How influential is Fox News anyway?

[Twilight Hue]

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.

As much as the Libby's like to say otherwise, Fox news runs in the middle of the pack as far as journalistic integrity goes.

Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far

 

[tytlyf]

As much as the Libby's like to say otherwise, Fox news runs in the middle of the pack as far as journalistic integrity goes.

Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far

MSNBC is the opinion channel of NBC. 90% of Fox is opinion. Hannity is opinion that is from the republican establishment. Hannity doesn't write the crap he reads.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As much as the Libby's like to say otherwise, Fox news runs in the middle of the pack as far as journalistic integrity goes.

Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far

Those aren't the same thing. Journalistic integrity means checking your sources, checking facts, staying independent of the stories you are covering, and disclosing any relationships that may influence the story. You know, stuff like reporting on a guy who happens to secretly be your lawyer without disclosing it, and raging against an FBI raid that you fail to disclose also possibly includes your own communications. It can also include stuff like the Uranium One nonsense where even a tiny bit of fact checking will show that Hillary had nothing to do with approving the deal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those aren't the same thing. Journalistic integrity means checking your sources, checking facts, staying independent of the stories you are covering, and disclosing any relationships that may influence the story. You know, stuff like reporting on a guy who happens to secretly be your lawyer without disclosing it, and raging against an FBI raid that you fail to disclose also possibly includes your own communications. It can also include stuff like the Uranium One nonsense where even a tiny bit of fact checking will show that Hillary had nothing to do with approving the deal.

Yes, when it comes to bias it is not just the number of errors, but the direction that those errors take. I am pretty sure one can find how many errors that various news sources have made. I wonder if anyone has analyzed the patterns of those errors.

 

[tytlyf]

Yes, when it comes to bias it is not just the number of errors, but the direction that those errors take. I am pretty sure one can find how many errors that various news sources have made. I wonder if anyone has analyzed the patterns of those errors.

And analyze whether the news organization retracted information after the fact and apologized.

 

[ecco]

The equal time rule never applied to cable networks (and I am fairly sure it went away for the broadcast networks as well now). But I think it should be brought back for all outlets. Enforcement would be a challenge, but it's something we need.

It's impossible to apply "equal time" to the internet and Facebook and Instagram. That's where a lot of people get their "news". That's what the Steve Bannon's and the Russians exploited. If Dems don't learn to play dirty, they will never win.

 

[ecco]

I'd suggest learning what propaganda is, how it's implemented and recognizing propaganda when it's in front of you.

Remember, if propaganda was obvious it wouldn't be so effective. It's important for you to learn how to recognize propaganda. Then you'll see the difference with Fox. (HINT: it's just underneath the surface as to not be obvious)

The Far Right, and even the middle Right, will never learn how to differentiate between fact and propaganda. That's why the Dems must learn how to use it as effectively as the Repubs.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

The Post and Times are newspapers, Fox is a broadcast media. And Fox is not free. You need to subscribe to a cable provider or subscribe to their online subscription service. You can get highlights each day, but not the whole enchilada.

 

[tytlyf]

For those who need to understand and recognize propaganda.

While Trump bashes 'fake news,' these are his media shelters from the storm

 

[Underhill]

It's impossible to apply "equal time" to the internet and Facebook and Instagram. That's where a lot of people get their "news". That's what the Steve Bannon's and the Russians exploited. If Dems don't learn to play dirty, they will never win.

I don't buy that. I think that's where some people get their news. But the highest turnout for voting is among those 40-70. These people watch Cable News in droves.

As for the left never winning, I beg to differ. The country is moving left (largely thanks to Trump right now). If anything I think the right will struggle to get votes unless they change their ways. Without the boomers, the republicans wouldn't have a party.