Policy vs. Puffery
Yesterday, Thera put up an interesting blog. Unfortunately, it's core message got twisted and diluted by some odd assertions and misreads, as evidenced by this comment:
What Fox is doing seems like free enterprise to me, and I can't stand the crap they show. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Ask to change the channel, or turn it down. Otherwise, you may have to deal with it, it's not your TV, and when you're not in your house, you're not in control of every damn thing.
Permalink
Dorn, dude, this made me chuckle a bit. It is about control, but certainly not about Thera or I or anyone else "controlling" public spaces. No, it is about the control that Fox News appears to have IN these public spaces.
The premise was this: Fox News is ubiquitous. It seems to dominate public and semi-public places. Now why would that be? As Thera pointed out, this seems to be a phenomenon that is being commented on with ever increasing frequency.
I myself have always wondered at FoxNews' seeming domination in the ratings, which they tend to crow about at every opportunity. Another thing that has been increasingly noticed and commented on is their apparent dominance in basic cable packages. If they do dominate these basic cable packages, it would explain why a Nation that just elected a Democratic President by a convincing margin, might still have an otherwise inexplicable taste for the admittedly slanted and biased right wing spin of Fox News. I do not know of any other Network that has made this claim, and if you have, I'd like to hear about it. Seriously.
Do we know that they dominate basic cable packages for a fact? Well, no. There is a way to find out, of course. Ask the FCC.
Now, you might all think the FCC is a big waste of time, but if you want to affect policy, they are your best bet.
At this moment they have on their docket "Cable and Satellite subscriber options, e.g. a la carte channels - Docket 04-207" What it concerns is allowing subscribers to choose their own channels in a cable bundle, rather than having to settle for pre-made packages from the cable provider. If you'd like to be able to do that, now is your chance to affect their policy.
Still think it's a waste of time? Well, check this out: Fourth Quarter Report on Informal Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Released. (It is a PDF) As you can see a few thousand submissions are counted and read, and they do note them. A few thousand inquiries would get attention. How do I know this? I have been involved with them when they had a hostile Chairman, Michael Powell, but he was unable to stop the process when they were flooded with comments from both the left and right when he tried to relax the rules back in 2003.
The truth is, Yes you can make a difference in what we see in public spaces. Ask the FCC to give you a choice in what you see, perhaps then, free enterprise for the other Networks can actually happen. It won't as long as the choice is left up to a handful of people with agendas.
They're our airwaves. Take 'em back.
Oh, and you might want to remind Acting Chairman Copps that although Fox did not break any law, only policy, of the FCC by knowingly reporting an untrue story about Monsanto, that it is also the FCCs policy to revoke the broadcasting license of broadcasters that disregard FCC policies.
Couldn't hurt. Thanks for reading.
Advertisement
Thank you for the links, and the homework you've done. Great post!
May 11, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest. It's all about empowering the peoples.
=D
May 11, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to bwak on a stupendous post! It's a hole in one! It's a touchdown. It's home run! Fantastic!
May 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I told her last night you'd go nuts about this. hahahaha
May 12, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you saw it.
=D
Just setting the record straight, I dunno, I'm not sure I was successful.
May 12, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There we go. A little grass roots.
Hell, if a chicken can do it, anyone can.
WHAT?
But you know Fox has a point. Yes, what they do is capitalism/free enterprise in this country.
Lie, cheat, steal, ignore the rules.....
That is what free enterprise is about.
This is another fine post Bwak. I predict about a thousand comments and recs, ha.
May 11, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Dickon. It doesn't hurt to call them out on it. I'd prefer to get at the root of the problem which is that a few cable companies control what we see.
We can change that if we act.
That is what I would like people to take away from this blog.
May 11, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good work there, cheecken.
That thread of Thera's was starting to get noisy after a while. I had my personal fill, as there's only so much straw-man I can tolerate in one place. Besides, the Cubs were on, and I had been foraging earlier and traded a few morels for really good chocolate at the Farmers' Market.
In other words, better things to do than continue to engage a PITA.
Rec'ed...
May 11, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
PITA? What is that?
=D
Morels for chocolate? Hmmm. I dunno, I'd rather have the morels anyday. I am glad you stopped by, and yes, it got a bit noisy.
May 11, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
PITA = Pain In The Ass. You know of whom I speak.
Morels and chocolate both have their places in my kitchen. Eight little ones don't amount to much, though, and I the chocolate seller is a friend and occasionally drops a truffle on me at the end of the day. 'Course, I do talk her stuff up at the stand.
Still foraging, though. There's a couple weeks left to the season, and I do have a "spot" (that I'm not even describing).
May 11, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is probably wise. One of these days, I'll make it out there for dinner. It's probably worth putting up with Fox News blaring at me in every stop.
I have no doubt of that.
May 11, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well...things can be arranged...
Anything you'd like (or not like) on the menu?
May 11, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
=D
Well, nothing too er, fowl. But I'm generally into experimenting.
May 11, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm good with things Miguelito might object to...
And I do some nice pastas as well, you know.
May 12, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I ceased paying into cable television years ago. Until the channels are treated like subscriptions, then the "market forces" aren't allowed to operate and much worthless junk is subsidized.
When you have a handful of megacorps fighting over five slices of network pie, the result is garbage television dedicated to regional swaths of special interest demographics.
May 11, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Thanks Zipp! There is no free enterprise if one station is allowed to dominate for whatever reason. See clearchannel.
The thing is, the process in place at the FCC is very public oriented and we should avail ourselves of it's excellent structure. That structure is what stopped Bush&Co fro giving these media companies even more power.
May 11, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearchannel is an excellent example: it bought up huge amounts of radio stations for large sums of money and then proceeded not to give the people what they wanted.
As a result, radio is presently in a crisis and Clearchannel is trying to sell off those same radio stations at considerable discount on what they paid for them.
That's how it works.
You see? The competition for Clearchannel was CD players, iPods, and satellite radio. It didn't have to be another radio station.
May 12, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
ClearChannel is a good example of when market forces and competition work their natural and correct course. You aren't telling the whole story, as the record and radio industries fought these innovations (and watered some of them down via pay-to-play) for years and scored several successful blows against open source.
However, given that the telcoms are seeking to stifle the internet and have already stifled the market through collusion, your example won't necessarily hold water when it comes to for-profit dominance of news delivery.
I do find it ironic that you are more or less apologizing for the system as it currentlyexists by citing examples of successes in the courts, markets, and legislation. In this way you casually dismiss the public enforcement of what is a public institution: The FCC. At the same time you are a noted purveyor of government intrusion into human procreation and the environment. I guess the pollution of human bodies and industrial waste merit the government hammer moreso than pollution of the airwaves which helps manufacture consent and ignorance for these very problems. Perhaps if we had a more objective facts-oriented investigative model of journalism that exists without the entertainment/for-profit motive, then we would have a more informed public that would not reflexively dismiss the impending dangers of water and energy shortages.
May 12, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good going, Bwakfat.
You can have your own private area where there is no dissension this way.
I still would love to see that case you lay out.
By the way, as I pointed out on TheraP's blog, your "evidence" about Fox is 8 years old and applies to a specific story. As I wrote there, you want to use this piece of evidence to talk about how Fox can be shown, in a court of law, to be a propaganda machine. That's extraordinarily difficult. Individual news stories can often be brought to court to be shown false, but that doesn't prove anything about the news organizations itself. I'm fully familiar with Fox and have recommended people watch OUTFOXED, but to prove that there is an endemic style to be a propaganda machine in a court of law isn't going to happen. Even children know that all news media are biased (merely by the stories chosen and their order) and unless you found specific collusion between the government and Fox (that Fox was getting tax breaks from the government to push certain stories, etc.) how to you claim that Fox is dispersing propaganda?
And, as others have pointed out, FNC is not as ubiquitous as you claim. And, as barefoot herself said, there is no law about what she can play on the TV in the lobby of her hotel.
Until you can show collusion, you have no case whatsoever. But as usual, it's much easier to assume "conspiracy" than investigate business models.
May 11, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the belligerent non sequitur.
Have a nice evening. I plan on doing something about it, rather than just telling everyone to give up.
May 11, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one ever said to "give up", Bwakfat... that is the misread on your part.
People are saying your case doesn't pass the "ring of truth" test.
Can you lay out with real data the percentages of sets tuned to Fox?
Here's a piece of Dorn's comment that you chose not to quote:
Why didn't anyone comment on that? I commented on all kinds of topics like Rush Limbaugh's model (which may have relevance here for Fox) and asked if Hannity and Colmes qualified under the Fairness Doctrine.
There were definitely crickets from your side on these points. No one wanted to answer these simply questions.
Even better, a number of posters bragged how they never watched Fox news (yes, Stilli, I'm not referring to you), but have definite opinions on things. The problem is that the central point of that thread simply was a whine that FNC was on some televisions. It was picked up by TheraP -- from unscientific sources like blogs no less -- that it's on everywhere without a shred of evidence supporting her claim and many citing different impressions.
In fact, the basis of that thread exactly the kind of stupid and ignorant knee-jerk reaction that many of the people who watch FNC have about Obama: he's a Democrat? Damn! He's going to tax me and turn the country socialist.
Of course, there is no arguing with those people either.
And don't get me started how it was somehow okay to jam someone's television, simply because you didn't like what was on it. Ever occur to you that it will happen to you someday?
If I wanted that level of discussion, I'd mosey on over to Red State.
Instead, what we get her is a bunch of left of center people -- who run around like chickens with their heads caught off.
If you want to play in the big leagues, you have to act like a big leaguer. That means building a real case, with real evidence, gotten from credible sources, and fleshing it out. It also means having a real agenda with a specific goal.
What's your goal, Bwakfat? Specifically? It can't be "crush Fox". That's not a goal. Do you want to say that "no televisions can be on in public places with news?" or "no televisions can be on in public places at all?"
Of course, many of the places mentioned in TheraP's thread were hotel lobbies, restaurants, etc. These are private establishments, and you are welcomed not to use them. But you'll weaken your case if you go after them too... because that's simply invasion of private spaces, regardless of whether the public has access to it or not.
You talked of bundling. So far, I have yet to clearly see why Fox is bundled the way it is (when it is -- Stilli said her cable network didn't give FNC preference). Is it because FNC is given away free? Well, write to NBC and tell them you want them to give away MSNBC free too. They can't, or won't? Then tough. Microsoft crushed Netscape by giving away their browser free. It's called free enterprise (such as it is in this country) where might makes right. That's how business works. If the left can't support their "outlets" (like Air America) why should anyone care? It's not saying Air America can't be on the radio, but if it can't be a going business, I don't want the Government propping it up. Listen to NPR.
Instead, you take all of these thoughtful arguments about this meme that TheraP has leapt on and claim it's just about being discouraging. Hardly and frankly that sounds a bit high school to me: "Whaaa whaaa, people don't want to just jump on my bandwagon."
If you can't convince a relatively sympathetic audience here on TPM of your case, how do you expect to defend it when facing a real adversary?
May 11, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codswallop. The only thing that is obvious is that you have yet to read the blog. Please do so before spamming my thread any further.
Thank you.
BTW, last time I was at LaGuardia, which was a few weeks ago, Fox was on in the waiting room. Hartford, too. Dorn rawks, but his anecdotal evidence is hardly an authoritative source. The FCC is an authoritative source. If you want to be consistent, try not playing favorites and stick to what is actually written.
May 11, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So show me the FCC statistics to back up your statement. I've only asked about 20 times now.
May 11, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the blog. Thank you.
May 11, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it. And your links. And your comments. Get over yourself.
In fact, you know I've read everything because every time I pull up your links it's easy to pop holes in the discussion. Perhaps that's why you are loathe to be specific?
You are upset about eating in restaurants where you don't like what's on the television. In other words, you want to change a private establishment rather than not patronize it.
No one will buy into such an argument.
Still waiting for you to post the letters you send to the FCC. I'd love to see your arguments in writing. I'd love to see the stats you keep referring to. What's the big deal? Are you ashamed of your letters? Do they not exist?
Either you are trying to educate or not. Instead, you post a bunch of vaguely connected links and the general FCC.gov site. Hardly enlightening. Are you here to convince the pre-converted?
All you do is to keep stonewalling. You keep throwing personal insults to me. I'm asking for more info and you keep denying. I have no idea as to why.
May 12, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
McClellan: White House gave FOX commentators talking points.
It would seem to be "propaganda" to me when a "news" source uses party talking points as "news".
Of course virtually all of MSM was in the political hip pocket in hawking the invasion of Iraq. Remember "lap dogs vs watchdogs?"
But then it seems the point of Bwak's post was to encourage people to participate in the policy process by directly engaging the FCC.
May 12, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the White House tries to use the media to get it's message out. And as you point out, this is endemic to all news outlets and goes back 100s of years.
As to "engage in the process": wonderful. But also very vague.
Never go into a negotiation without a desired outcome. What's the desired outcome here? Specifically?
May 12, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you EVER bother to read what you comment on so pithily? For the goddess' sake, Bwak was NOT referring to what Fox airs or doesn't air as news or propaganda.
What is under discussion is what the FCC refers to as basic or expanded tiers included in programming. As she tried to explain yesterday, it's about the bundling of different channels included in cable and satellite services.
Please try to understand the subject before commenting.
May 11, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it was a fabulous non sequitur.
=D
May 11, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you bothered to read my comments, you'd see I keep asking for reason why FNC is available as part of a package some places and not others. I have yet to get an answer to my question. That different cable companies do things differently may mean that FNC is giving away content, or giving an incentive of sorts to the cable station. The other news channels are welcomed to do the same.
May 11, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course, asking this question of cable operators (the people who actually make,/i> that decision) instead of blog posters has never occurred to you.
Still doing your part to push the signal-to-noise ratio through the floor, I see.
May 11, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the cable operators aren't complaining... you are. They aren't going to build your case, you have to.
May 12, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the cable operators aren't complaining...
And your source for that is?
May 12, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point to exactly where I complained about the cable operators' packaging structures.
Or are you a liar as well as an annoyance?
May 12, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old Grouch, you certainly are.
Do you agree with Bwakfat? If yes, then the you refers to you and her and the other people making the case here.
If you don't agree with Bwakfat, then the you doesn't refer to you.
Grow up, Old Grouch. You running out of time to do it.
May 12, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are a liar as well as an annoyance. Because you can not point to what you accused me of, and you're trying to change the subject to get out from under it.
What a pathetic loser you are.
May 12, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good job, Bwak, of making a difficult subject intelligible, to most of us, anyway. I, for one, appreciate having the hard work done on this so all I have to do is go comment. I'll try to return the favor on another subject.
Thanks, again.
May 11, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is rather simple.
Thanks. Also. and buttsecks must be endured. It is a free country.
May 11, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free is one thing, buttsecks is another and then we have TruckNutz!!
I'm calling fowl on the last two! :-)
Love, the DP.
Also.
May 11, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahhahahaah
May 11, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE END!!
May 11, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the title of TheraP's blog was about Fox Propaganda is everywhere and started off with this gem:
Bwakfat specifically referenced not only TheraP's blog but also Dorn's comment which dealt directly with this issue.
So please tell me who is mixing what with what?
May 11, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gee whiz, Bwak. I read both your and TheraP's blogs and nowhere in either one did I find any reference to wanting to confront Fox News Channel in a court of law about any matter what so ever. I musta missed something.
Do you have any idea when action will be taken on "Cable and Satellite subscriber options, e.g. a la carte channels - Docket 04-207" ? If the option to choose becomes available, I'd reconsider subscribing to satellite again. (And I have let the FCC know this.)
May 11, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was missed is that a policy and it's execution has to be able to be defended in a court of law. Suppose that a cable station wanted to provide a single "cable news source" (like it provides the weather channel). Why not FNC? It bills itself as a news channel, just as CNN and MSNBC. That's part of the issue.
Of course even more elementary is the disbelief on the part of the left that FNC has better ratings (still) despite the country having gone to the left in terms of national elected officials. This is an irritant to the left and so one hypothesis is that FNC is being foisted on us which boosts their ratings. However, it's also possible that less people on the left watch cable news, and those that do split between CNN and MSNBC. I still point to the fact that after all the bellyaching about Rush, Air America was formed and went down in flames.
Maybe the left spends more time on the Internet to get it's news?
Like most things on FNC, you have to put it in context. But many, even on the left, have bought into the implied meaning of the "high ratings" meme without additional thought.
May 11, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I listen to Air Americe every day. How is that "down in flames"?
May 12, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Air America went bankrupt in 2006 and have significant problems ever since. Most of their talent has left for satellite radio. This is so in the news, that I wonder if you really do listen to them every day.
May 12, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have to look into it and get back to you, flower. thank you for sticking to the substance.
Thanks for letting them know
May 11, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I am remembering correctly (and I don't have time to confirm this by checking back over the comments for the past week)this whole issue got started when we were commenting back and forth on a blog, and people started telling stories about what stations were available in their area, and which ones had a premium, and someone mentioned that Faux was the only "news" station that came with basic cable and that in their neck of the woods, a lot of people didn't have the extra $30 to upgrade and get competing "news" channels.
We were bashing Faux and their "fair and balanced" crap, Synch mentioned that her parents thought Faux was news, not entertainment, and I remembered thinking the same thing back in the day, and the whole thing sort of evolved into a wouldn't it be nice if we could get something going to make people aware that what they are getting on Faux is NOT news, and it is NOT fair and balanced.
From there, others started comparing notes and started seeing FAUX everywhere, which led to some concern that people are being brainwashed by Faux news, and that maybe we should be trying to find a better way to get the TRUTH out to people.
It's not like Thera or chicken or anyone else said here's a comprehensive look at what is happening and here, step by step, is a game plan for how we ought to be addressing it.
We're just a group of people lamenting the apparent unfairness of so many people being duped into believing that Faux is real news, and that they are fair and balanced...What's the harm in that? If writing to the FCC can change the bundling practices, or if some of us start wearing educational tee shirts that challenge people to re-evaluate what they are watching on t.v. what's the harm? Jeez.
Just because Faux is giving away programing (IF that is, in fact what they are doing)doesn't mean it can't be changed. If enough people want the news outlets to be regulated so that some fairness is achieved, so that ALL households have access to all the major "news" outlets without having to pay a premium, so that programs claiming to be fair and balanced really do have to be fair and balanced, that a station that calls itself Faux News, or (fill in the blank) news, really has to be reporting news, not making it up, that shows have to have warning labels that let people know that this is not a news program, it is a commentary about the news and not necessarily the truth, (and I'm not just talking about Faux here)it can happen. And things like that happen when people like us start bitching about it and someone takes the bull by the horns and gets a grassroots movement going...
Maybe this will go somewhere, maybe it won't. If you are interested in trying, keep talking it up.
If you think it's a waste of time, you are entitled to your opinion, but why waste YOUR time raining on the parade of those who want to pursue it? Am I missing something here? To my knowledge no one has suggested that they want to see Faux shut down. Some of us just want them exposed for what they are, and a fairer delivery system for a broader range of options put in place. Is that so wrong?
May 11, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is what I call a great recap, stilli! It distills the essentials right down to the parade.
Speaking from under my umbrella, that is.
May 11, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The true slippery slope: "I'm just trying to help others less aware than I"
This is where all the problems start.
You are a group of *like minded* people lamenting.
You know what this sounds like?
"My religion is the "true" god, let me convert the heathens."
You can't educate the unwilling. As much of the reaction to some of my posts demonstrates.
So what exactly is the goal? Suppose you have FNC and CNN on one tier? Is that enough? Does that make the populace educated?
Suppose I say: "Isn't Hannity and Colmes fair and balanced?" What say you to that?
Suppose I say: Much of what you read and see on the news isn't to be believed. Is there a gold standard for the news? We have several broadcast networks. Do they carry news?
Look at this.
Terrible rating since Nov 2008. Is this because of new policies? Hardly.
I know most of the people in the "in crowd" here are much older (50's / 60's) and don't get how the world looks to the younger people. (Sorry, you don't, and it's evident by many of the side comments made.) But check this out:
So, we see that the people who voted for Obama stopped watching MSNBC. Thus bad ratings. I know, it bothers you older folks who think television is everything. Many are the same folks who I saw poo-poo Twitter 4 months ago.
Media is more than newspapers and television these days.
These ratings have to be normalized to the general viewing population. Since the GOP is skewed towards older voters, it's hardly surprising that FNC, a television station, is retaining it's audience while MSNBC which had no ratings until the excitement of Obama dropped.
Hell, even ww stopped watching MSNBC!
And CNN is not much better.
Nothing nefarious here. The left of center crowd simply is not a good loyal TV audience, and mostly because they skew younger in age.
If you want to read a good book about really thinking things through, go grab FREAKONOMICS.
So, back to your original point: what's the harm? The harm is trying to be a "do gooder" under false pretenses. What you are really lamenting is that everyone doesn't think like you. Access to news is, in fact, available - especially since most households have the Internet now.
And finally, I add that many here have been duped into feeling "informed" and I assure you that they aren't. Arrogant of me? Perhaps. But you said the exact same thing above!.
May 12, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, CT...I might buy your load of crap if I hadn't been one of the people being duped. And I'm sure Synch's parents feel just as dumb as I did. I'm sure there are many others, who given the info, may decide that Faux is not the way to go.
This has nothing to do with trying to "convert" anyone. If people are aware of what they are watching/listening to and chose to do it anyway, no big deal. Have at it. If they have choices, and CHOOSE to watch/listen to Faux anyway, no big deal. Have at it.
I'm not trying in any way shape or form to MAKE people believe what I believe. I just want them to have information so they can make an informed choice. Us old dogs CAN learn new tricks.
Many of us have made it a point to keep up on technology. Many of us not only know what twitter is, we have accounts. Some of us find it to be a waste of time, but at least we tried it before forming that opinion.
Yes, many of the youngsters get their info from places other than t.v. That does not absolve the FCC of its responsibility to make sure there is fairness in what television stations are available to people. Ratings, as far as the point of this blog goes are red herrings.
You are proud of your arrogance, CT. You flaunt it like a gorgeous pair of double Ds. It is a part of the persona you have created here. I would expect nothing less from you. Had you come back nice, respectful and interested in having reasonable, pleasant, grown-up conversations I wouldn't have known how to handle it.
May 12, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Load of crap?
Let's put it this way: since you were easily duped, how do you know that now you aren't merely duped the other direction? You simply fell into another group that feels comfortable to you. How is that any closer to the truth?
When challenged you get angry. Oh, sure, I know you often talk about "style", but that's just an out. When I recently posted, you tried to goad me not once but twice. And I wasn't even addressing you with my comments.
Who's the one with issues? Do you tell your grandchildren to pick fights for people for no reason at all?
There is an intellectual honesty and style that grounds real debate. It's often absent on TPM because it's like a bunch of Catholic priests agreeing that Jesus was the son of God on Earth.
As far as Twitter: It was brought up how the GOP was using it to begin to get messages out and many of the old-school posters poo-poohed it as useless technology -- before having tried it (their words). Just as many of the posters here proclaim to not watch FNC but have lots of opinions of it.
Ratings are *not* red herrings as many here have used FNC's ratings as intimately linked to people being *forced* to watch the channel against their will in places outside their home and linked to FNC being forced on people inside their home. (How having access to FNC gives strong ratings has yet to be proved, but that's another topic.)
Sorry if the honest demographic truth bummed you out. I guess that's why you went to your school marm tone. But, if you are so easily duped by FNC (as you claim), then perhaps you should be a bit more circumspect before deciding for the rest of us that the government to regulate "fairness" (whatever that means). Are you upset about CNN being offered to ww? Or is it just FNC? There is nothing more dangerous to the general good than a recent convert on a crusaders mission. It's clear from your comments that this isn't about general fairness, it's about FNC... a very personal issue to you.
That you compare my so-called arrogance to walking around with large boobs is far more revealing about you than me. You can sling whatever personal insults you like, the fact that you never answer any specific questions remains.
And no one has yet to answer this simple question:
Why isn't Hannity and Colmes a fair and balanced presentation?
By the way, whatever happened to the networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC? People have equal access to those without cable at all. Seems pretty fair to me. (And this doesn't even count the Internet.)
May 12, 2009 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooooooooohhhhhhhh.....you sure do make a lot of assumptions. :-)
First of all, I'm NOT angry, although trying to get me there is obviously your goal. I'm actually enjoying your ridiculous goading (it is YOUR goading, not mine. I was actually happy to see you! I wasn't picking a fight, I was letting you know I was looking forward to your contributions here...they are nothing if not rousing.)
I had my epiphany about Faux months before discovering TPM, so being here (with like minded people) had nothing to do with it, but nice try.
School marmy...you are so cute!
You brought up your arrogance (not once but twice!) otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm surprised you would consider it a personal insult...you seem so proud of it.
I am not on a personal crusade with Faux. I am frustrated by the lack of truth in journalism these days, but this post is about Faux, so I didn't broaden it into a general discussion about media in general, although that would be a great topic,as well.
Your repeated question about Hannity and Colmes lacks the intellectual integrity you seem to take pride in. You use "isn't" when it should be "wasn't" and having an ineffectual token liberal doesn't come anywhere close to being fair and balanced. When I was a conservative, he made "liberals" easy to laugh at...Having him for the "face" of liberalism was an insult (although I didn't know it at the time!)
People should be able to watch what they want to watch on t.v. If we were talking about normal programming, I would have no issue. As much as I dislike "reality" shows and sit coms, I would never suggest they be banned.
We are talking about the information people use to form their political opinions, thus choose our elected officials. It's pretty important stuff. I would just like to see people have the ABILITY to see other sides, whether they choose to avail themselves of it or not. And I would like to see disclaimers on shows that purport to be news and purport to be fair and balanced...
That does it for me on this subject today. You have your opinion, I have mine, and never the twain shall meet. It's been interesting! You DO have a way of livening things up!
May 12, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying OMG!!! Are you really back?
and
Woooohoooooo....Clearthinker is back! Let the games begin! Been pretty boring around here w/o you, bud...
Isn't sending out the welcome wagon as you imply. It's goading.
As for your sarcastic comment noting that Hannity and Colmes is no more, when I asked the question originally, I did point out that I was fully aware it's wasn't on.
Stilli, for those that can think, Hannity is easy to "see through" as well. So your argument makes no sense. Of course, now we hear you were able to see through FNC without help -- and this undermines your argument that people can't figure out things for themselves.
May 12, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
...then perhaps you should be a bit more circumspect before deciding for the rest of us that the government to regulate "fairness" (whatever that means).
They did it (pretty well, I might add) for about fifty years. And there has been recent movement to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine."
Great post, Bwak.
May 13, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
An outstanding instance of circuitous referencing; truly, ponderously opaque daisy-chaining of insubstantiality.
Your link to the proffered poll data with anchor text, "here"; points to a post on a free blogspot backwater blog titled: "The McCarville Report". That post in turn, cites an article by Newsmax, The Glass-Pipe of Internet News, without providing a hyper-link to the article. Searching GoogleNews using the quoted string: "Olbermann has lost 53 percent of his average nightly audience", returned one record, the NewsMax Article. A Google Web search using the same string, returns a few more records, but they all point to the same Newsmax article, and many are straight copy/pastes from other sites. The Newsmax article claims the data is from "Nielsen Media Research", yet did not offer any link to the data, nor was data formatted in the Nielsen Media Research default style. Nielsen Media Research is a for pay service, which sometimes publicly posts reports, but this was not one of them. Nielsen Media Research provides to its paid subscribers, Daily Cable News TV Ratings. Here's how their data is presented.
I know from extensive research into Newsmax's articles, that they do not subscribe to syndicated news feed services. They instead dance at the very edge of plagiarism, usually deriving their news stories from a mix-n-match mash-up of excerpts from other news sites. A little more digging into the source for this article turned up the discovery that Newsmax scraped the content for it off of a mass emailed FoxNews Press Release. I'm not claiming the Press Release was blatantly false; Fox Cable News is the ratings king of cable news. Still the data was over-stated through an artful selective process that excluded several daily ratings where Countdown beat the The O'Reilly Factor.
Your posted ratings data is the fifth iteration out from the original source, and the trail back to the Nielsen data is tortuously meandering. Did you choose your username for its brutal irony?
May 12, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tour de force! Kudos!
May 12, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for running down the Nielsen/NewsMax links, PCA. If anything, NewsMax has a worse 'fair and balanced' reputation that Faux.
Another link of interest comes from Newsbusters, which beats both NewsMax and Faux for unbalanced, if possible. It comes from a commenter named Clear thinker and it just so happens to be about MSNBC:
If it sounds like a duck .....?
May 12, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or should I say if it looks like a sock ....?
May 12, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant sleuthing!
May 12, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
For someone who allegedly always wants to get at the truth (like with the Bush administration), you are very quick to judge and jump on board bandwagons, TheraP. Care to show why this "sleuthing" is correct? (Hint: it's not.)
May 12, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scooter Libby said it wasn't him, either. (Hint: It was.)
May 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, just like the posters you don't like here become me, now the posters you don't like anywhere else on the Internet become me.
May 12, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny that you're simply trying to shoot the messenger, rather than offer up numbers. Is your goal to elucidate or simply confront me for petty personal reasons?
Here's some numbers:
Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, November 11
Cable News Ratings for Monday, March 30
Sure looks to me like FNC held it's own and MSNBC fell. We can dither about various percentages, but they are double digits and in the direction that the other post claimed.
Fox has a large, loyal audience.
You can check your smugness at the door next time if you want to continue in a grown-up manner.
May 12, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT replying to PCA: You can check your smugness at the door next time if you want to continue in a grown-up manner.
Here is an example of a fatal error on CT's part. It's called not knowing your adversary.
May 12, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You copy/pasted an excerpt from a blog, that was clearly sourced as a direct quote taken from a Newsmax article, without noting it. Were you motivated by an indolent unwillingness to provide a proper citation or was it artful disingenuousness audaciously hoping you'd avoid the scorn concomitant with NewsMax references? Additionally, the numbers were overstated in favor of The O'Reilly Factor, because the FoxNews Press Release, where all of this originated, portrayed the Neilsen data as being data about the shows' principles, and not the actual shows, then leveraged that false premise to toss-out as much data that negatively affected Fox cable productions as possible, using specious rationalisations.
Yet you assert my pointing out your slothful sourcing, as well as FoxNews' Unfair and Imbalanced data selectivity is in reality a personal attack.
I am also amused that you used data from the TVbytheNumbers website in your follow-up; a site I had just pointed you to, pretending it was resultant from your own research, as you cluelessly missed other data which could answer a recurring question on the recent Cable News blog posts at TPM. That's far more information already, than you deserve; so go fish.
May 12, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let's review:
I come up with a claim.
You poo-poo the source.
You mention another source.
I then show with your source that the original claim is correct.
And now???
The fact is, I was correct from the word go and instead of dealing with a substantive discussion you want to go meta-talking. I've seen you pass yourself off this way before (including some ignorant comments on Twitter). I know you play well with the home crowd, but it's rather unimpressive.
Bottom line is, Ants, you had nothing to say but couldn't stand saying nothing.
My statements stand. I do give you points for trying to play a Rovian game of misdirection to cover for your mistakes.
If you were so smart and knew all the right websites, you wouldn't have written your first post. The fact is you got caught with your antsy pants down.
Don't worry, the little ones I throw back in.
May 13, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Statistics can be used to say anything one wants. Clearly that is the case here. If the cable companies do not offer MSNBC without a premium being paid for them, it is misleading to trumpet these statistics as meaning something when the contest is not fair and balanced.
As for the Hannity and Coolmes question, it was part of the contract for Holmes that he could only argue in certain ways, which left him trying to defend his point with hand tied behind his back. He was put up as Hannity's whipping boy and finally the money was no longer worth his integrity. Where is he now? Well, it would seem his stock is not all that as no one has picked him up.
For crying out loud, even Tucker Carlson gets some love eveyr now and then.
May 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, and that, I believe is at the root of Thera's blog and mine. If one news show has an unfair advantage in programming, then the ratings are essentially meaningless.
Thanks for putting it so simply and well, Gregor.
May 12, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS:
Who determines "fairness"?
Now we have the government regulating news? That's not what I want to see! Take about potential for abuse!
May 12, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sums up your line of thinking, which is dubious at best, a rehashing of a right wing trope at worst.
Do you want THE GOVERNMENT (GASP!) making your decisions?! I THINK NOT!
Never mind the fact that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Never mind that citizens are in fact shareholders in the government. It would be much better if decisions about the information we the people receive come from for-profit enterprises that make their decisions in order to please a small base of shareholders that reward the bottom line... which IS NOT an informed public.
Personally, I think there is a place for the marketplace... but there is also a place for public radio and television fully funded by legislation and member contribution. I also believe that television channels should be subscription based with an option for batch purposes. If it were up to me, I would pick IFC, Turner Classic Movies, MSNBC, and local/public channels. The rest of the channels don't appeal to me. I am sure others have a different parameter of choices.
May 12, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and it's apparent you know nothing of media broadcasting. You can't pick and choose a la carte because most stations are losers, and the only way to support them is to take the bundles from the parent company as such.
The bottom line is that if these stations were really so important to you, you'd pony up the money for what they cost. As I said, I suspect that MSNBC can't garner ratings which is why it's occasionally left off. If we assume the left of center viewing audience is like that of Air America, it might explain a number of things.
To force a broadcast company to carry something that a profit making company provides is anti-competitive based on government intervention and you best believe that FNC and CNN, etc. will (correctly) protest.
By the way, last I checked Democrats wanted government out of their lives too, or do you subscribe to telling which sets of people can be married? To say it's simply a Republican meme is surprisingly ignorant.
May 12, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go with your prize-winning charm.
Firstly, your third paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. Either that or you are interested in forcing consumers to make decisions that companies can avoid.
Second, government is completely entrenched in marriage regardless of sexuality because it is a civil contract. What you are saying makes no sense. Your statement about Democrats wanting government out of their lives is a straw man. Do I (as a Democrat) want the government out of criminal law? Hell no! Do I want government out of public education? Hell no! Do I want government out of environmental protections? Hell no! Do I want the government out of the military? Hell no!
So I suggest you rethink your arguents and come back to me. Calling me ignorant while you make such specious claims is absurd.
P.S. - The first thing to know about broadcasting is that the airwaves are public.
May 12, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 1st and 3rd paragraphs don't contradict one another. I'll let you figure out how when a for-profit bundles their products as a one-size-takes all is different than the government giving an anti-competitive advantage to a for profit company.
The rest of your discussion is strange. You called me a Republican because I brought up the "get government out of my life" phrase. I merely pointed out that Democrats use that phrase as well. You then go off in an odd direction it's clear you missed my point, but it's still there for you to reread if you like.
May 12, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't call you a Republican. I said you were (at worst) using a Republican trope. Which it is... but thank you for making the impersonal (directed at your actual comment) personal (making it about YOU).
And yes, IMO, your paragraphs disagree. You are stating that consumers must accept (subsidize) bundle packages but corporations don't have to accept public intervention. I do wish you would thread this needle. The fact that you accept corporate power over public airwaves as the natural effect of market forces is weird, but it is your weird, so own it.
Finally: just because some Democrats (STRAW MAN ALERT) use a tired Republican trope does not make it any less of a trope. What I was doing was pointing out the goofiness of such logic. To say that you don't want government in your lives is the statement of an Anarchist... which is cool, if you are an Anarchist. Otherwise, you accept government intervention in certain public affairs. The examples I provided show that notion. For a Republican to want government out of their lives is ridiculous when they praise military power to resolve foreign problems.
Both parties want a presence of government... they just want an EMPHASIS in areas of their choosing.
May 12, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't particularly like any TV playing anywhere, whether Rachel Ray at the grocery store or CNN at the airport. But it's hard to maintain that Fox is equivalent to CNN; their reporting (not the overt opinion guys) is provably biased, last I heard. I guess if I had to I could round up some data from Media Matters.
On the regulation question, privately owned public space, and even employment, has to satisfy various laws, from non-discrimination to health and safety. I'm sure it is already illegal to have a TV showing Nazi propaganda, under hate crime laws. It hasn't been tested, but it might be possible to eliminate all TV by using noise regulation. I don't see why it is necessary to fill space with a soundtrack, the species did all right with silence for a few thousand years of recorded history. (And that incorrect aspect ratio kills me.)
However, I would agree with the point that Fox is wholly legitimate content as law currently stands. I'd have to see a random survey of venues that showed what programs are playing, too. We find it so distasteful to hear that we surely would over-represent Fox in informal reporting.
May 11, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I agree that straining or violating FCC policy is legitimate grounds for pressuring the licensee.
If I could choose channels I might (gasp!) subscribe to cable TV, and even watch it.
May 11, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with anything you said, but it seems to me that Fox thumbs it's nose at the FCC a lot. They had to get the DoJ involved to collect the fees over Janet Jacksons, er, wardrobe misfunction.
Would any other station get away with that?
May 12, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is any other station even trying to get away with that?
May 12, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, see this. Bwakfat is seriously misinformed.
May 12, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think you're missing her main point; provably counter-factual reporting by Fox is definitely not programming in the public interest.
May 12, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your missing my point: People are so hysterical about FNC that they will imagine them involved in anything bad.
The supposition of these posts is that if only FNC can be tamed, the country would right itself because people would be "informed". I am simply pointing out that is obviously a false supposition. Moreover, people here are dangerously close to espousing government regulations to "ensure truth (or fairness)" and that is a slippery slope to be avoided.
I'm tired of the GOP/FNC conspiracy theories proposed on TPM against all the wrongs in this country. It's an easy way to pretend you have a grasp of things, but it does not reflect reality and therefore hinders true discussion. And as we've seen, CNN is on in a number of places as well, yet no one is upset about that. (You and I are the only ones that broadened the discussion to saying we wish there was peace and quiet most of the time!)
Moreover, I'm shocked that so many people have opinions on so many things they aren't really familiar with. Perhaps if people here who haven't watched FNC often would, they'd see that it's very simple to punch holes in the presentation. That some people choose not to is because they *want* to believe something. Of course, MSNBC does the same thing and it's easy to sit through their broadcasts as well and punch, though most people here *want* to believe them.
As Mark Twain said "Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
This has been the situation for ages.
May 12, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Continuing your point, as is your wont, but that's cool.
MT was making a joke, not uttering a Truth, as it is provably false, even in his day.
May 12, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Tom, CT is right, I was thinking of this:
http://www.newser.com/story/22465/fox-thumbs-nose-at-91k-fcc-fine.html
But they did thumb their nose over fines over indecency. I watch the Superbowl sometimes, but since I never heard of this show, it didn't stick.
Thanks for getting the point.
May 12, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comment I meant to go here ended up below. Apologies.
May 12, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow, some contentious back and forth on this.
Bwakfat, what I appreciate most about your post is:
- your call to action regarding cable subscription policies.
-your relentless desire to get people to speak up
-your insistence that doing so is not at all futile.
-your desire to help clarify the intent of Thera's post
I followed the link to the FCC and I found a host of other issues, things on the docket that anyone can contribute comment. I wouldn't have known about all that's going on had you not posted the link.
I'm curious about the prevalence of Fox, or any other registered news station--it seems perfectly reasonable to inquire about media fair practices.
I'll take diversity over monopoly any day.
May 11, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too.
May 12, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, I have great respect for you -- a person with an always busy (and probably occasionally exhausting) life who, nonetheless, still finds the time and energy to take the direct approach to problem-solving by: a) doing real research on a topic under discussion; and, b) offering at least one practical solution.
FYI: my cable provider just "adjusted" the packages on offer. Curious that Fox and CNN remained intact as part of the news tier, but if I wanted to retain MSNBC, or get CSpan, I had to pay more money. Because I still get Jon Stewart, I declined. But I'll miss Keith and Rachel, even though, in truth, I haven't watched any TV at all in weeks. Still, it was nice to know they were there. I wonder if they are available on Hulu....
May 11, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC.com does stream some things themselves. They're on my cable pack, so I have not bothered to investigate too deeply into other sources - and KO and Rachel (and Tweety too!) are OK but not day-makers.
May 12, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may be one of the reasons it's tough to get MSNBC?
You directly affected their ratings!
Cable companies have limited bandwidth. They will push the products that sell. It's probably not coincidental that FNC and CNN have higher rating than MSNBC and that's why they dropped it.
Did your cable company add anything? I'm betting if they did it might have been something like the Discovery Channel which had better ratings.
These are businesses we are talking about.
Here's a suggestion: convince everyone who has MSNBC to turn it on as much as possible.
By the way, how come no one is complaining that CNN is being bundled like this? Only about FNC?
May 12, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably not coincidental that FNC and CNN have higher rating than MSNBC and that's why they dropped it.
Where are your facts? This is the big leagues you know. And did you ever confirm FOX gives away their content for free? Just wonderin'.
May 12, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you don't understand the conjectures I raise. I never said FNC gave away it's content, only that Rush does and perhaps that FNC does the same to dominate things.
May 12, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's a no. Thanks.
May 12, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Bwak!
I too smell something rotten in Denmark (but I might just be smelling Roger Ailes- he's pretty creepy)
I would love to see our airwaves taken back. Keep em coming.
May 12, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can. That is the point.
May 12, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its been said before but,
YOU RAWK BWAK!
Thanks so much for letting us in on what's happening at the FCC.
I want to choose.
Going back to the link now to follow up.
May 12, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much. You rawk
May 12, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Let's do an experiment:
Instead of talking to like minded people, try promoting these arguments on a site such as Red State.
I'm betting you can't. Because I'm betting you can't prove your contentions. Everything will come down to opinion.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I protest something I like to win... not just have a sense of righteous indignation that I "did the right thing." Seems some here would rather try, and then cry, rather than go for the kill. But you can't do that without preparation. To wit:
How would you answer that? (And please don't answer they aren't on anymore, so this question doesn't count.)
If you can't answer this question, then you can't support your position (because this should be an easy question).
May 12, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you prove any of yours?
Thought not. Loser. Crawl back into your mother's basement, if she'll allow you, and suck down another Mountain Dew and some more Cheetos, loser.
May 12, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Care to show me what specifically I said that needs proving?
Your arguments are beginning to be beyond ridiculous ad hominem attacks.
May 12, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like attacking you. You're kind of thin-skinned and rarely if ever have anything substantial to offer. You change the subject constantly, lie when it suits you, offer ad hominem while decrying it when someone says anything you don't like, which makes you a hypocrite on top of being a fool and a liar, and are generally a pain in the ass to boot.
Hmmm...ass...boot...new game!
Mind, I'm not going to waste any time actually looking for you, but when I find you I'm going to kick you a few times just for the enjoyment of it.
Unless the sky falls and you actually acquire some argumentation skills and a modicum of courtesy, that is. And I'm not holding my breath for either of those. The odds are just too long.
May 12, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and you never answered my direct question.
What a sad man you must be. I really feel sorry for you to write what you just did.
May 12, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
B-b-b-but what's wrong with M-m-m-ountain...
Nevermind.
[Hides bottle behind back, quivers from caffeine]
May 12, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
sigh, sigh, sigh...yawning...
THE ANSWER:
Posing as blue with a red state of mind.
May 12, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying the Colmes wasn't left leaning? Care to prove that as it goes against what I saw (and that's how he was advertised)?
May 12, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I talking about YOU and FOX in the same sentence.
Get it?
May 12, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I got it. I didn't think that the gist of your argument would be to dismiss me based on trying to figure out my party affiliation. I figured you were trying to actually engage in thoughtful debate.
May 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple proof:
Colmes spent days on his radio show skewering Howard Dean for his scream after the Iowa caucus. Any self-respecting leftist would not have stooped to slander (Colmes called his a raving lunatic) to take down a Presidential candidate of his own party.
I know what you are TRYING to do, Clearthinker. It would be better if you simply presented what you were writing in logical symbols.
May 12, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, there were plenty on the left that went in that direction. I know of at least 5 individuals who had donated money to Dean who cringed and joked along with everyone else.
In addition, nearly the entire news media overplayed the scream thing. Yes, I know, all of the media is right-biased and Colmes along with them.
Poor example, perhaps you can try again?
By the way, according to your logic, Ann Colture is not right wing because she was against McCain and for Hillary.
May 12, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is in the presentation. Go find the broadcasts, listen to them, and make your own decision. I know that I gritted my teeth about the scream, but I did not put it on a loop and call the guy a certifiable lunatic, as did Colmes. Further, your use of "5 people," is hearsay. Given how strongly you have railed against it in this thread, I find it ironic that you are using it to buttress your argument here. Any port in the storm, I guess.
And the logic about Ann Coulter doesn't make sense whatsoever. She doesn't present herself as anything other than a right wing conservative. Colmes presents himself as a leftie. Coulter at least (I can't believe I am defending her) used reasons as to why she supported Hillary: IIRC, they were right wing reasons. Colmes used no rationale to undermine Dean other than slander.
May 12, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What could be more balanced than Hannity and Colmes? Someone from the right and someone from the left discussing issues side by side."
The second statement disagrees with the first question. Hannity is certainly from the right. Colmes rarely if ever proved his leftist credentials. He was more of a moderate punching bag, a center-right individual who appears suitably left when compared to a fundamentalist Reaganite zealot like Hannity.
Now, to answer your second part which is inherently misleading:
In theory, two individuals who share opposing partisan perspectives on political issues would present a "fair" picture of the partisan thought process. The fairness is in an Hegelian context, with two opposing thesis (spouted by the partisan talking heads) reaching a synthesis that is filled in by the audience.
BUT
BUT
BUT
This is not inherently fair to news. Reporting is based on the presentation of facts. You investigate, report what you discover (answering the four Ws and one H), and let the public decide. What modern smashmouth media presentation brings is two sports teams. One sports team (the pro-advertiser team) is the Harlem Globetrotters. The other sports team (those that oppose the advertisers) are the Washington Generals. It doesn't matter whether it is "right or left," it is "what does the corporate junta support."
You tend to throw out simple statements and questions that are anything but simple. The question you wanted answered is filled with enthymemes like a trick can is loaded with spring snakes.
So what do I think is more inherently fair that a right/left news show? How about a news show that actually informs the public without a bunch of pundits manufacturing corporate consent. How about that, bright eyes?
May 12, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, another point forgotten here is that CBS, NBC, and ABC news all trump any cable station in terms of number of viewers. Now CBS, NBC, and ABC are watched by more people and are accessible to anyone with a television.
So, it's clear that FNC isn't creating havoc with the electorate via it's number of viewers.
What FNC did was change the industry itself. (One can trace the evolution of CNN, for example, as a way of competing with FNC, and MSNBC is counterprogrammed to FNC.) More importantly, it took the next logical step from the networks: it blurred editorial with news content. (This was a trend that started with the networks running news magazine after news magazine because they were cheaper than scripted shows.)
So FNC's real influence was on the news industry itself -- and that has nothing to do with access.
Just more proof that FNC is apparently giving people what they want and the other news organizations (including the networks) are following.
Never forget, it's all about ratings and turning a buck. All of it. Rupert Murdoch broadcasts the most subversive shows on Fox (Simpsons/Family Guy). Why? They are hits.
The days of news organizations being a public trust began to slide in the early 60s when the news divisions had to show a profit. See GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK for a dramatized version of this story.
May 12, 2009 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Bwak! Scanned this thread and Thera's as well. I'm no fan of cable news in general - lousy information to disinformation ratio overall. But Fox News is just a GOP propaganda network (mixed up with sensationalism, sports, and regular porn-star appearances). If it's all the 'news' coverage people in some regions are exposed to, that's a problem from a civic democracy point of view. Like Tom, I'd like to see more data on this, though. That said, your suggested actions re the FCC sound excellent, in order to get this ball rolling.
Your new friend (ahem) is as far as I can see, a nutball with a lot of time on his/her hands. Always find such people an interesting psychological study. But no time these days...
;0)
May 12, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear the time issues, I have to run to work, but I'd like to thank you and everyone for dropping in and thinking about these things.
Thanks, I appreciate the time you took.
=D
May 12, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi cool chick,
For those who want evidence. I travel often for my work. Very often. I have to stay in hotels often. And what I have observed is that whether direct TV or cable TV in my hotel room where the choices are mine...
in most hotels I find only FOX news as an option, sometimes there is also CNN, and rarely do I have the option of watching MSNBC. This is something I observed over time. I generally get my new online anyway but what I observe is that in the midwest hotels msnbc is rarely an option... move toward the coasts and it is more likely to appear.
Did you see the video clip about Fox getting caught cropping video in order to distort the message. I have been up all night or I would paste it again. I posted it to TheraP's blog yesterday.
Thanks for your info on the FCC. I always appreciate information on how to take action if I so choose. I like to 'do' something about ...
May 12, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What hotels do you stay at? CNN is available on all of the ones I've been at (Marriott, Sheraton, etc.)
Also, hotels are private organizations. They can show whatever they want to show. Just because they have HBO, they don't have to show Showtime.
Finally, were not CBS, NBC, and ABC also available?
How does that not present a choice? Of course, you are welcomed not to go to a particular hotel if you don't like. There are options. Inconvenient? Perhaps.
Finally, as the Huffington Post blogger pointed out about the MediaMatters clip (and I pointed out on TheraP's thread), they have to reach on their 3rd example.
May 12, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What hotels do you stay at? CNN is available on all of the ones I've been at (Marriott, Sheraton, etc.)
Are you suggesting Synchronicity is lying?
May 12, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
yez
May 12, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great blog, bwak! Posted this up above:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/no_one_really/2009/05/policy-vs-puffery.php#comment-3464368
I salute you, Queen of Chickens! Clearly your post has drawn a "wide" audience!
May 12, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This notion of forcing private establishments to carry or not carry certain channels is very disturbing. And that's what people here are espousing.
On any given night, the 3 major networks each have more viewers than the cable news stations.
What I really see here is shock that just because Obama was elected, the country didn't change overnight to your liking, so people erroneously believe that FNC has something to do with it. The country is still roughly the same as it was before November and it will take a long time for the pendulum to move leftward.
May 12, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a mighty big assumption. How about you prove it?
May 12, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I was simply a misreader, odd asserter, twister and diluter. That all?
Bwak, I'm glad I could make you chuckle, as I respect you and your clique's knowlege, passion and curiosity. I just wonder why you named me personally here? Luckily I stopped by.
Yes, Bwak, as you pointed out to me, some of us do work for a living. I happened to be on that thread when I had some time to spare, and just assumed you or a like minded soul was nearby. I was wrong, and stand corrected there.
Overall, you responded to me with some substance by saying I was off topic with my comment, and doing a nice post on the FCC, giving me some good info and things to think about. But it's wrapped in about 10 insults.
So thanks alot. I learned plenty.
Also, in the Northeast anyhow, it is CNN, not FOX that is ubiquitous.
May 12, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
And no, as you pointed out, this is hardly a scientific sample.
Surprised to hear someone say FOX was on at Bradley(Hartford), which means they do change the channel sometime, or all tv's aren't set to the same channel. I'm there almost every week, and it seems like its always CNN, at least on the TV's at the gates.
CNN actually has an airport network, broadcast in 43 major airports.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/airport.network/
May 12, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also possible that Bwakfat simply sees FNC everywhere. Note that she also thought FNC was fighting the DOJ on the Superbowl fines over Janet Jackson.
May 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink