Shill wrote:dice wrote:yeah, an effete liberal for hannity to dominate. real great example of the "fair and balanced" fox news.
Fox News isn't fair and balanced (none of the networks are), but it's not exclusively right-wingers. That was my point.
and my point is that it's entirely designed to skew viewers toward republican party objectives. my reference to tucker carlson having his OWN show on msnbc was to point out that msnbc wasn't always rigidly ideological. whereas fox news was created for that very purpose
you haven't pointed out a single thing that was inaccurate about what i said
It's essentially the same argument that was made about Rush Limbaugh when he burst onto the talk radio scene, i.e. everything was fine and balanced until he came along.
except that i never said that everything was fine and balanced. i said specifically that CNN was viewed as middle of the road
Or maybe it wasn't, and a sizeable number of people liked what he had to say.
If you want to argue they're all idiots and dupes, fine, but they weren't being served.
just as liberals weren't being served...thus the shift left by msnbc. because fox news proved that there was an appetite for ideological opinion programming in the news. the narrative that the "mainstream media" was catering to liberals and thus necessitated fox coming in and providing a counterpoint is simply false
a fox news contributor put it best, eh? and I'M less than objective?
fox news appeals to far less than half the country. and it didn't "discover" ****. it was created by a republican party strategist as a propaganda arm of the party. it blatantly exploits its viewers by misleading them. there's a reason why the average fox viewer knows LESS about politics than someone who consumes no radio/TV political media at all. MSNBC, while hiring hosts with a liberal viewpoint, at least respects its audience
That's a partisan argument. You don't think the DNC coordinates with CNN and MSNBC? The leaked Clinton/Podesta emails prove they do.
There were emails from Clinton encouraging the networks to pump up Trump during the primary because they viewed Jeb as the real threat.
if you worked for the clinton campaign and wanted the media to pump trump, of COURSE you would try to influence MSNBC. because they would likely be sympathetic to your ultimate objective. that's completely different from coordination, which implies a 2 way flow of information between campaign and network
and you're misrepresenting what actually happened. first of all, the DNC chairperson contacted the president of msnbc to complain about an msnbc co-host ASKING HER TO RESIGN! that's antipathy, which is pretty much the polar OPPOSITE of coordination. that's the DNC trying to prevent negative coverage of the DNC
as for CNN, there were specific incidents that hardly suggest coordination between the network and the DNC. one was a democratic strategist and political commentator writing an anti-bernie op-ed for CNN and having it checked by the dnc prior to publication. the other was this:
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/06/hillary-super-pac-draft-oped/
CNN publishing opinions from people connected to the DNC is not CNN coordinating with the DNC
A Fox News viewer could very easily say the same about the average MSNBC viewer. At the height of Russiagate, Rachel Maddow argued that Putin might shut down the U.S. power grid during a cold snap and kill millions. That's just as bad as any crap you'll see on Fox.
first of all, using the term "russiagate" suggests that the attention given to russia's influence on the election, and trump's willingness to accept it, was inappropriate or misleading. i would strongly disagree
secondly, fox news has suggested that COVID-19 is a partisan hoax. that is orders of magnitude more dangerous than rachel maddow merely suggesting a very far-fetched scenario that highlights the potential danger of a powerful american enemy (who our PRESIDENT is disturbingly ingratiated to)
finally, you misrepresented what maddow actually said. here is the segment, which includes an interview with a wall street journal (conservative publication) reporter:
There are progressives and libertarians that rag on both networks with good reason.
sure. if they don't like biased news coverage. i'm a progressive and it irritates me sometimes when maddow, for example, goes beyond what i feel is rational/fair minded analysis. because i know that the truth and facts are more than enough ammunition to serve a progressive perspective
As far as public appeal, I believe Hannity and Carlson consistently lead in cable news ratings.
not sure what that has to do with anything here. it certainly doesn't suggest that fox news appeals to half the nation, if that's your objective
