How influential is Fox News anyway?

[Stevicus]

I came across this story from my news feed: Perspective | Trump might survive firing Rosenstein or even Mueller. The reason: Fox News.

For Richard Nixon, the “Saturday Night Massacre” was the beginning of the end.

The nation finally turned against the embattled president after he forced out — on Oct. 20, 1973 — the attorney general and his deputy who refused to get rid of the special prosecutor investigating him.

A week later, for the first time, a plurality of Americans favored impeachment. And 10 months later, he resigned.

But Nixon didn’t have Fox News in his corner.

President Trump does — and that might make all the difference if he were to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein or even special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

The pro-Trump media, led by Fox, would give cover, and huge swaths of Americans would be encouraged to believe that the action was not only justified but absolutely necessary.

Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

I've heard a lot of people talk about Fox News in this way, as if it's so influential as to make it almost dangerous, but what does this really mean? Does it mean that Americans can't really make up their own minds without some media corporation to tell them what to think?

And what does this say about long-established media companies like the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Have they lost the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience? If so, how did that happen? Doesn't it seem like sour grapes that these major media outlets are lamenting over Fox News' supposed influence, when these same companies had a virtual oligopoly on controlling the news 40-50 years ago? Now that cable, satellite, and internet providers have increased the number of options available, it's as if these established companies can't handle the competition.

The Post, Times, and others have paywalls up, indicating that they're more interested in profitability than in actually spreading the news. It's ironic that the Post has the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" on their banner, yet they themselves put profits ahead of everything else. So much for their commitment to democracy.

Why don't the mainstream media double their efforts to regain the hearts and minds of all the readers and viewers they've lost? Did it ever occur to them that they've been a part of the problem all along?

I'm definitely not a fan of Fox News, but I sure get tired of hearing people whine about them all the time. They're not a monopoly, and unlike the mainstream media of 50 years ago, they don't have a captive audience like what used to exist in the pre-cable, pre-internet days. The only reason they get any viewers at all is ostensibly because they like what they hear. I doubt that Fox is using subliminal messages or some kind of mind control device, yet listening to some people talk about Fox, they seem to believe that their viewers have no free will or ability to make choices.

 

[David T]

I came across this story from my news feed: Perspective | Trump might survive firing Rosenstein or even Mueller. The reason: Fox News.
How representational is the real question.


Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

I've heard a lot of people talk about Fox News in this way, as if it's so influential as to make it almost dangerous, but what does this really mean? Does it mean that Americans can't really make up their own minds without some media corporation to tell them what to think?

And what does this say about long-established media companies like the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Have they lost the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience? If so, how did that happen? Doesn't it seem like sour grapes that these major media outlets are lamenting over Fox News' supposed influence, when these same companies had a virtual oligopoly on controlling the news 40-50 years ago? Now that cable, satellite, and internet providers have increased the number of options available, it's as if these established companies can't handle the competition.

The Post, Times, and others have paywalls up, indicating that they're more interested in profitability than in actually spreading the news. It's ironic that the Post has the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" on their banner, yet they themselves put profits ahead of everything else. So much for their commitment to democracy.

Why don't the mainstream media double their efforts to regain the hearts and minds of all the readers and viewers they've lost? Did it ever occur to them that they've been a part of the problem all along?

I'm definitely not a fan of Fox News, but I sure get tired of hearing people whine about them all the time. They're not a monopoly, and unlike the mainstream media of 50 years ago, they don't have a captive audience like what used to exist in the pre-cable, pre-internet days. The only reason they get any viewers at all is ostensibly because they like what they hear. I doubt that Fox is using subliminal messages or some kind of mind control device, yet listening to some people talk about Fox, they seem to believe that their viewers have no free will or ability to make choices.

 

[Woberts]

Most Republicans just eat this stuff up. You would think with all these cries of "fake news" they would look at Fox; But it's only the news outlets that criticize Trump that get called fake news.

 

[bobhikes]

I came across this story from my news feed: Perspective | Trump might survive firing Rosenstein or even Mueller. The reason: Fox News.



Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

I've heard a lot of people talk about Fox News in this way, as if it's so influential as to make it almost dangerous, but what does this really mean? Does it mean that Americans can't really make up their own minds without some media corporation to tell them what to think?

.

Americans have already made up their minds and Fox knows this and promotes confirmation bias for this group to make money. They are not changing normal peoples minds but confirming normal peoples bias.

Does Fox News really make a difference, that depends on how true the statement is that President Trump makes policy decisions based on Fox News. If there is truth to this statement then Fox is making a major difference during the Trump Presidency. But making no difference in the country's political values.

 

[Underhill]

I came across this story from my news feed: Perspective | Trump might survive firing Rosenstein or even Mueller. The reason: Fox News.



Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

I've heard a lot of people talk about Fox News in this way, as if it's so influential as to make it almost dangerous, but what does this really mean? Does it mean that Americans can't really make up their own minds without some media corporation to tell them what to think?

And what does this say about long-established media companies like the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Have they lost the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience? If so, how did that happen? Doesn't it seem like sour grapes that these major media outlets are lamenting over Fox News' supposed influence, when these same companies had a virtual oligopoly on controlling the news 40-50 years ago? Now that cable, satellite, and internet providers have increased the number of options available, it's as if these established companies can't handle the competition.

The Post, Times, and others have paywalls up, indicating that they're more interested in profitability than in actually spreading the news. It's ironic that the Post has the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" on their banner, yet they themselves put profits ahead of everything else. So much for their commitment to democracy.

Why don't the mainstream media double their efforts to regain the hearts and minds of all the readers and viewers they've lost? Did it ever occur to them that they've been a part of the problem all along?

I'm definitely not a fan of Fox News, but I sure get tired of hearing people whine about them all the time. They're not a monopoly, and unlike the mainstream media of 50 years ago, they don't have a captive audience like what used to exist in the pre-cable, pre-internet days. The only reason they get any viewers at all is ostensibly because they like what they hear. I doubt that Fox is using subliminal messages or some kind of mind control device, yet listening to some people talk about Fox, they seem to believe that their viewers have no free will or ability to make choices.

I think comparing Fox News to news networks pre-cable is a bit of an unfair comparison. They may have had bias at times, but the networks generally acted ethically. The reporters themselves held themselves to a standard that Fox News doesn't even approach. Some of the cable networks tried to stay within those bounds but found they didn't get the ratings.

That is why I disdain Fox News so unequivocally. They were the first to completely throw ethics out the window in the name of ratings. And many of the others have followed suit as a result of their success. The Post and Times are just falling into the same trap.

 

[metis]

One of the top Republicans, but I honestly can't remember which, actually said a couple of years ago that Fox is a major culprit in at least partially causing this rather hostile division amongst Americans because there's no agreed upon series of facts since Fox so severely slants the news, while at the same time blaming "the main-stream media" for doing the same. The reality is that, by American standards, the "MSM" is considered more center-left whereas Fox is much more to the right.

When I do watch Fox, on almost any controversial item it seems that I'm observing a broadcast from an alternative universe. To be clear, I get my news pretty much each day from at least about six or more sources (I'm retired, so I have the time), including foreign sources, and Fox is in a category by itself.

BTW, according to a poll I saw two years ago, those in the South are far more apt (about 2/3) to watch Fox for their cable news than those in the North (about 1/3).

 

[Woberts]

I think comparing Fox News to news networks pre-cable is a bit of an unfair comparison. They may have had bias at times, but the networks generally acted ethically. The reporters themselves held themselves to a standard that Fox News doesn't even approach. Some of the cable networks tried to stay within those bounds but found they didn't get the ratings.

That is why I disdain Fox News so unequivocally. They were the first to completely throw ethics out the window in the name of ratings. And many of the others have followed suit as a result of their success. The Post and Times are just falling into the same trap.

^This^

 

[Quetzal]

Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

Yes, yes it does.

 

[Stevicus]

Most Republicans just eat this stuff up. You would think with all these cries of "fake news" they would look at Fox; But it's only the news outlets that criticize Trump that get called fake news.

Americans have already made up their minds and Fox knows this and promotes confirmation bias for this group to make money. They are not changing normal peoples minds but confirming normal peoples bias.

Does Fox News really make a difference, that depends on how true the statement is that President Trump makes policy decisions based on Fox News. If there is truth to this statement then Fox is making a major difference during the Trump Presidency. But making no difference in the country's political values.

Although there have been previous times in history when Republicans and their ideas gained primacy, such as during the Eisenhower era, as well as the Reagan era. Even Nixon was rather popular despite getting such negative press long before Watergate. Nixon referred to the "silent majority" who were apparently not influenced by the major media outlets. Years earlier, when he was supposedly dropping out of politics, he told the press that they wouldn't have Nixon to kick around anymore.

Nixon was mentioned in the article in reference to the Saturday Night Massacre, which is marked as the turning point when public opinion started to heavily go against Nixon. The writer of the article is suggesting that if Fox News existed back then, then the press wouldn't have been able to kick Nixon around (and ultimately out of office) as effectively as they did. Indeed, the outcome of that whole thing is looked upon as a great victory for the free press in America, with Woodward and Bernstein being immortalized as great heroes.

If Fox News had been on the scene, would they have eclipsed Woodward and Bernstein?

It's hard to say, but I think what happened in the aftermath is that the mainstream press got a bit too full of themselves and perhaps resting on their laurels too much and becoming complacent. Reagan was able to come back at them full force and turn himself into the Teflon President. The mainstream media started moving more into infotainment, fluff, celebrity gossip, and tabloid journalism of the kind that used to be relegated to supermarket checkout stands. But much of the public was still hungry for hard-edged investigative journalism of the kind during the Vietnam-Watergate era, which is where a lot of alternative media and conspiracy theories started gaining more attention.

Did Fox News somehow realize this and reach out to that potential audience which was ostensibly being ignored and/or taken for granted by the mainstream media? In other words, is Fox News really to blame for telling its audience what it wants to hear, or is it the mainstream media's failure for losing the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience?

 

[Stevicus]

I think comparing Fox News to news networks pre-cable is a bit of an unfair comparison. They may have had bias at times, but the networks generally acted ethically. The reporters themselves held themselves to a standard that Fox News doesn't even approach. Some of the cable networks tried to stay within those bounds but found they didn't get the ratings.

That is why I disdain Fox News so unequivocally. They were the first to completely throw ethics out the window in the name of ratings. And many of the others have followed suit as a result of their success. The Post and Times are just falling into the same trap.

I'm not sure that they were the first to throw ethics out the window. Yellow journalism has existed for as long as the country has existed.

I'm not a journalist, so I'm definitely not an insider to any news organization. I wouldn't have any personal knowledge of any news organization's ethics. I can only judge them by their finished product.

I'm not a fan of Fox News. There might be a small amount of actual "news," while the rest is commentary, panel discussions, and an excess of opinion. A lot of people don't like Fox, and I can't say I find much cause to argue with their reasoning.

But to suggest (as this article does) that Fox News could somehow save Trump from impeachment (and that they could have saved Nixon's presidency) seems like a rather bold assertion to make. One might question the idea that the media in general hold a great deal of influence over public opinion, but Fox is just one company.

How much control can one media company actually have over public opinion? How much sway can they have over elections and other political processes in this country? And what does this say about Freedom of the Press? Should any single company (or group of companies) be able to hold that much power?

 

[Stevicus]

One of the top Republicans, but I honestly can't remember which, actually said a couple of years ago that Fox is a major culprit in at least partially causing this rather hostile division amongst Americans because there's no agreed upon series of facts since Fox so severely slants the news, while at the same time blaming "the main-stream media" for doing the same. The reality is that, by American standards, the "MSM" is considered more center-left whereas Fox is much more to the right.

When I do watch Fox, on almost any controversial item it seems that I'm observing a broadcast from an alternative universe. To be clear, I get my news pretty much each day from at least about six or more sources (I'm retired, so I have the time), including foreign sources, and Fox is in a category by itself.

BTW, according to a poll I saw two years ago, those in the South are far more apt (about 2/3) to watch Fox for their cable news than those in the North (about 1/3).

I don't watch Fox much at all. I get most of my news over the internet from a variety of sources. I rarely rely upon a single source of information, even the weather forecast.

That's what floors me about all this. With the advent of the internet, plus hundreds of cable channels to pick from, there's a huge variety of choices out there for people to watch, gain information, and actually learn more about the world. There's a huge wealth of information out there as far as a single mouse click, so the idea that all these people are sitting there glued to Fox News as if it's the only source of information just seems unfathomable to me.

 

[Skwim]

The talk in the coffee shop is that Trump consults FOX before making any decision, so it's got that influence going for itself.

.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

Definitely. Fox News is influential enough to be making policy. POTUS hears something said on Fox and Friends, and then he tries to make it his policy.

Fox News is the place where conservatives go to cure themselves of cognitive dissonance.

And what does this say about long-established media companies like the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Have they lost the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience? If so, how did that happen?

They still have their same audience, those who still think facts matter.

The Post, Times, and others have paywalls up, indicating that they're more interested in profitability than in actually spreading the news. It's ironic that the Post has the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" on their banner, yet they themselves put profits ahead of everything else. So much for their commitment to democracy.

You can't report on the news if you can't pay your reporters.

Why don't the mainstream media double their efforts to regain the hearts and minds of all the readers and viewers they've lost? Did it ever occur to them that they've been a part of the problem all along?

The mainstream media puts journalistic integrity above profits. That is why they are not going after the Fox News audience.

If you are in the business of reporting facts and telling the truth to power then you will attract those who adhere to the truth and facts. You can't blame a news organization if people are averse to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the fall of Bill O Reilly the top "newsman" at FOX could be said to be Sean Hannity. He just happens to share Cohen as a lawyer with Trump . Cohen appears to have only three clients. And with 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S. it is all but impossible to claim that this is a chance event. Sharing a lawyer with the CinC definitely gives FOX the appearance of having some power in the White House at the very least:

https://nypost.com/2018/04/16/michael-cohens-mystery-3rd-client-revealed-sean-hannity/

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The problem in America is that we don't have a public media that could be dedicated to providing quality journalism and accessible to all. We have nothing like the BBC, for instance. We have PBS but it's not that big or very well funded. It's mostly corporate, privately owned and really a form of entertainment. Fox News is very influencial because it's good at feeding into people's fears and paranoia. America has always been a very divided country and Fox News stokes the fires of those divisions. They mainstream what was on the far-right fringes.

That's not to say that the other major outlets haven't dropped the ball. They sure have. I think it's disgusting they put their articles behind paywalls, too.

 

[tytlyf]

I came across this story from my news feed: Perspective | Trump might survive firing Rosenstein or even Mueller. The reason: Fox News.



Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

Huge difference. They work with the republican establishment as their media arm. They're all intertwined. Notice how many Fox employees now work in this administration and past ones?

I've heard a lot of people talk about Fox News in this way, as if it's so influential as to make it almost dangerous, but what does this really mean? Does it mean that Americans can't really make up their own minds without some media corporation to tell them what to think?

RW media is dangerous because it's intentional propaganda with the intent of frightening vulnerable Americans into supporting republican corporate policies.

And what does this say about long-established media companies like the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Have they lost the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience? If so, how did that happen? Doesn't it seem like sour grapes that these major media outlets are lamenting over Fox News' supposed influence, when these same companies had a virtual oligopoly on controlling the news 40-50 years ago? Now that cable, satellite, and internet providers have increased the number of options available, it's as if these established companies can't handle the competition.

What about them? They've been around a lot longer than Fox and are greatly more credible. Fox intentionally plays with the conservative emotions for political gain.

The Post, Times, and others have paywalls up, indicating that they're more interested in profitability than in actually spreading the news. It's ironic that the Post has the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" on their banner, yet they themselves put profits ahead of everything else. So much for their commitment to democracy.

What about a paywall? Don't pay, read the same news story on another reputable site.

Why don't the mainstream media double their efforts to regain the hearts and minds of all the readers and viewers they've lost? Did it ever occur to them that they've been a part of the problem all along?

They haven't lost viewers, they're gaining viewers. Rachel Maddow is the highest rated newsperson on cable TV.

I'm definitely not a fan of Fox News, but I sure get tired of hearing people whine about them all the time. They're not a monopoly, and unlike the mainstream media of 50 years ago, they don't have a captive audience like what used to exist in the pre-cable, pre-internet days. The only reason they get any viewers at all is ostensibly because they like what they hear. I doubt that Fox is using subliminal messages or some kind of mind control device, yet listening to some people talk about Fox, they seem to believe that their viewers have no free will or ability to make choices.

If you're not angry at what Fox does, then I'd suggest doing research into Fox. Their history, who runs the business. Fox is an enemy of America doing the bidding of the republican establishment elitists.

They play with people's emotions, don't you watch other news outlets to compare Fox to them? The language, wording, tone is completely different with Fox.

 

[Shaul]

Fox News is the highest rated cable news channel and has been consistently since 2002. Yes it is influential. Although “new media” is reducing the influence of all cable news. IMHO most of the sour grapes complaints about Fow News is because it is successful and its detractors can’t sell the stuff they themselves are peddling. Personally I don’t watch Fox News, but I don’t watch much TV at all.

 

[idav]

I came across this story from my news feed: Perspective | Trump might survive firing Rosenstein or even Mueller. The reason: Fox News.



Does Fox News really make that much of a difference?

I've heard a lot of people talk about Fox News in this way, as if it's so influential as to make it almost dangerous, but what does this really mean? Does it mean that Americans can't really make up their own minds without some media corporation to tell them what to think?

And what does this say about long-established media companies like the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Have they lost the hearts and minds of their once-captive audience? If so, how did that happen? Doesn't it seem like sour grapes that these major media outlets are lamenting over Fox News' supposed influence, when these same companies had a virtual oligopoly on controlling the news 40-50 years ago? Now that cable, satellite, and internet providers have increased the number of options available, it's as if these established companies can't handle the competition.

The Post, Times, and others have paywalls up, indicating that they're more interested in profitability than in actually spreading the news. It's ironic that the Post has the phrase "Democracy Dies in Darkness" on their banner, yet they themselves put profits ahead of everything else. So much for their commitment to democracy.

Why don't the mainstream media double their efforts to regain the hearts and minds of all the readers and viewers they've lost? Did it ever occur to them that they've been a part of the problem all along?

I'm definitely not a fan of Fox News, but I sure get tired of hearing people whine about them all the time. They're not a monopoly, and unlike the mainstream media of 50 years ago, they don't have a captive audience like what used to exist in the pre-cable, pre-internet days. The only reason they get any viewers at all is ostensibly because they like what they hear. I doubt that Fox is using subliminal messages or some kind of mind control device, yet listening to some people talk about Fox, they seem to believe that their viewers have no free will or ability to make choices.

'Fox & Friends': Influence comes with the president's ear

 

[tytlyf]

IMHO most of the sour grapes complaints about Fow News is because it is successful and its detractors can’t sell the stuff they themselves are peddling. .

You think the way Fox got it's success is moral and right? Has nothing to do with success, has more to do with intentionally disinforming the public

 

[Stevicus]

Definitely. Fox News is influential enough to be making policy. POTUS hears something said on Fox and Friends, and then he tries to make it his policy.

Fox News is the place where conservatives go to cure themselves of cognitive dissonance.

Well, they may influence the president and certain politicians, but I was asking more about the voters in general. More specifically, does it have so much influence that it would have been able to thwart Nixon's impeachment if it was around back in his time?

They still have their same audience, those who still think facts matter.

Well, they've obviously lost some influence and viewers/readers.

You can't report on the news if you can't pay your reporters.

Not every site has a paywall, and yet, they still manage to pay their reporters. A lot of sites aren't even interested in payment (or they'll take donations). Some bloggers and smaller independent news sites do it as a labor of love, not for the money. They shell out their own time, money, and energy because of an insatiable desire to spread the news and to get their voice heard - not for their own personal enrichment.

The mainstream media puts journalistic integrity above profits. That is why they are not going after the Fox News audience.

If you are in the business of reporting facts and telling the truth to power then you will attract those who adhere to the truth and facts. You can't blame a news organization if people are averse to the truth.

Well, in a way, they already are going after the Fox News audience with articles like the one in the OP. It seems like Fox News is a popular whipping boy for the mainstream media and others in the political realm.

But I think it's overstating to make it seem like the difference between Fox and other media is like night and day. I don't think the difference is that severe, as all major media get funding from basically the same corporate sponsors. They're all corporate, they all support capitalism and Wall Street, so that makes them all pretty much right-wing to me.