Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Baditude]

They're not really biased and they're not really news. They're run by ratings and ratings are run by viewers. They're going to say whatever keeps you watchin to keep the ratings up so their sponsors will pay them to run their commercials. The last "news" program where you got real news was back when there was only 3 networks and the competition wasn't that great.

Oh, I think they are all biased, but agree they also are not really news journalists like in the old days. CNN was pretty good in their first few years, but nowadays they are all about the same with similar political agendas. It's getting quite tiring.

I was watching an interview on BBC the other night and the interviewer kept asking the same question in a different way in an attempt to get the interviewee to say something that he didn't agree with. It was so frustrating to watch. It appeared to me that the interviewer obviously went into the interview with an political agenda.

 

[BillW50]

Well 5cardstud, I followed some lawsuits against some news networks who were accused of downright lying. And guess what always happens? The news networks always win. And you know why? Because they are labeled as entertainment shows and entertainment shows can lie all they want to and there is no law against it.

 

[Bronze]

They're not really biased and they're not really news. They're run by ratings and ratings are run by viewers. They're going to say whatever keeps you watchin to keep the ratings up so their sponsors will pay them to run their commercials. The last "news" program where you got real news was back when there was only 3 networks and the competition wasn't that great.

I believed that at one time (that it's all about ratings). But I don't think that is as true today. Case and point....Fox News (plus Fox Business) viewership is larger than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN combined. If any of those secondary news organizations wanted to take on Fox they would change their slant and go after the Fox viewers. But they don't. One of the few emotions that are stronger than greed is politics and/or religion.

 

[5cardstud]

I believed that at one time (that it's all about ratings). But I don't think that is as true today. Case and point....Fox News (plus Fox Business) viewership is larger than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN combined. If any of those secondary news organizations wanted to take on Fox they would change their slant and go after the Fox viewers. But they don't. One of the few emotions that are stronger than greed is politics and/or religion.

I'm positive that if any of them had the financial resources that Murdoch has they would go after them but as Murdoch owns the entire Fox corp they wouldn't stand a chance. So never believe politics and/or religion is stronger than money. Case in point Trump. Money can buy you anything.

 

[Bronze]

I'm positive that if any of them had the financial resources that Murdoch has they would go after them but as Murdoch owns the entire Fox corp they wouldn't stand a chance. So never believe politics and/or religion is stronger than money. Case in point Trump. Money can buy you anything.

It doesn't take money to change your programming.

 

[5cardstud]

Oh, I think they are all biased, but agree they also are not really news journalists like in the old days. CNN was pretty good in their first few years, but nowadays they are all about the same with similar agendas.

I was watching an interview on BBC the other night and the interviewer kept asking the same question in a different way in an attempt to get the interviewee to say something that he didn't agree with. It was so frustrating to watch. It appeared to me that the interviewer obviously went into the interview with an political agenda.

Yes, they're not news anymore they're entertainment. Oh they hit on news subjects but what they say is pretty much scripted and read off the telepr

It doesn't take money to change your programming.

But it takes money to own your programming and moneys sets what tonights entertainment is. Otherwise you could view without commercials.

 

[Mazinny]

I believed that at one time (that it's all about ratings). But I don't think that is as true today. Case and point....Fox News (plus Fox Business) viewership is larger than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN combined. If any of those secondary news organizations wanted to take on Fox they would change their slant and go after the Fox viewers. But they don't. One of the few emotions that are stronger than greed is politics and/or religion.

Not necessarily ratings, but advertising dollars. The 18-49 demographic generates much higher advertising dollars than the over 50 demographic for the same number of viewers.

Here's the numbers from last week for total prime time viewers :
Basic Cable Ranker: Week of Sept. 10

1- Fox - 2.492m
2- MSNBC - 2.185m
3- CNN - 1.2m

If CNN were to change their programming to attract Fox viewers, they'll lose their 1.2m current viewers to MSNBC, so they'll need to poach half of the Fox viewers to have the current viewership. That's a difficult enough task, but they'll still lose money since Fox audience is older than CNN's audience, which means less advertising dollars.

It's still about the money.

 

[Bronze]

Not necessarily ratings, but advertising dollars. The 18-49 demographic generates much higher advertising dollars than the over 50 demographic for the same number of viewers.

Here's the numbers from last week for total prime time viewers :
Basic Cable Ranker: Week of Sept. 10

1- Fox - 2.492m
2- MSNBC - 2.185m
3- CNN - 1.2m

If CNN were to change their programming to attract Fox viewers, they'll lose their 1.2m current viewers to MSNBC, so they'll need to poach half of the Fox viewers to have the current viewership. That's a difficult enough task, but they'll still lose money since Fox audience is older than CNN's audience, which means less advertising dollars.

It's still about the money.

The 18-49 demographic is the money slot but I'm not sure I would term it as "much higher advertising dollars". There is no way I can be convinced that only one news channel (cable or otherwise) versus 3 - 6 with the opposite political leaning has anything other to do than with bias.

 

[Bronze]

A similar argument can be made for late night TV. Every single late night show is of one political persuasion. There is not an audience big enough for the other political persuasion? Not even one show? It's more than an 18 - 54 demographic justification.

 

[Mazinny]

The 18-49 demographic is the money slot but I'm not sure I would term it as "much higher advertising dollars". There is no way I can be convinced that only one news channel (cable or otherwise) versus 3 - 6 with the opposite political leaning has anything other to do than with bias.

Fair enough. I just gave the numbers, whether you can be convinced or not, is beyond my control.

Advertising rates are set almost entirely based on the 18-49 demographic.
FAQ: Do Total Viewers Matter?

 

[zoiDman]

Not necessarily ratings, but advertising dollars. The 18-49 demographic generates much higher advertising dollars than the over 50 demographic for the same number of viewers.

Here's the numbers from last week for total prime time viewers :
Basic Cable Ranker: Week of Sept. 10

1- Fox - 2.492m
2- MSNBC - 2.185m
3- CNN - 1.2m

If CNN were to change their programming to attract Fox viewers, they'll lose their 1.2m current viewers to MSNBC, so they'll need to poach half of the Fox viewers to have the current viewership. That's a difficult enough task, but they'll still lose money since Fox audience is older than CNN's audience, which means less advertising dollars.

It's still about the money.

Not trying to Drive this anymore OT than it already is.

But One Day (hopefully) a Media Outlet would look at the Total Amount of Possible Viewers and ask themselves...

"Gee, what would happen if we Presented Balanced, Fact Based, News Reporting that was played right down the Middle? And gave Equal Time for Slanted Op-Ed, in dedicated OP-Ed Time Slots, to BOTH Sides of the Political Aisle?

Couldn't we Pick Up Both R's and D's? As well a Moderates and those who are Turned Off by the Entire Tribal Warfare BS?"

 

[Baditude]

A similar argument can be made for late night TV. Every single late night show is of one political persuasion. There is not an audience big enough for the other political persuasion? Not even one show? It's more than an 18 - 54 demographic justification.

I have found an exception. Talk radio has more conservative programing than liberal. Thank you, God.

 

[untar]

"Gee, what would happen if we Presented Balanced, Fact Based, News Reporting that was played right down the Middle? And gave Equal Time for Slanted Op-Ed, in dedicated OP-Ed Time Slots, to BOTH Sides of the Political Aisle?

Easy answer, they would be equally hated by both sides and have no viewers

You're assuming people want to be challenged in their views but imo that's only a small minority.

 

[Baditude]

Easy answer, they would be equally hated by both sides and have no viewers

You're assuming people want to be challenged in their views but imo that's only a small minority.

I don't agree with this. Speaking amongst my friends, we often wish there was something for us "in the middle" silent majority. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but an independent voter. I've voted for both parties in the past.

I refuse to get into the political debates on Face Book. That is a losing battle. I have a few friends who are vehemently on the far side of both political spectrums. I find it best just to remain silent on social media where politics are concerned.

 

[untar]

I don't agree with this. Speaking with friends, we often wish there was something for us "in the middle" silent majority.

Well, I consider myself pretty square in the middle (slightly left leaning libertarian) and I get crap from all sides. Pointing out why some things may be wrong puts you in the "enemy camp" of either side (with close minded individuals that is, of which there doesn't seem to be a shortage). There isn't even a political party of a significant size I can vote for with a clear conscience.

The popularity of openly biased outlets seems to confirm to me that a lot of people just want their views reinforced or supported, not questioned. If they wanted to do that this "information age" would be the perfect time to do it. While there is disinformation like never before there's also accessible facts like never before.

 

[stols001]

The husband listens to a lot of talk radio so I get to by osmosis. Have to admit I often find it more compelling than state sponsored, I mean NPR radio by most measures. I used to listen to NPR all the time, until I realized they were on a rotating "that lady that can't talk correctly, crime HORROR pandemic, politics politics book club to let you catch your breath a minute, tsunami, weather, crime crime,, etc."

My life improved immensely once I realized it and stopped listening. A crazed and terrified populace is better than an entertained, enlightened audience I guess.

My personal favorite is Michael Barry, (I think he's out of Texas) but he has very clever producers one of whom regularly impersonates a black woman to extreme TASTELESS hilarity," and you are just as likely to hear his scathing commentary on the Period Pad vagina hat speeches (I could listen to those on a daily basis) or a geriatric cataloging her shopping list for him after she calls in (for like, 20 minutes) as you are to hear an interview from a dude who created self-feeders and contained the phrase, "Are you aware of the POWER of a potato gun and what it is CAPABLE of?"

That's good radio in my opinion and sure, he tilts conservative but honestly he seems like a genuinely decent human being (while occasionally being horrifically outrageous) who is just... Interested in stuff and people.

I will take that any day of the week whether it's red, purple or blue. The blues seem to have a harder time maintaining a sense of humor and not only that, it's unpleasant to be constantly made to feel vaguely ashamed of yourself all the time, coupled to a vague sense of horror/terror.

NPR (apart from occasionally the weekend programing) just never did that for me.

Just my opinion as always.

Anna

 

[BillW50]

NPR (apart from occasionally the weekend programing) just never did that for me.

The only program I listened to on NPR is CarTalk. But that also comes as a podcast (that is what I listen to). Yes it is just reruns since the brothers retired a few years ago (but they are still classic) and one sadly also past away later.

 

[englishmick]

A similar argument can be made for late night TV. Every single late night show is of one political persuasion. There is not an audience big enough for the other political persuasion? Not even one show? It's more than an 18 - 54 demographic justification.

For some reason right wing outrage doesn't seem to translate into humor. The left does that rather well. You do have to be fun to watch as well as having the right political position to get viewers, especially late at night. Fun being in the eyes of the beholder. And isn't the average age of Fox viewers around 93? Us oldies don't often make it through to midnight. I haven't watched a late night show in years.

You would have to strap me down and tape my eyelids open to get me through a whole hour of Rachel. I find the nonstop outrage of most right wing shows equally grueling. Angry people aren't very good at humor. They take themselves far too seriously.

 

[Bronze]

For some reason right wing outrage doesn't seem to translate into humor. The left does that rather well. You do have to be fun to watch as well as having the right political position to get viewers, especially late at night. Fun being in the eyes of the beholder. And isn't the average age of Fox viewers around 93? Us oldies don't often make it through to midnight. I haven't watched a late night show in years.

You would have to strap me down and tape my eyelids open to get me through a whole hour of Rachel. I find the nonstop outrage of most right wing shows equally grueling. Angry people aren't very good at humor. They take themselves far too seriously.

Lets just say your take on the left and right is different than mine.

 

[Vape Magoo]

For some reason right wing outrage doesn't seem to translate into humor. The left does that rather well. You do have to be fun to watch as well as having the right political position to get viewers, especially late at night. Fun being in the eyes of the beholder. And isn't the average age of Fox viewers around 93? Us oldies don't often make it through to midnight. I haven't watched a late night show in years.

You would have to strap me down and tape my eyelids open to get me through a whole hour of Rachel. I find the nonstop outrage of most right wing shows equally grueling. Angry people aren't very good at humor. They take themselves far too seriously.

Paul Watson's sarcasm is a bit funny, China Uncensored and America Uncensored are too. Yeah YouTube, not TV. Greg Gutfeld is ok. Pretty slim pickn's, what's a conservative to do?