Thread: FOX "news"

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

but the frustrated ones must be cnn and msnbc due to lower ratings (than fox)

Its been pointed out countless times on here that the reason why fox news has high rating is because its viewers are old and that is the demographic that watches cable news. The younger generations typically look elsewhere for news.

The only reason they have any meaningful ratings at all is because they are the default news network provided in places like hotels.

If people had a choice of news outlets in their satellite or cable standard bundles they would go bankrupt quite quickly.

I think these graphics tells the story more completely;



Younger people do not watch fox news...



Educated people do not watch fox news....

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

but the frustrated ones must be cnn and msnbc due to lower ratings (than fox)

Its been pointed out countless times on here that the reason why fox news has high rating is because its viewers are old and that is the demographic that watches cable news. The younger generations typically look elsewhere for news.

The only reason they have any meaningful ratings at all is because they are the default news network provided in places like hotels.

If people had a choice of news outlets in their satellite or cable standard bundles they would go bankrupt quite quickly.

Rubbish, they have a specific business model.

Reinforce the sentiments of angry old racist twats, and have the message delivered by angry white men or birds with big tits, so they come and watch for affirmation and a quick wank.

Then blast the senile fuckers with adverts for laxatives, remortgages and home shopping.

And a very successful model it is too.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, why does fox news beat cnn and msnbc in the 25-54 demographic?

Read the graphics above it breaks it down in a more logical way then the Nielson graphic. That is one huge demographic and it is misleading. How much do you think a 25 year old has in common with a 54 year old? When I said young people I damn sure was not talking about a 54 year old.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/...watch-fox.html

http://qz.com/738346/fox-newss-bigge...is-a-dinosaur/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...x-news/497684/

Originally Posted by bsnub

When I said young people I damn sure was not talking about a 54 year old.

ok, fair enough.

and it's encouraging to see that they (18-29 year olds) read the ny times, wall street journal and the economist.

though, "getting their news" from shows like the colbert report and daily news is disappointing (has been discussed often in the media).

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

though, "getting their news" from the colbert report and daily news is disappointing (has been written about many times in the media).

This does not mean that is where they are "getting" their news. Those shows are watched by a large number of college educated people that is why I included the third graphic. The likelihood is that many of those young people are reading the NYT, WSJ etc and then in the evening they are tuning in to get comedy relief of what they read during the day.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

but the frustrated ones must be cnn and msnbc due to lower ratings (than fox)

Its been pointed out countless times on here that the reason why fox news has high rating is because its viewers are old and that is the demographic that watches cable news. The younger generations typically look elsewhere for news.

The only reason they have any meaningful ratings at all is because they are the default news network provided in places like hotels.

If people had a choice of news outlets in their satellite or cable standard bundles they would go bankrupt quite quickly.

Rubbish, they have a specific business model.

Reinforce the sentiments of angry old racist twats, and have the message delivered by angry white men or birds with big tits, so they come and watch for affirmation and a quick wank.

Then blast the senile fuckers with adverts for laxatives, remortgages and home shopping.

And a very successful model it is too.

Yes that pretty much sums up fox, but my post is about cnn whose business model is to survive as a parasite on default satellite and cable bundles.

Originally Posted by longway

Yes that pretty much sums up fox, but my post is about cnn whose business model is to survive as a parasite on default satellite and cable bundles.

CNN's ratings have actually gone up thanks to the orange-faced wanker, I think he's kept them in business.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

Yes that pretty much sums up fox, but my post is about cnn whose business model is to survive as a parasite on default satellite and cable bundles.

CNN's ratings have actually gone up thanks to the orange-faced wanker, I think he's kept them in business.

CNN and MSNBC in Ratings Freefall, Fox Soundly Beating Both Combined?

From your own liberal fact checker.

^ Who cares as I have pointed out countless times and just did in the post above it does not mean jack shit because only old geezers like you watch cable news. As I posted before almost 80% of fox news viewers are over 54 years old. That is the age demographic of most evangelicals and Drumpf supporters. Dying off.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, you're of the opinion that msnbc will overtake fox news in the next decade?

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

or, msnbc will die off, too, as the younger generation doesn't get their news from cable news channels?

Duh! The end of cable news is as inevitable as the end of the print newspaper.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

b.t.w., regarding, your statement the other day that posting the opinions of rachel maddow (left wing talk show host) is not the same as posting a right wing breitbart article, how do you figure?

You answered your own question;

the opinions of rachel maddow

Brietbart paints itself as a news organization even though it is not. It is controlled by Steve Bannon who is a member of Drumpfs administration. It is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the White House. Propaganda full stop.

Rachel is simply putting out her opinions and you can agree with them or not.

That is a massive difference.

Originally Posted by bsnub

It is controlled by Steve Bannon who is a member of Drumpfs administration.

well, it pretty much had the same content before bannon joined the trump team.

right wing content here: Breitbart

left wing content here: The MaddowBlog on msnbc ? Latest News,Video, & Analysis

if an impartial observer were to take a quick look at both sites, pretty sure it would be easy to come to the conclusion that they are both highly partisan.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

if an impartial observer were to take a quick look at both sites, pretty sure it would be easy to come to the conclusion that they are both highly partisan.

Did you even read my post? A commentator is not the same as a pseudo news organization controlled by the white house. Are you having trouble following?

Originally Posted by bsnub

A commentator is not the same as a pseudo news organization

still, they are both highly partisan.

anyways,

o.k., apples to apples,

if one were to post something from sean hannity (whom i don't care for), you would have no problem as it's comparable to posting up something from maddow?

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

o.k., apples to apples,

Good god are you this dense? It is not even close. Apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

if one were to post something from sean hannity (whom i don't care for), you would have no problem as it's comparable to posting up something from maddow?

Then you would be correct he is the exact same entity on the other side. Just go back to those charts I posted and look at his viewership. I can say with confidence he has the most old and geriatric audience even more so than that ass O'reilly.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by longway

Yes that pretty much sums up fox, but my post is about cnn whose business model is to survive as a parasite on default satellite and cable bundles.

CNN's ratings have actually gone up thanks to the orange-faced wanker, I think he's kept them in business.

CNN and MSNBC in Ratings Freefall, Fox Soundly Beating Both Combined?

From your own liberal fact checker.

Like you, your news is old and worthless.

CNN was up double digits in January compared to the same month in 2016, beating MSNBC in both total day and primetime viewers. CNN’s primetime lineup averaged 1.16 million total viewers, up 38 percent from last year. The rating is good enough to make CNN the ninth most-watched network among all of cable, ahead of heavyweights including TNT, FX, AMC and Adult Swim.

CNN’s January year-over-year growth was even more significant among the key news demo of adults age 25-54, up 42 percent from 2016, with an average primetime demo viewership of 385,000

Have Donald Trump?s Attacks on CNN Hurt Ratings? - SFGate

Fox is the WalMart of news. Cheap, poorly made and will usually unravel within days.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Just go back to those charts I posted and look at his viewership. I can say with confidence he has the most old and geriatric audience even more so than that ass O'reilly.

what are you saying? maddow is better because she is hip with the kids and you want to be hip?

like the old saying goes: "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain.

of course, young people are idealistic and liberal, as they should be (voting for free college and health care from bernie, etc.).

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Who cares as I have pointed out countless times and just did in the post above it does not mean jack shit because only old geezers like you watch cable news. As I posted before almost 80% of fox news viewers are over 54 years old. That is the age demographic of most evangelicals and Drumpf supporters. Dying off.

You fail to address the free fall of CNN and MSNBC which obviously makes a point as those two are designed to attract the younger viewers.
The number of Americans age 54 and over is quite substantial as evidenced by the election of a republican as president and a majority of congress and state governors. Face facts Bsnub the progressive agenda of Obama and the democrats was more than the American people were going to put up with, I predict it will be a long time before your beloved party will have any real,power again.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

so, you're of the opinion that msnbc will overtake fox news in the next decade?

*sigh*

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

or, msnbc will die off, too, as the younger generation doesn't get their news from cable news channels?

Duh! The end of cable news is as inevitable as the end of the print newspaper.

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

b.t.w., regarding, your statement the other day that posting the opinions of rachel maddow (left wing talk show host) is not the same as posting a right wing breitbart article, how do you figure?

You answered your own question;

the opinions of rachel maddow

Brietbart paints itself as a news organization even though it is not. It is controlled by Steve Bannon who is a member of Drumpfs administration. It is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the White House. Propaganda full stop.

Rachel is simply putting out her opinions and you can agree with them or not.

That is a massive difference.

You were bad mouthing Breitbart long before Brannon became a presidential advisor,now your using that as a reason for Breitbart not being a news organization.