The last time I looked Fox news enjoys the largest demographics of viewers. The public has chosen. I guess if having a front seat means anything they should have already been up there. Hope no one wears a red dress.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:49 AM
Does it matter? I would say they are more deserving than NPR, based on the number of people watching, but who really pays attention to such things, anyway? Moveon.org apparently does, but who pays attention to them anymore? If this is all they can come up with to make them relevant, we're really in better shape than I thought...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:59 AM
I'm sure Mr. Gibbs will be happy to see Fox sitting up front.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 10:25 AM
Perhaps the WH thinks by giving FOX front row seats they will be able to hear better, therefore report news more accurately. ☺
-- Posted by Turnip on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 11:05 AM
How terribly disappointing not to allow the firszt chair to my for my favorite news source... MSNBC. Its so much fun watching them make such fools of themselves. At least NPR does the same thing but with much more class.
By the way, did anyone catch on one of the CSPAN channels the interview with Ralph Nadar. There's something about that man that sends a cold chill up my back. Nonetheless, interesting interview about his several books, the most popular of which was Unsafe at Any Speed. Suppose we do owe him for being instrumental in causing some of the safety regulations and improvements in autos.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 11:28 AM
Good one Turnip.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 1:43 PM
Howdy, sorry to say your problem is still a frequent flight from reality.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 1:48 PM
Those sitting in back are the ones that know there hand was raised first. Those in front just know they weren't fast enough.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 3:52 PM
Three
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:05 PM
Theorist,
You wouldn't mind posting a link to where those stats come from would you?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:18 PM
Theorist wrote:
""CBS averaged 6.2 million viewers and a 4.0 rating/7 share in households, easily topping closest competition ABC (4.2 million, 2.6/5). NBC (3.9 million, 2.5/4) came in third, with FOX (3.5 million, 2.0/4) just behind it."
Thus CBS should get the honors...."
Those are the Network News ratings, which are quite different from the Cable News Ratings:
FNC -- 990,000 viewers
CNN -- 377,000 viewers
MSNBC -- 376,000 viewers
CNBC -- 130,000 viewers
HLN -- 277,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC -- 1,550,000 viewers
CNN -- 554,000 viewers
MSNBC --589,000 viewers
CNBC -- 148,000 viewers
HLN -- 428,000 viewers
(Ratings for July 30, the latest posted)
Fox news has nearly three times the viewership of CNN, her nearest competitor.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:20 PM
Are broadcast channel newscast considered to be prime time? In my world the local news and broadcast news competes with cable only in the 5:30 - 6:30 slot. From then until 10pm they compete with the entertainment shows, movies, etc.
The cable news competes with each other and all else in what I assume is primetime.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:35 PM
At any given time, every show competes with every other show on the air. However, the rating agencies have their way of figuring things, and they usually compare similar programming. Network News with Network News, Cable News with Cable News, variety shows with variety shows, etc.
I'm sure there is some kind of overall rating, as well, if Googling is your hobby. It's not mine... :)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 9:45 PM
Shapeley, I think it boils down to this: I dont care who sits where and I dont care what other people watch. Only the advertisers care about what we watch and only the folks inside the belt way care about who sits where.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 10:01 PM
Well, Rick, we now know where your mind is.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 11:13 PM
Theorist,
Am I to conclude that you believe that the FOX Broadcasting Company and the FOX News Channel are one and the same? I have never heard of anyone being able to watch The Simpsons right after The Factor without changing the channel.
-- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Mon, Aug 2, 2010, at 11:29 PM
A brilliant one quite possibly depending upon an individual's point of view. Think I'll come down on the positive side most of the time. Like your one liners.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 10:42 AM
Four
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 10:47 AM
Normal people have multiple rational, mostly factual news sources to choose from.
Everyone else who wants to hear opinions presented as news switches to FOX.
No wonder their ratings are higher. All the nuts in the same basket.
-- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 3:23 PM
FriendO wrote:
"Everyone else who wants to hear opinions presented as news switches to FOX."
Does the term 'fake but accurate' ring a bell?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 3:27 PM
Five
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 3:30 PM
I love being number 1!!!! ☻
-- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 4:46 PM
Oh dang, there's that rooster again.
Get that wig fitted Turnips?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 4:50 PM
I would rather watch paint dry than watch the fake news channel
-- Posted by xoxo on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 5:25 PM
Six
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 3, 2010, at 6:23 PM
Menu
Some say no... some say yes. What do you think?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/didfoxnewsdeservethefrontrowwhitehouseseatovern...
Replies (25)