RSS

Frank Rich.

05 Feb

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/fox-news-2014-2/

I found this article to be a bit calming. Yes, it’s going to be morning in America again. And soon . The wheels on the bus go round and round.

If anyone would like access to more of his NY Magazine articles, here is a link.  Oh, and describing the obvious is not opinion although it’s often mistaken for comedy.

Advertisements
 
8 Comments

Posted by on February 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

8 responses to “Frank Rich.

  1. Cluster

    February 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    Those damn liberals are the only ones keeping Fox News alive. In fact Obama wondered the other day in the interview with O’Reilly, what Fox News would do without him. I guess Obama forgot that they were #1 in the ratings long before he came along. But like Rusty, Obama is a legend in his own mind.

    Here’s another not so flattering article on Obamacare from one of those right wing publications – the LA Times:

    Aliso Viejo resident Danielle Nelson said Anthem Blue Cross promised half a dozen times that her oncologists would be covered under her new policy. She was diagnosed last year with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and discovered a suspicious lump near her jaw in early January.
    But when she went to her oncologist’s office, she promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted. “I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night,” Nelson said. “I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.” To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state’s new health insurance market.

    Now let’s see – who predicted that fewer doctors would be available?? I just can’t remember. Any guesses?

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,5417742.story#ixzz2sUEwMTB4

     
  2. casper

    February 5, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Mitch,
    I enjoyed he article also. Thanks Cluster for the original link. Of course Fox leading in the ratings for cable TV news means that less than half of one percent of Americans watch them and the average age of a FOX viewer is 68. Frankly, I agree with Rich (pun intended) that FOX gets far more attention than they deserve.

     
    • Cluster

      February 5, 2014 at 6:19 pm

      What would be the percentage of people then who watch MSNBC?

       
      • casper

        February 6, 2014 at 5:22 am

        “What would be the percentage of people then who watch MSNBC?”

        I wouldn’t know, I don’t watch it.

        Here is a story that goes along very well with the Frank Rich piece.

        http://www.salon.com/2014/01/28/my_personal_fox_news_nightmare_inside_a_month_of_self_induced_torture/

        From the article:

        “One of the interesting things about Fox News, one of the things I hadn’t anticipated upon entering into this venture, was how little actual news the network disseminates. There is a lot of national political coverage, most of this devoted to the damage that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are inflicting on our country. Beyond that, however, Fox stays true to its Rupert Murdochian tabloid roots. There is plenty of coverage of police chases and freak accidents, but very little else in the way of substantive stories.

        Given the statistics about Fox’s conservative influence and the way it misleads its viewers, I think it is fair to classify much of what it does as propaganda. My liberal cynicism seemed to render me immune to that — their O’Reilly-style hectoring eliciting a few laughs, but doing little to change my worldview. But Fox, as I came to discover, indulges in another form of opinion creation. Let’s call this the propaganda of ignorance. By choosing which stories to cover, and, perhaps more important, which stories to ignore, Fox is able to advance its political agenda in a much more subtle and insidious way.”

         
      • Cluster

        February 6, 2014 at 6:26 am

        But Casper, you were able to discern the amount of the population that watches Fox based on ratings, why couldn’t you do the same for MSNBC? MSNBC has ratings too.

        The fact that Fox News is far and away the leader in cable news has just got to drive you guys nuts, doesn’t it? It just doesn’t make sense does it? In fact, Fox even leads in the 25 – 54 age group, which dispels Casper’s hopeful assertion the other day that only old geezers watched Fox. How can this happen? Doesn’t America know how smart and honest you guys are?

        http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/fnc-extends-cable-news-ratings-winning-streak-in-january/

         
      • mitchethekid

        February 6, 2014 at 10:37 am

        Well I’m a bit skeptical that a website for TV shows is 100% accurate and reliable. But even though I am surprised because the 25-54 yr age group runs contrary to other polling, I’ll accept it as possible. I would, however like to know what company took this poll and what the methodology was. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Rasmussen. I say this because it was the reliance on his polling that blindside Romney and misled Fox viewers. They were then ambushed by reality and are none to happy. I don’t know if it’s that they were misled and are angry with themselves for being dupes; or that Obama won by such huge margins, made them look like fools and that he’s still President. Or maybe it’s a twofer!
        Below is a quote from Frank’s article. I’m confident his facts are checked before publication. You know, to eliminate being accused of bias and personal opinion instead of objectivity.

        “The notion that Fox News has been defeated would seem absurd if you judge solely by the numbers. The year just ended was the network’s twelfth in a row as the most-watched cable-news network. Its number of total viewers surpasses CNN and MSNBC combined. As the longtime Rupert Murdoch–Fox News watcher Michael Wolff wrote of the cumulative 2013 ratings, “Nobody has come close to competing” with Ailes. “He gets larger, everybody else gets lesser.” But as Wolff also observed, “The cable audience, for all the attention heaped on it for its theoretical political sway, is not that large.” To put it mildly. As the overwhelming leader in its field, Fox draws just over a million viewers in prime time—a ­pittance and a niche next to even the ever-declining network newscasts, of which the lowest rated (CBS Evening News) still can attract a nightly audience as large as 8 million.

        Fox News’s political sway in the real world, as opposed to its power to drive MSNBC viewers and their fellow travelers nuts and to generate ridicule from late-night comics, is also on the wane. Speaking to the Television Critics Association in Los Angeles in January, Jeff Zucker, the former NBC chief executive now trying to revive CNN (averaging a mere 568,000 prime-time viewers in 2013), complained like countless before him that Fox is an arm of the GOP “masquerading as a cable-news channel.” It doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out: No fewer than five Republican presidential hopefuls, not to mention Karl Rove and Glenn Beck, were on-camera as paid Fox personalities at the start of the 2012 election season; Murdoch is a GOP donor; and Ailes is a former Republican political operative whose partisan record extends back to his big break as Richard Nixon’s media guru in 1968. But there’s nothing in Fox’s viewership numbers, either in magnitude or in demographic hue, to suggest that there’s a significant number of voting-age Americans who at this point do not already know that Fox News is a GOP auxiliary and view it, hate-watch it, or avoid it accordingly. The masquerade that Zucker seems to find a revelation was unmasked years ago.”

         
  3. mitchethekid

    February 6, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    In today’s I’m speechless category, Fox is clearly the winner. And the day isn’t even over with but no one can top this. This station refutes everything, no matter what. It’s as reliable as the sun coming up. I will say though, that they are savants at planting suspicion. I mean what is CVS really up to? And what does CVS stand for? What does it mean? Is it an acronym for something nefarious? Is it a code of some sort?
    Only Fox can take a company deciding that they no longer want to carry a drug that has no benefit, is increasingly less popular and statistically results in premature death and twist into Obama hates freedom. But this is the same station that defended pharmacies refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. You know, that whole moral thing.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/05/fox-freaks-out-over-cvs-ending-sales-of-tobacco/197947

     
 
%d bloggers like this: