- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,200
- Reaction score
- 9,692
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Which flies in the face of your claim, so you just want to walk away from that yet, or did you want to try to back it?So hot!!!
I was using "viewers" to mean consumers of media. Talk radio listeners are consumers of media. Talk radio - Rush Etc. have a very large audience. Most now also are Fox viewers.
Isolationism, ignoring science, doing nothing for working people except creating divisions between black, brown and white, refusal to even consider things like raising the minimum wage, hating government health insurance, present in every developed country, suggestions that dissent means disloyalty, America first BS, etc.What far right attributes are you talking about?
I don't know what you are after? The population of people that can consume media is fixed. Each of those people can consume none, some, or lots of media. I originally used the term viewer to mean one consumption of media not one media consumer. Do you see the distinction? All of the media consumed is what is distributed across all the media providers. I think the term of art is "viewer" but I am not an expert at tabulating media consumption.Which flies in the face of your claim, so you just want to walk away from that yet, or did you want to try to back it?
Let's be crystal clear. ABC NBC and cbs together make far more than foxEveryone but Fox.
It isn't that bad. The Times and Post are mere shadows of what they once were, but they still have value when the content is free. CNN is a total loss, so i give you that one.
If I was a high school debate coach, I would tell you this line would not work. Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's easily disproven. That said, it would be more accurate to say the media has become an advocate of the so-called liberal ideology and hostile to any contrary voice. I say so-called, because liberals in the Locke, Hume, Mills vein are political conservatives today.
I don't know what you are after? The population of people that can consume media is fixed. Each of those people can consume none, some, or lots of media. I originally used the term viewer to mean one consumption of media not one media consumer. Do you see the distinction? All of the media consumed is what is distributed across all the media providers. I think the term of art is "viewer" but I am not an expert at tabulating media consumption.
Fox has the most viewers of the big three. But is small compared to the other media providers combined.
Could this perhaps be explained by the fact that any reasonable person considers Trump a massive failure (and clown)? Most coverage of nuclear war is probably "negative" too -- that does not mean it's biased and unfair.Back in 2017, after Trump's first 100 days, Harvard released a study on media coverage of the President. It was ugly.
News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days | Shorenstein Center
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and...shorensteincenter.org
They together make far more money than foxFox was the newcomer and isn't pushing the news narrative the other companies are which demonstrates the other media outlets aren't following the money.
It helps if your premise isn't fatally flawed.
"Together"They together make far more money than fox
You think if ABC can beat nbc in the ratings by leaning right they wont do it?"Together"
Imagine how much more they could be making if they weren't acting as DNC water carriers and just reporting the news.
You think if ABC can beat nbc in the ratings by leaning right they wont do it?
That is freaking hilarious
No they could not. Fox has a niche audience like msnbc.Yet, they aren't and they could.
Let's be crystal clear. ABC NBC and cbs together make far more than fox
Not even vaguely possible, since any reasonable person considers Trump a success. It only requires the ability to think objectively and set aside any preconceptions, plus real facts instead of the alt-facts used by these media sources.Could this perhaps be explained by the fact that any reasonable person considers Trump a massive failure (and clown)? Most coverage of nuclear war is probably "negative" too -- that does not mean it's biased and unfair.
I accept your concession
Not even vaguely possible, since any reasonable person considers Trump a success. It only requires the ability to think objectively and set aside any preconceptions, plus real facts instead of the alt-facts used by these media sources.
No they could not. Fox has a niche audience like msnbc.
That is just dumb dude
That is like saying Walmart charges more th as n Amazon because it feels good. Lol
You suggest a for profit company ignores profit. It is the dumbest thing ever. Why do you hate democracy in the marketplace ?False, its selling a viewpoint, there are more viewers available that their demand is not met. Fox's "niche" market is higher than any other cable channel and most times than the other 2 cable networks combined, this is because Fox has no competition. There is demand, there is not enough supply.
Your premise ignores basic supply and demand for political idiocy.
... any reasonable person considers Trump a success.
OK I think I see what you mean. Fox found a niche (ideological conservatives) that wasn't being served by other media providers. They filled that need and so were successful. Of course other media providers can compete for those viewers. Breitbart, etc.Fox was the newcomer and isn't pushing the news narrative the other companies are which demonstrates the other media outlets aren't following the money.
It helps if your premise isn't fatally flawed.
Not even vaguely possible, since any reasonable person considers Trump a success. It only requires the ability to think objectively and set aside any preconceptions, plus real facts instead of the alt-facts used by these media sources.
Exactly. They are all chasing dollars in the endOK I think I see what you mean. Fox found a niche (ideological conservatives) that wasn't being served by other media providers. They filled that need and so were successful. Of course other media providers can compete for those viewers. Breitbart, etc.
He is absolutely claiming that.Are you claiming only deplorables are reasonable?
I'm suggesting people aren't buying what they are selling.You suggest a for profit company ignores profit. It is the dumbest thing ever. Why do you hate democracy in the marketplace ?
If the MSM leans left....that is what the people want
It's not a concession. It's a statement that you said something known to be false.I accept your concession
Suggest nothing. It's a flat statement.You suggest a for profit company ignores profit.
Taking the financial hit just to make a political point. You might be right.It is the dumbest thing ever.
Why do you?Why do you hate democracy in the marketplace?
That's not what the ratings and the ad revenue say.If the MSM leans left....that is what the people want
Name a reasonable, verifiable standard, then judge how the Trump administration has done by that standard. He has done well. This is not rocket science.Wow, I would not make that claim about any politician ever. You really like to take your idiocy hardcore I guess? Good for you, own it.
Don't be silly. Any person able to ignore Trump's personality and look at the administration's accomplishments will reach this conclusion.Are you claiming only deplorables are reasonable?
I would not cast it in those terms. More of an apologist and propaganda outlet.Is Post a Biden or DNC operative?
Unless you are claiming ever rational and unbiased person is deplorable, this isHe is absolutely claiming that.
Do YOU believe the Mainstream Media is and has been fair, objective and unbiased in their reporting on current political and social issues?
Dismissed as laughably ridiculousIt's not a concession. It's a statement that you said something known to be false.
Suggest nothing. It's a flat statement.
Taking the financial hit just to make a political point. You might be right.
Why do you?
That's not what the ratings and the ad revenue say.
Name a reasonable, verifiable standard, then judge how the Trump administration has done by that standard. He has done well. This is not rocket science.
Don't be silly. Any person able to ignore Trump's personality and look at the administration's accomplishments will reach this conclusion.
I would not cast it in those terms. More of an apologist and propaganda outlet.
Unless you are claiming ever rational and unbiased person is deplorable, this is
Yet they do buy it every nightI'm suggesting people aren't buying what they are selling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?