Actually, I think I liked life better when the tv and radio stations signed off after the 11:00 news.

 

There imo is a lot of truth in that statement :lol:. Problem is alot of these shows/programming are on before 11pm.

...and your point is?

 

Actually, Franken is running for the US Senate in Minnesota but he "forgot" to pay taxes in several states over the past few years. In most states, such a "mistake" would be fatal to a campaign but Franken is still running.

 

Just because somebody runs for office is no indication that they understand the process. Even long time incumbents sometimes cannot understand the American political process (see Maxine Waters).

 

I really didnt have a point, just more of a interesting fact.

 

Like Ted Stevens?

One area that Fox News trumps all the rest is with their female anchors and reporters...:eek: :eek:

The real problem here is that something like 6 major conglomerates now own approximately 99 percent of all media outlets. Not only does this open the door for bias and corporate agendas, but it also changes the mission of the "Fourth Estate" to being totally driven by profit and loss. Obviously, it is much cheaper and easier to print and broadcast information that is handed to you than it is pay journalists to go out and actually investigate events and stories. Add to that 24 hours of programming to fill each day, and that is how we've gotten to where we are. Fox is by far not the only guilty party. But I will say they are masters at propaganda. I guess if you say "Fair and Balanced" enough times, many people will believe it.

 

Actually, I think I liked life better when the tv and radio stations signed off after the 11:00 news.

If the mainstream media is driven soley by profits and Fox News, which has drawn millions of viewers away from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC by appealing to a center-right audience, then how do you explain such shows as Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews' Hardball, and This Week with George Stephanopolis?

 

Would it not make more sense for MSNBC, CNN, etc. to make more of an effort to attract conservative viewers because judging from Fox News' success conservatives tend to watch more TV news? Why do the other major news networks continue to produce so many news shows that so few people watch? How does that maximize the corporate owners' profits?

 

Maybe you believe that the New York Times, LA Times, CBS, etc. actually have a conservative bias. I actually work with a young liberal who makes the same argument that you have. Most liberals will acknowledge the liberal bias in the media, given the favorable coverage of liberal political candidates like Obama and considering the fact that people in the news business overwhelmingly vote for and contribute to Democratic candidates.

I really didnt have a point, just more of a interesting fact.

 

Like Ted Stevens?

All Ted Stevens needs to do is switch parties and his career will be just fine (see William Jefferson).

If the mainstream media is driven soley by profits and Fox News, which has drawn millions of viewers away from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC by appealing to a center-right audience, then how do you explain such shows as Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews' Hardball, and This Week with George Stephanopolis?

 

Would it not make more sense for MSNBC, CNN, etc. to make more of an effort to attract conservative viewers because judging from Fox News' success conservatives tend to watch more TV news? Why do the other major news networks continue to produce so many news shows that so few people watch? How does that maximize the corporate owners' profits?

 

Maybe you believe that the New York Times, LA Times, CBS, etc. actually have a conservative bias. I actually work with a young liberal who makes the same argument that you have. Most liberals will acknowledge the liberal bias in the media, given the favorable coverage of liberal political candidates like Obama and considering the fact that people in the news business overwhelmingly vote for and contribute to Democratic candidates.

 

I saw a piece that said conservatives only fare well on Fox. So the theory that middle of the road or conservatives would help a network do not hold water. I think it was in Janaury of this year that the three lowest-rated cable news shows were all people on the right that were no on Fox. Those on the right stay with Fox. Period.

 

KO's show is slightly less than half of what O'Reilly draws from a ratings number using January 08 as the basis. Not hard to believe as , just like talk radio, the majority of newshounds lean right.However, when you look at the 25-54 demographic, the gap is not as wide.

 

Over the last year, KO's #s in the 25-54 have grown approximately 50%.

 

 

 

Lastly, Matthews is not liberal. He even voted for President Bush.

Edited July 30, 200818 yr by bugatti

I used to really like CNN Headline News because no matter what time I turned it on, they were broadcasting actual news. Now, its just as full of these "news shows" as the other news stations.

I used to really like CNN Headline News because no matter what time I turned it on, they were broadcasting actual news. Now, its just as full of these "news shows" as the other news stations.

 

Kinda like MTV. Once upon a time, they actually aired music videos. Practically all of the time.

I saw a piece that said conservatives only fare well on Fox. So the theory that middle of the road or conservatives would help a network do not hold water. I think it was in Janaury of this year that the three lowest-rated cable news shows were all people on the right that were no on Fox. Those on the right stay with Fox. Period.

 

KO's show is slightly less than half of what O'Reilly draws from a ratings number using January 08 as the basis. Not hard to believe as , just like talk radio, the majority of newshounds lean right.However, when you look at the 25-54 demographic, the gap is not as wide.

 

Over the last year, KO's #s in the 25-54 have grown approximately 50%.

 

 

 

Lastly, Matthews is not liberal. He even voted for President Bush.

 

I believe the vote for Bush (in '00) was because he disliked Clinton so much, for those that watched Hardball 9-10 years ago or so you know what I mean. I doubt he voted for him last election. Matthews also worked for Jimmy Carter and has run for congress as a Democrat. He may not be far left wing however.

I believe the vote for Bush (in '00) was because he disliked Clinton so much, for those that watched Hardball 9-10 years ago or so you know what I mean. I doubt he voted for him last election. Matthews also worked for Jimmy Carter and has run for congress as a Democrat. He may not be far left wing however.

 

Agreed.

If the mainstream media is driven soley by profits and Fox News, which has drawn millions of viewers away from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC by appealing to a center-right audience, then how do you explain such shows as Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews' Hardball, and This Week with George Stephanopolis?

 

Would it not make more sense for MSNBC, CNN, etc. to make more of an effort to attract conservative viewers because judging from Fox News' success conservatives tend to watch more TV news? Why do the other major news networks continue to produce so many news shows that so few people watch? How does that maximize the corporate owners' profits?

 

Maybe you believe that the New York Times, LA Times, CBS, etc. actually have a conservative bias. I actually work with a young liberal who makes the same argument that you have. Most liberals will acknowledge the liberal bias in the media, given the favorable coverage of liberal political candidates like Obama and considering the fact that people in the news business overwhelmingly vote for and contribute to Democratic candidates.

 

I said Fox was not the only guilty party. And nowhere in my post did I mention liberal or conservative bias. I was referring to printed and broadcast "news". I don't classify Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc. as news; their shows are political opinion\commentary.

 

The point I made was that control and ownership of the media in this country have been put into the hands of a small few. The press has become a corporate enterprise rather than a civic enterprise. And as a corporate enterprise, the focus is on the bottom line; not truth, advocacy or community.

 

What I believe is that the news should have no slant or bias. And maybe media employees do donate more to Democratic candidates, but who do you think their owners traditionally vote for?

The Courier-Journal has been unapologetically Democraticly slanted since their founding.

 

Google "Black Monday" and read about how a family owned newspaper bisically caused riots in Louisville.

 

My point is that for as long as there has been media there has been biased media.

I saw a piece that said conservatives only fare well on Fox. So the theory that middle of the road or conservatives would help a network do not hold water. I think it was in Janaury of this year that the three lowest-rated cable news shows were all people on the right that were no on Fox. Those on the right stay with Fox. Period.

 

KO's show is slightly less than half of what O'Reilly draws from a ratings number using January 08 as the basis. Not hard to believe as , just like talk radio, the majority of newshounds lean right.However, when you look at the 25-54 demographic, the gap is not as wide.

 

Over the last year, KO's #s in the 25-54 have grown approximately 50%.

Do you think that conservatives just did not watch the news before Fox revolutionized the news business? CNN and the other networks just sat idly by while Fox drew viewers away in droves. Their extreme liberal bias has left them with a lot of work to do to regain their market share but it could be done.

 

The thing is, like Linda Ronstadt, most of the liberals running those networks get a queezy feeling just knowing that there are conservatives in their audience. It is that lack of respect that has created so many loyal viewers for Fox.

Lastly, Matthews is not liberal. He even voted for President Bush.

:lol::lol::lol: First, my guess is that the percentage of people who follow political commentary who believe Chris Matthews is anything other than a liberal is lower than those approving the job Congress is doing. Second, if Chris Matthews claims to have voted for Bush, then I am calling him a liar. I remember when Matthews was writing speeches for Jimmy Carter and I began watching Hardball when it first aired. I know a liberal when I see and hear one.

 

Last night during MSNBC's Potomac Primary coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were discussing Barack Obama's speech. Matthews — who, in the past, has both cried over an Obama speech and compared him to Jesus — described exactly what happens to him when Obama speaks:

 

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. - Chris Not-A-Liberal Matthews

I said Fox was not the only guilty party. And nowhere in my post did I mention liberal or conservative bias. I was referring to printed and broadcast "news". I don't classify Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, etc. as news; their shows are political opinion\commentary.

 

The point I made was that control and ownership of the media in this country have been put into the hands of a small few. The press has become a corporate enterprise rather than a civic enterprise. And as a corporate enterprise, the focus is on the bottom line; not truth, advocacy or community.

 

What I believe is that the news should have no slant or bias. And maybe media employees do donate more to Democratic candidates, but who do you think their owners traditionally vote for?

My point is that there is no evidence that the fact the news channels are owned by large corporations that the ownership has much impact on how news is covered. The business is not as profit driven as you assert because aside from Fox News, news is not a big money maker for the corporate owners. From a profitability standpoint, it would make more sense for the other networks to hire some of the better conservative commentators as hosts and give some of the lesser talented liberal hacks the heave ho.

 

If I were running CNN or MSNBC, I would attempt to hire Laura Ingraham and/or Michelle Malkin and give them their own shows. I am sure that I am not the only conservative who would gladly tune in to watch Ingraham and Malkin. Pair Laura Ingraham with Ed Schultz and you would have a show that would give Hannity and Colmes a real run for its money.

I used to really like CNN Headline News because no matter what time I turned it on, they were broadcasting actual news. Now, its just as full of these "news shows" as the other news stations.

I agree. I like Glenn Beck but thirty minute or one-hour talk shows just do not mesh with the general theme of CNN Headline News Network. A headline news network should air headline news and nothing else.