Media analysts correctly claim that the TV news media have been losing audience in recent years, but that only tells half the story. The progressive-liberal-biased news programs and networks (which are the great majority on the national level) are indeed losing their audience, but FOX News has solidified its position as one of the most popular cable networks.
In August, FOX News achieved the third-highest prime-time viewership among all cable networks. Meanwhile, CNBC has approached record-low audience numbers and is trending further downward, though there isn’t much room below the network’s current position. In August, just 28,000 25-54-year-olds watched on average between 9:30 to 5:00 p.m., when its financially interested audience should be tuning in.
CNBC has been rightly seen as a cheerleader for the Obama administration’s statist fiscal and monetary policies which have benefited the very richest individuals while stalling economic growth and causing crushingly high real unemployment levels. CNBC’s attempts to increase the entertainment value of its shows have done nothing to arrest the slide.
FOX News, on the other hand, trails only ratings giants ESPN and USA Network, and it enjoyed overall audience growth of more than 15 percent over the past twelve months, and more than 27 percent in the most-desired 25-54 age group.
No worry, Bradley!
Bradley, I don’t know what Murdoch decides, and it is irrelevant in any case. As I stated earlier, “FOX News is not part of any progressive dystopia, whereas Bill Ayers is.” That remains true. You are committing here the fallacies of illicit substitution, raising the bar, red herring, and shotgun argumentation.
But Rupert Murdoch owns both. Does he decide the content of his own networks, or not?
Both networks. Both FOX Cable News, and F/X.
F/X is not FOX News. Conflating different things is a common fallacy and one to be avoided.
—And pot smoking libertarians are not being “sensual society”?
—Besides, is Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX Cable News also the owner of F/X?
IS he “sensual society” for doing “American Horror Story?
Bradley, I don’t need to do any more reading on this, as I’ve read and understood both books quite well, thank you very much. FOX News is not part of any progressive dystopia, whereas Bill Ayers is. Both socialism and the sensual society are elements of progressivism, and conservatism and libertarianism definitely are not.
—Do some more reading.
—These sound like “Brave New World”? And Murdoch, who owns FOX News, is making them happen?
—Is FOX Broadcasting, or the F/X Channel or Fox Sports, owned by Rupert Murdoch part of a progressive dystopia?
It has become a truism that Brave New World and 1984 are manifest in today’s United States. There is truth to that. Ayers, however, is an evil slimeball, and the notion that Megyn Kelly is cyborg-like is simply delusional. Finally, the contention that FOX News is an element of the progressive dystopia is dead wrong and a red herring intended to lure people away from identifying the real villains, such as the NYT, HuffPo, etc.
“If you look at the two great dystopic novels of the twentieth century, ‘1984’ and ‘Brave New World,’ they were both right. So, we have [B]ig [B]rother and the surveillance state, but we also have sex, and entertainment.” – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-johnson/2014/09/18/bill-ayers-megyn-kelly-very-strange%E2%80%A6like-cyborg-constructed-basement#sthash.5Ex6MBT6.dpuf
—Newsbusters did not highlight this quote. In your opinion, is 2014 “Brave New World?”
—Obviously, not “chorus,” but this was what the google search engine found when I used it.
In 1789, Reinagle published the song “Chorus” which was dedicated to George Washington. The said song was performed for Washington’s inaugural journey. This song is considered the first song ever composed for a U.S. President.
—-Washington did have music at his inaugural? Those would count as endorsement of the principles of the founding of the country, right?
The English composer Charles Avison (1709–1770) published the first work on musical criticism in the English language – an Essay on Musical Expression published in 1752.
—Did the guy know of any popular songs loose in 1765 when the Stamp Act hit?
Bradley, I agree with your point about the deleterious effects of indoctrination of students into thoughts antithetical to the principles on which this nation was founded
—-How many criticisms of music, written in 1922, were antithetical to the principles on which this nation was founded?
—Come to think of it, how many Loyalist music critics were there in 1776-1781? If I found one, should I safely assume most Loyalist supporters would agree with that individual music critic?
—And how harsh does a 1922 music critic have to be of the music in the record stores and sheet music in the piano shops before it becomes antithetical to the principles on which the nation was founded?
—For the record, I suspect there must have been some writers who hated both the popular music of 1922, and the principles on which the nation was founded, at the same time, in 1922. I have not read them, but I think they exist.
Bradley, you write, “Actually reading a book about the United States in 1922 would make it sound second-rate, and the authors were not Howard Zinn.” Ah, but making the nation sound second-rate was clearly their intention, as I indicated in my response to your comment. The authors had the same intent as Zinn. Their elitism does not exonerate Zinn or his followers.
American citizens should stop spending so little time learning the history of their own country, and the civilization of the Western world, and so much more on a mishmash of practically everything…
—Deems Taylor wrote the article about music for the book, and essentially said everything home grown in the United States, including the entire sheet-music industry, was second rate, excepting the handful of classically trained musicians, trained in European schools.
—My ideas are a satiric jibe. The one chapter I have read basically says that the only musicians in the United States in 1922 were classically-trained musicians who went to European schools.
—The chapter essentially says there is no worthwhile music in the United States in 1922, aside from a handful of European trained classical musicians.
—-Actually reading a book about the United States in 1922 would make it sound second-rate, and the authors were not Howard Zinn.
Bradley: No, I haven’t read it. It’s a terrific idea for a project, and the writers are clearly quite talented (I have read much by several of them), but the introduction by the main editor makes the volume sound excessively elitist and in my view wrongheaded. That may be a false impression, but it is a distinct one.
have you read “Civilization in the United States in 1922?”
Bradley, I agree with your point about the deleterious effects of indoctrination of students into thoughts antithetical to the principles on which this nation was founded.
American citizens should stop spending so little time learning the history of their own country, and the civilization of the Western world, and so much more on a mishmash of practically everything — which, in the case of Islam, also has become a carefully devised method to impart misinformation. Islamic supremacists calculatedly employ the rhetoric of inclusion and multiculturalism to gain for themselves the right of final edit of discussion of Islam in American history textbooks. We must re-learn our own history. We need to take pride in much of it, and to revere, not find new ways to deride, those who built the political and legal institutions of this country, with its unrivaled freedoms and concern for individual rights.
1.) Students should read “civilization in the United states in 1922.”
2.) All NFL games should be suspended until the working class population can recognize the titles of most popular songs from 1922.
3.) FOX Cable News should do a chapter-by-chapter month long documentary spree about “Civilization in the United States in 1922.”
Bradley: thanks for your questions. The answers are no, no, partly yes of course, and partly yes of course.
Do you think that CNN’s anchors are boring compared to FOX Cable New’s anchors?
Do you think that MSNBC’s anchors are boring compared to FOX Cable New’s anchors?
Do you think the anchors and reporters on CBS’s “60 Minutes” are boring compared to FOX Cable news anchors?
Do you think meahgan Kelly is there for her looks?
Do you think Candy Crowely is there for her looks?
Thanks for the comment, Bradley. Your observation is true but irrelevant, because it constitutes the fallacies of faulty comparison, selective attention, and equivocation. To wit, a new episode of Rizzoli and Iles is presented once a week for significantly less than half the weeks of the year, whereas Bill O’Reilly is on every night. It’s not germane to compare one TNT show to a very different sort of FOX News program. As noted, FOX News outdraws TNT.
RIZZOLI & ISLES TNT Tue 09:00P-10:01P 5163 has 2,000,000 more viewers than FOX Cable News host Bill O’ Reilly.
“The truly exciting drowns out the merely dull.”
Comments are closed.