From Drudge comes this little story problem:
EVENING NEWS RACE:
THIS WEEK: NBC: 8,110,000 / ABC: 7,330,000 / CBS: 5,250,000
A YEAR AGO: ABC: 7,890,000 / NBC: 7,850,000 / CBS: 5,940,000
The Al Gore, Barack Obama, and the other NBC loving sycophants will no doubt see it as a victory. If you really stretch it, I guess it makes sense. The National Barack Channel has overtaken ABC (Always Barack Channel) and increased its lead over the hapless Central Barack Station.
This much is undeniable.
But if we add up the numbers from this week and a year ago, we can properly compare them. If we do, we will we see another trend that the Obama Central Committee does not want to acknowledge.
One year ago the numbers showed a viewership of 21,680,000 and this week it totals up to 20,690,000. That's a difference of 990,000. This means almost one million less viewers are watching the network news.
Where are they going? And why?
I think the answers provide us all with information leading us to why the White House fears FOX News so much, and has spent valuable time demonizing it. They are the only ones not in lockstep with Obama and the other Democrats who seek to radicalize the nation. And they are the ones continually gaining viewers in large percentages.
Try as you may, you cannot compare network news broadcasts and those on cable. Doing this is the classic apples and oranges fallacy, because they are very different animals altogether. Even so, you can look at the decreases of one and increases of another, and certainly draw some reasonable, educated conclusions.
By looking at the latest cable ratings, we can see the huge disparity between FOX and the others combined and the disparity is growing. But I doubt all of FOX's gains are from other competing cable news shows. It very well could be that an exodus from the traditional network newscasts has begun, and will continue if they do not cease and desist from airing overtly (and covertly) partisan broadcasting.
This makes me wonder why someone hasn't already thought of something.
Why hasn't the FOX Network put up a traditional nightly newscast on its network affiliates, to compete with the other three outlets? It may be just what is needed to shake up the MSM, and the leftist elite who control it. Take the objective reporting aspect of the news, pair it with a sharp anchor, and I bet they could do some major damage to all three networks real soon.
If someone who works at FOX could see this post, they may feel free to use this idea and sell it as their own. If their conscience really got to bothering them, they could simply pay the school loans off for my son, and give him a job when he graduates with his degree in journalism. We''ll call it even, and I will not have to post bad things about them on this second-rate blog.
10 comments:
Check out this one from The Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/483551/whiner_in_chief
That's right, a seriously leftist publication is questioning why Obama is concerned about Faux News.
The Left is often much more capable of self criticism and rational discussion than the right is able to produce at sites like Drudge.
And the myth of the "left wing" media marches on. Did you see that hatchet job column on health insurance reform that standout member of the Washington Post steno pool, Ceci Connolly, wrote the other day?
I'd like to know what you felt was "liberal" about it. If you didn't read it then I wonder how you judge the media to be "liberal" (Hint: It's because once in a while they don't agree with you)
I believe this is what they call ‘transference’. It occurs when someone hated suddenly withdraws, so in order to keep the old hate pumping, an individual transfers his general contempt toward whomever —in your case, a conservative —to others. Don’t worry though; this behavior is completely normal within individuals who have serious emotional issues.
Congratulations.
Your friend,
Eric Cartman
Ducky,
I think you miss the point greatly.
Let's stick with the subject of the post, shall we? Do you deny that Fox News is gaining viewership? Do you deny that viewership of the three networks is down?
If not, then, there must be a reason these things are happening.
I think people have seen NBC in bed with the Al Gore bunch. They see promotion of a theory that GE wants to claim is proven, but will not allow debate on its network programming.
They have seen CNBC's Rick Santelli told to distance himself from what has become the fallout of his honest opinion... concerning a government that is spending itself out of control.
They also saw ABC devote an entire newscast promoting Obama's healthcare proposals, without allowing views to be heard from the opposition. Not much objectivity in that, is there?
A few years ago, they witnessed CBS's former anchor press forward with fake documents to damage a President trying to win reelection. They heard the perpetrator justify it by implying that because everyone knows that the documents contained the truth, there is no need for authenticity when reporting the news.
Liberal bias, nah. I guess it just so happens that all of these instances are "wrong perceptions" on my part, right?
Say what you want about FOX, they allow rebuttals on almost every issue, on almost every show. Even Michael Moore had the guts to sit down with Hannity recently, something the President and his people have not been able to do. Hannity showed him respect, despite the fact that he disagrees with almost everything Moore stands for. There was no looking down his nose at Moore like the obtuse and arrogant Gibson did to Palin.
No Ducky, I stand by my assertions. If the big three were more objective, there would be no need for FOX News. If CNN had maintained the journalistic integrity it once enjoyed, FOX would have become just another upstart cable news network that failed.
Hi LAS !
Over here, watching CNBC news has become truly difficult. After its election-year shilling for Obama, it has continued in the same vein.
During the last year, both Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien were absolutely and totally pro Obama, and resolutely anti-McCain. As far as Amerloque is concerned, they certainly burned out any kind of credibility they had with him.
In any event, the new Conan O'Brien show is puerile, compared to the Leno offering. Amerloque hasn't seen any of the "new, improved" prime-time Leno, though.
The weekend programs on CNBC are demonstrating more and more propaganda, too. There's one of them which has obviously been filmed and paid for by the European Commission, singing the praises of the euro and government by unelected bureaucrats.
Best,
L'Amerloque
It is a sad state of affairs when networks proclaiming to display the "News" are really acting as the extended arm of a political base. Sunsett has displayed the facts very well in his post. It is clear which networks have left the true meaning of journalism and have sold out to political pandering and which has not.
The viewing numbers are showing this too. But, I see it as a good thing that the libs can't see this, or want to continue to make excuses for it. Go ahead. Continue that viewpoint until the bias networks viewing numbers consist only of liberal politicians, the czars, and the wholly misguided sheeple.
The rest of us will continue to use our grey cells and take the country back. Back to common sense and the principles of the Constitution.
Because media etymology isn’t such a long history, we can easily discern the American press tradition. Our founding fathers provided for a free and independent press, emphasizing free and independent, of course.
Consider the names and reflect upon what they mean: Appeal, Beacon, Bugle, Citizen, Free Press, Herald, Monitor, Observer, Pioneer, Sentinel, and Statesman; none of these monikers suggest a partisan press, nor even one that views itself as ‘helping’ government. Sam Donaldson used to brag about how he was America’s junkyard dog. I personally thought Donaldson was an ass, but I had no problem with his grilling the president or any member of congress. The role of the press is to ferret out government corruption and malfeasance; provide our citizens with balanced information whereby the average citizen could make informed decisions.
Press partisanship isn’t a new thing, but in the days of published media, citizens had balanced sources of news. The Expresser might have been a liberal paper, and its primary competitor, The Gazette, was probably a conservative sheet. Print media has become passé because Americans don’t read anymore. Broadcast media is now king, which suits the average American quite well. They aren’t smart enough to discern nuances in written form, nor, it seems, even in the spoken word.
Today’s socialist-educated citizen understands most what he or she heard last. Today’s memory queue doesn’t even last a full cycle of 30-minutes on Headline News. Broadcast news doesn’t seek to protect the American people from government, only conservative government. Broadcasters seek to capitalize from supporting liberalist views, even if that means electing a president who is hardly qualified to be in congress, let alone in the White House. Broadcast media has produced a very dangerous situation in our country today. That would be ‘dangerous’ with a capital D.
And by the way —I would have this opinion if one were to reverse the situation. Without political independence, the press is little more than a eunuch and worthless to the American people.
Mustang
//Over here, watching CNBC news has become truly difficult. After its election-year shilling for Obama, it has continued in the same vein.//
Too bad you don't get FOX in France. But when I think about it, it may not be such a good idea as far as Blood Pressures go.
News wise, they are as objective as you can get. But when you hear the things that Glenn Beck likes to expose, it may get you a bit perturbed along the way.
;)
//The rest of us will continue to use our grey cells and take the country back. Back to common sense and the principles of the Constitution.//
We have to keep the pressure on, as many in our country have short memories.
//Consider the names and reflect upon what they mean: Appeal, Beacon, Bugle, Citizen, Free Press, Herald, Monitor, Observer, Pioneer, Sentinel, and Statesman; none of these monikers suggest a partisan press, nor even one that views itself as ‘helping’ government.//
Consider what they would be today, if they were accurately reflecting their missions:
The Daily Hack, the Weekly Announcement, or the Monthly Platform. How about the Morning Con Job, Afternoon Liar, or the Evening News-Slant?
There you go with the sarcasm again.
Nancy P.
Beltway Queen
Post a Comment