Fox News' Ratings Grow; CNN, MSNBC Plunge

[Jezebelle]

Ratings are not indicative of content.  Book TV gets some of the lowest ratings on television but the content is stellar and thought provoking.

[BM OUT]

Ratings are not indicative of content.  Book TV gets some of the lowest ratings on television but the content is stellar and thought provoking.

Ratings are the reason a show is allowed to stay on the air.Without ratings,there is no advertisers,without advertisers,there is no revenue,without revenue there is no show.The reason MSNBC doesnt get ratings is because IT SUCKS!!!!!The reason FOX gets ratings ois because its good.The reason MSNBC lost 28% of its viewers is because it sucks,CNN lost 50% of its because it sucks,FOX broke records again,because its great.Simple,end of story.Air America is out of buisiness because it sucks,Rush gets 21 million listeners because hes great!VERY SIMPLE EQUATIONS THERE.NFL football get record ratings,the NHL gets no eyes to the sets.Football is great,hockey sucks!

[headhuntersix]

What u don't get is that people aren't watching in greater and greater numbers because "they like watching a train wreck". They agree or want to be convinced. They also recognize that they're getting bullshit from MSNBC and CNN has become irrelivant. CNN revolutioned 24hr media...they created it. Their line-up is stale and old.  Headline news is great and needed but the BBC and hell even AL Jeezera are better. FOX wants to launch a 24hr newser...that will kill CNN.

[Jezebelle]

Ratings are the reason a show is allowed to stay on the air.Without ratings,there is no advertisers,without advertisers,there is no revenue,without revenue there is no show.The reason MSNBC doesnt get ratings is because IT SUCKS!!!!!The reason FOX gets ratings ois because its good.The reason MSNBC lost 28% of its viewers is because it sucks,CNN lost 50% of its because it sucks,FOX broke records again,because its great.Simple,end of story.Air America is out of buisiness because it sucks,Rush gets 21 million listeners because hes great!VERY SIMPLE EQUATIONS THERE.NFL football get record ratings,the NHL gets no eyes to the sets.Football is great,hockey sucks!

I would rather err on the side of content than majority opinion.  If majority opinion dictated all television, we would all drown in American Idol, MTV and Survivor- Programs with meaningless, poor intellectual and non-stimulating content whatsoever.

[Soul Crusher]

Ratings are not indicative of content.  Book TV gets some of the lowest ratings on television but the content is stellar and thought provoking.

MSNBC is awful all around.  Its not entertaining or informative.  The idiot hosts wont even debate anyone in the first place, and secondly, the "content" is horrifically misreperesented and manipulated to the point where most people know it and simply wont watch.  

[tonymctones]

I would rather err on the side of content than majority opinion.  If majority opinion dictated all television, we would all drown in American Idol, MTV and Survivor- Programs with meaningless, poor intellectual and non-stimulating content whatsoever.

LOL again with the american idol bs

you see to get a more accurate comparison you need to compare like items, when you have one cable tv show constantly beating the others in terms of ratings even though they are reporting on the same thing, same format etc....its probably a good indication that the majority of ppl like that content more than the others...

now american idol is not a new program is it? it isnt only on cable is it? youd be ok comparing it to dancing with the stars or something but you lose alot in comparing it to news networks

[BM OUT]

I would rather err on the side of content than majority opinion.  If majority opinion dictated all television, we would all drown in American Idol, MTV and Survivor- Programs with meaningless, poor intellectual and non-stimulating content whatsoever.

American Idol sells because its good entertainment,Survivor sells because its entertainment,MTV gets low ratings.There is ZERO intellectctual content on MSNBC.Its a bunch of libs,using democrat talking points and each mimicking the next show.Maddow is Keith Olbermann in drag.Even her delivery is the same as is her content.IT SUCKS!!!!

Again,there is a reason Rush gets 21 million listeners and Air America went bankrupt.One is great,the other sucks.If MSNC was owned by a company interested in making money,instead of by GE which has money and can take the loss,EVERY host would be off the air.Olbermann is so pathetic even his football pre game  show gets the lowest ratings of any of the networks in  his time slot.When you can fail with the NFL it proves you are a loser.

[Jezebelle]

LOL again with the american idol bs

you see to get a more accurate comparison you need to compare like items, when you have one cable tv show constantly beating the others in terms of ratings even though they are reporting on the same thing, same format etc....its probably a good indication that the majority of ppl like that content more than the others...

now american idol is not a new program is it? it isnt only on cable is it? youd be ok comparing it to dancing with the stars or something but you lose alot in comparing it to news networks

Again,
Ratings are not indicative of content.

[Soul Crusher]

Again,
Ratings are not indicative of content.

Right, cause MSNBC is full of content?    

Whether its leg tingles, the bull dyke who cant stop smirking, the idiot who hides under the desk, or Special Ed, that entire channel is awful on many levels. 

[tonymctones]

Again,
Ratings are not indicative of content.

agreed but when you have stations reporting on the same events and one is getting more than the other...why is it you think that ppl are watching that station as opposed to the others reporting on the same thing?













hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm content perhaps?

[Jezebelle]

agreed but when you have stations reporting on the same events and one is getting more than the other...why is it you think that ppl are watching that station as opposed to the others reporting on the same thing?













hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm content perhaps?

People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings.  I don`t see your point.

[Soul Crusher]

People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings.  I don`t see your point.

And others are watching the Military Channel, Bloomberg TV, etc for the same reason.  Whats your point TA?   

[tonymctones]

People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings.  I don`t see your point.

if there was another channel lets say book tv2 but you choose to watch book tv the original it would probably be b/c of content.

In comparison from one news channel to another ppl seem to enjoy the content on FOX more so than the others...

why else would you assume that ppl watch FOX more than the others?

[Jezebelle]

And others are watching the Military Channel, Bloomberg TV, etc for the same reason.  Whats your point TA?   

That ratings do not equal content and using  viewer-ship as a barometer for gauging whether a program is accurate, intellectual or informative is nonsensical.

[BM OUT]

People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings.  I don`t see your point.

YOU say it has wonderful content.I say its a bore.I watch old pro wrestling DVDs I think its great and the best entertainment ever,others will say it sucks!!!Who cares what you think is great content.The networks care about selling advertising.Ratings sell advertising which is why the network is on the air.I love it when libs think THEY decide whats great content or informative.I think FOX is a million times better content then MSNBC and the ratings back me up 100%.

[Jezebelle]

if there was another channel lets say book tv2 but you choose to watch book tv the original it would probably be b/c of content.

In comparison from one news channel to another ppl seem to enjoy the content on FOX more so than the others...

why else would you assume that ppl watch FOX more than the others?

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

[Soul Crusher]

That ratings do not equal content and using  viewer-ship as a barometer for gauging whether a program is accurate, intellectual or informative is nonsensical.

   

So who is the arbitor of what makes something accurate, intellectual, or informative?  

[BM OUT]

 

So who is the arbitor of what makes something accurate, intellectual, or informative?  

Libs say they do.Why?JUST BECAUSE.

[Soul Crusher]

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

I wonder where you lifted that tripe from? 

[Jezebelle]

 

So who is the arbitor of what makes something accurate, intellectual, or informative?  

Depends first and most importantly on the evidence and the irrefutable facts as well as their causation and the ability to pinpoint correlation in a definite manner.

[Jezebelle]

I wonder where you lifted that tripe from? 

Adolf Hitler

[Soul Crusher]

Adolf Hitler

It sounded eerily similar to what Obama does and how he pushes his programs.  I thought it looked familiar.  Thanks for sharing. 

[dario73]

It sounded eerily similar to what Obama does and how he pushes his programs.  I thought it looked familiar.  Thanks for sharing. 

LOL!!!

TA, you might want to enlighten us with your point of view on the Climategate II thread. We all need a laugh, even if it is at your expense.

[Jezebelle]

LOL!!!

TA, you might want to enlighten us with your point of view on the Climategate II thread. We all need a laugh, even if it is at your expense.

Where is the controversy?
NCDC covers only the US Temperature Means and whenever NASA publishes on US means they recompute all means using only USHCN data.

Your article has no point.  Perhaps you should read the actual emails in question.

[tonymctones]

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

When I read this the first thing I thought of was the mindless idiots chanting "yes we can"  

are you saying that FOX is propaganda and the others arent? or simply that FOX is better at propaganda than the others?