Trump Cheerleader and I only listen to him once in a while when I want to hear that. Which is what I said from the beginning of my posting here.

You keep saying all you hear on Fox News is negative Trump. Well then, post your sources!

Redstate has not been a 'reliable' source for some time. Very sloppy journalism. They are in my wheelhouse of sources, and of course they do get some things right, but lately I have not been able to confirm a lot of their stuff anywhere else so that makes it suspect in my book. And speaking of sloppy reporting, I have never said that all I hear on Fox News is negative Trump. I have said that they are more negative Trump than positive. I have posted reliable sources for the imbalance of negative vs positive and don't care to go hunt those up again. To make my point re Fox News with empirical evidence, I would have to find clips from every program and I am not inclined to do that either.

But I can say that because this person said something nice about Trump or that person said something nice about Trump is NOT evidence that the network is positive about Trump.

 

[NeverTrump]

Redstate has not been a 'reliable' source for some time. Very sloppy journalism. They are in my wheelhouse of sources, and of course they do get some things right, but lately I have not been able to confirm a lot of their stuff anywhere else so that makes it suspect in my book. And speaking of sloppy reporting, I have never said that all I hear on Fox News is negative Trump. I have said that they are more negative Trump than positive. I have posted reliable sources for the imbalance of negative vs positive and don't care to go hunt those up again. To make my point re Fox News with empirical evidence, I would have to find clips from every program and I am not inclined to do that either.

But I can say that because this person said something nice about Trump or that person said something nice about Trump is NOT evidence that the network is positive about Trump.

Lol you ask me for evidence. I gave you evidence. I ask you for evidence. You run away and hide. I find it funny you cannot even manage to find one article about Fox News reporting on Trump's negatives constantly. This is what you were complaining about back a couple of posts. If you don't post any evidence to support your theory, how can I take you seriously?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Lol you ask me for evidence. I gave you evidence. I ask you for evidence. You run away and hide. I find it funny you cannot even manage to find one article about Fox News reporting on Trump's negatives constantly. This is what you were complaining about back a couple of posts. If you don't post any evidence to support your theory, how can I take you seriously?

I asked for sources that anybody on Fox News had specifically endorsed Trump. I asked for no other sources.

But if you didn't think my previous sources I posted were sufficient evidence, I doubt I could post anything you would take seriously. But it's a free country. Anyhow, if you interpret my post as 'running away and hiding" we don't really have anything to discuss anyway. But do have a pleasant evening.

 

[NeverTrump]

I asked for sources that anybody on Fox News had specifically endorsed Trump. I asked for no other sources.

But if you didn't think my previous sources I posted were sufficient evidence, I doubt I could post anything you would take seriously. But it's a free country. Anyhow, if you interpret my post as 'running away and hiding" we don't really have anything to discuss anyway. But do have a pleasant evening.

and I asked you for sources and you couldn't even come up with one!!!! Lol. My theory is looking a whole lot better than yours at this point. The one link you posted to in this thread is of Fox News ratings. You didn't post anything that backed up your theory that Fox has been focusing on Trump negatives. So what am I supposed to be looking at here? Some random thread that you made weeks ago? I can't read your mind here...

But it's OK that you have no evidence, just come out and say it. You'll feel better.

 

[M.A.C]

This is why I think that all media should be controlled by one group of all races, both genders, and without political party's involved. This would remove the problem of "ratings" and "Views" because there would only be one.

 

[Grim17]

This is why I think that all media should be controlled by one group of all races, both genders, and without political party's involved. This would remove the problem of "ratings" and "Views" because there would only be one.

That idea has the same fatal flaw as socialism does... If fails to take into account human nature. Having one group control all news media would inevitably wind up making the news far more biased and untrustworthy than it already is. Why do you think state run media in other countries are the most biased, unreliable sources for an honest accounting of the days events?

Just look at PBS here in America. They are public run and are supposed to be non-political and non-ideological, yet produce some of the most biased, ideological, agenda driven programming you'll find anywhere.