MSNBC Viewership takes a HUGE dive!!!

[Foxfyre]

Now that was funny. It's the main ingredient on every show, hello....

Is it that you're so used to it you don't even notice it any more? Becomes part of the wallpaper?
Well that's why TV poisons the mind. It's a hypnosis machine designed to put the viewer in a suitable gape-mouthed trance so that it can inject ad images into that trance. The actual content is meaningless.

Walk into a room where people are watching TV and instead of joining their gaze, watch the watchers and the blank stares on their faces as the box pours its images in. It will tell you a lot.

Resolve to go a week, or even a day, with no TV at all. Walk away, read a book, write a poem, play an instrument, create something. Can you do it? Can you do it without feeling disrupted?
If not, you're addicted. And addiction is its goal. It's a brainwash machine. (<< read with Twilight Zone voice: "It's a cookbook!")

I have spent numerous weeks with no TV at all. I write lots of poetry and read at least a book a week, and I am a great music lover that has become sufficiently proficient on several musical instruments to enjoy playing them as well as enjoying gardening, bird watching, playing games, puzzles, viewing and producing artistic projects, and am a great movie buff. I didn't feel the least bit disrupted without television or newspapers for a week. I was surprised at all the events that happened in my absence that I knew absoloutely nothing about when I returned however.

I am also a former member of the media, a current dedicated media watcher, and I am pretty secure in knowing what is fear mongering and what is not. The President standing up to tell us the dire consequences of sequestration or that the economy is going down the tubes if Congress fails to do this or that--THAT is fear mongering. Reporting the facts and consequences of the news of the day and providing analysis for it is not.

Ah, but the decision on what that "news of the day" is-- there's the rub.

I don't fancy taking the time to look up the obvious right now but an example out of my head looking over the last, say, five years, here's a list of stories Fox Noise played up way beyond their due:

Jeremiah Wright
"New Black Panthers"
Van Jones
Shirley Sherrod
Henry Louis Gates
ACORN

-- notice any common thread there?

Another example would be the endless chyrons:

That ain't journalism, that's flat-out fearmongering for the purpose of selling eyeballs. If that's not blatantly obvious, you've been successfully desensitized.

The site you found that composite on sure ain't journalism. You are seriously portraying it that Fox ONLY focuses on 'black people' and is engaged in fear mongering, but you use a "I hate Fox" website and things taken totally out of context to 'prove' that Fox engages in fear mongering? I'm sorry, but I don't see news stories about black people being off limits any more than I see news stories about harmonica players or polka dotted people or Hungarian magicians being off limits. I could just as easily make a montage of MSNBC attacking Christians and make it look like that is all they do. I could just as easily make a montage of CNN commentators accusing Republicans and make it look like that is all they do.

Let's get serious and intellectually honest about this. Unless you can show an example IN CONTEXT of fear mongering promoted by Fox News, I will have to believe you are speaking from ignorance and/or prejudice about what they do. Now if you want to make a case that Glenn Beck could be accused of doing some fear mongering, I would agree completely. That was a big part of his production though he believed he was justified in the fear and made a damn good case for it. However Beck isn't with Fox News any more is he? His schtick simply did not fit in well with what Fox does. He is far better off being more independent to do what he does best.

That Fox News focuses on and reports thoroughly on issues and events that the leftwing surrogate media won't touch does not equate with fear mongering. It does equate with good and objective journalism that other news sources seem to have forgotten how to do. And that is a HUGE reason that MSNBC and CNN ratings are so inferior to Fox's ratings. Smarter people go where they can get ALL the news and not just the news that bashes Republicans and/or makes Obama look good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

L O S E

TV Ratings: MSNBC Falls Below HLN in May, Rachel Maddow Hits Lows



Maddow is down to about 37 viewers/night. If this stuff were on regular network, any of the prime time MSNBC shows would be officially off the air given the ratings.

This is laughable.....nobody cares about these bozo's!!!

Dean, Synth and Old Rocks have a nightly ritual where get together, read from "Dreams of My Father" curse C02, then watch Rachel

 

[Pogo]

I have spent numerous weeks with no TV at all. I write lots of poetry and read at least a book a week, and I am a great music lover that has become sufficiently proficient on several musical instruments to enjoy playing them as well as enjoying gardening, bird watching, playing games, puzzles, viewing and producing artistic projects, and am a great movie buff. I didn't feel the least bit disrupted without television or newspapers for a week. I was surprised at all the events that happened in my absence that I knew absoloutely nothing about when I returned however.

I am also a former member of the media, a current dedicated media watcher, and I am pretty secure in knowing what is fear mongering and what is not. The President standing up to tell us the dire consequences of sequestration or that the economy is going down the tubes if Congress fails to do this or that--THAT is fear mongering. Reporting the facts and consequences of the news of the day and providing analysis for it is not.

Ah, but the decision on what that "news of the day" is-- there's the rub.

I don't fancy taking the time to look up the obvious right now but an example out of my head looking over the last, say, five years, here's a list of stories Fox Noise played up way beyond their due:

Jeremiah Wright
"New Black Panthers"
Van Jones
Shirley Sherrod
Henry Louis Gates
ACORN

-- notice any common thread there?

Another example would be the endless chyrons:

That ain't journalism, that's flat-out fearmongering for the purpose of selling eyeballs. If that's not blatantly obvious, you've been successfully desensitized.

The site you found that composite on sure ain't journalism. You are seriously portraying it that Fox ONLY focuses on 'black people' and is engaged in fear mongering, but you use a "I hate Fox" website and things taken totally out of context to 'prove' that Fox engages in fear mongering?

Actually those are all from Google. And they're the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sorry, but I don't see news stories about black people being off limits any more than I see news stories about harmonica players or polka dotted people or Hungarian magicians being off limits. I could just as easily make a montage of MSNBC attacking Christians and make it look like that is all they do. I could just as easily make a montage of CNN commentators accusing Republicans and make it look like that is all they do.

Nobody said or implied "black people are off limits". I made a list of stories that were played up to be bigger than they are and suggested a common reasoning.

The graphics though, don't lie. It's hard to defend that as anything within smelling distance of journalism. And yes, either of us could search similar images from MSNBC, from CNN, from our local Fraction News or from the freaking Weather Channel (them especially). What I'm describing is a common tactic in television as old as the medium itself. I picked on Fox because it's the low-hanging fruit-- the most ready material, the easiest to find.

Let's get serious and intellectually honest about this. Unless you can show an example IN CONTEXT of fear mongering promoted by Fox News, I will have to believe you are speaking from ignorance and/or prejudice about what they do. Now if you want to make a case that Glenn Beck could be accused of doing some fear mongering, I would agree completely. That was a big part of his production though he believed he was justified in the fear and made a damn good case for it. However Beck isn't with Fox News any more is he? His schtick simply did not fit in well with what Fox does. He is far better off being more independent to do what he does best.

Actually none of those images are from Glenn Beck. Actually they're not even from the fearmonger commentators on in prime time. These images are from the actual "News" dayparts of Fox News Channel.

That Fox News focuses on and reports thoroughly on issues and events that the leftwing surrogate media won't touch does not equate with fear mongering. It does equate with good and objective journalism that other news sources seem to have forgotten how to do. And that is a HUGE reason that MSNBC and CNN ratings are so inferior to Fox's ratings. Smarter people go where they can get ALL the news and not just the news that bashes Republicans and/or makes Obama look good.

Once again you're staring at individual trees and ignoring the forest; the issues listed in these graphics are completely irrelevant to this discussion. What issues are discussed is meaningless; how they're discussed is crucial.

The point is the emotional keywords:
"will X cost your kids education?"
"the threat of X"...
"targeting X's pay --- are you next?"
"X set to spew more hate" (value judgement AND fearmongering)....

All completely indefensible. Journalism doesn't make value judgements or posit leading questions. But fearmongering always does.

I can't believe I have to actually spell out the obvious here... It's testimony to how far tabloid hucksters like Fox (and its imitators) have degraded the profession.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, but the decision on what that "news of the day" is-- there's the rub.

I don't fancy taking the time to look up the obvious right now but an example out of my head looking over the last, say, five years, here's a list of stories Fox Noise played up way beyond their due:

Jeremiah Wright
"New Black Panthers"
Van Jones
Shirley Sherrod
Henry Louis Gates
ACORN

-- notice any common thread there?

Another example would be the endless chyrons:

That ain't journalism, that's flat-out fearmongering for the purpose of selling eyeballs. If that's not blatantly obvious, you've been successfully desensitized.

The site you found that composite on sure ain't journalism. You are seriously portraying it that Fox ONLY focuses on 'black people' and is engaged in fear mongering, but you use a "I hate Fox" website and things taken totally out of context to 'prove' that Fox engages in fear mongering?

Actually those are all from Google. And they're the tip of the iceberg.



Nobody said or implied "black people are off limits". I made a list of stories that were played up to be bigger than they are and suggested a common reasoning.

The graphics though, don't lie. It's hard to defend that as anything within smelling distance of journalism. And yes, either of us could search similar images from MSNBC, from CNN, from our local Fraction News or from the freaking Weather Channel (them especially). What I'm describing is a common tactic in television as old as the medium itself. I picked on Fox because it's the low-hanging fruit-- the most ready material, the easiest to find.

Let's get serious and intellectually honest about this. Unless you can show an example IN CONTEXT of fear mongering promoted by Fox News, I will have to believe you are speaking from ignorance and/or prejudice about what they do. Now if you want to make a case that Glenn Beck could be accused of doing some fear mongering, I would agree completely. That was a big part of his production though he believed he was justified in the fear and made a damn good case for it. However Beck isn't with Fox News any more is he? His schtick simply did not fit in well with what Fox does. He is far better off being more independent to do what he does best.

Actually none of those images are from Glenn Beck. Actually they're not even from the fearmonger commentators on in prime time. These images are from the actual "News" dayparts of Fox News Channel.

That Fox News focuses on and reports thoroughly on issues and events that the leftwing surrogate media won't touch does not equate with fear mongering. It does equate with good and objective journalism that other news sources seem to have forgotten how to do. And that is a HUGE reason that MSNBC and CNN ratings are so inferior to Fox's ratings. Smarter people go where they can get ALL the news and not just the news that bashes Republicans and/or makes Obama look good.

Once again you're staring at individual trees and ignoring the forest; the issues listed in these graphics are completely irrelevant to this discussion. What issues are discussed is meaningless; how they're discussed is crucial.

The point is the emotional keywords:
"will X cost your kids education?"
"the threat of X"...
"targeting X's pay --- are you next?"
"X set to spew more hate" (value judgement AND fearmongering)....

All completely indefensible. Journalism doesn't make value judgements or posit leading questions. But fearmongering always does.

I can't believe I have to actually spell out the obvious here... It's testimony to how far tabloid hucksters like Fox (and its imitators) have degraded the profession.

I will just agree to disagree Pogo because you apparently didn't read what I posted or you chose to ignore what I wrote. And you won't provide a link for your source that I'm pretty sure would have taken us straight to a leftwing "I hate everything Bush, Republican, conservative, and/or Fox News" site. Sites that are notorious for photoshopping photos and headlines and otherwise dishonestly representing what or who they attack. And even if those headlines are the real deal, they are teasers to lure people into a story. I use the same technique all the time. Anything ending with a question mark is not a statement you know.

But oh well. You have your prejudices and I have mine. You have your convictions and I have mine. And we probably are not going to agree on this subject or that Fox is a valid news organization and MSNBC, for the most part, is not.

 

[Pogo]

The site you found that composite on sure ain't journalism. You are seriously portraying it that Fox ONLY focuses on 'black people' and is engaged in fear mongering, but you use a "I hate Fox" website and things taken totally out of context to 'prove' that Fox engages in fear mongering?

Actually those are all from Google. And they're the tip of the iceberg.



Nobody said or implied "black people are off limits". I made a list of stories that were played up to be bigger than they are and suggested a common reasoning.

The graphics though, don't lie. It's hard to defend that as anything within smelling distance of journalism. And yes, either of us could search similar images from MSNBC, from CNN, from our local Fraction News or from the freaking Weather Channel (them especially). What I'm describing is a common tactic in television as old as the medium itself. I picked on Fox because it's the low-hanging fruit-- the most ready material, the easiest to find.



Actually none of those images are from Glenn Beck. Actually they're not even from the fearmonger commentators on in prime time. These images are from the actual "News" dayparts of Fox News Channel.

That Fox News focuses on and reports thoroughly on issues and events that the leftwing surrogate media won't touch does not equate with fear mongering. It does equate with good and objective journalism that other news sources seem to have forgotten how to do. And that is a HUGE reason that MSNBC and CNN ratings are so inferior to Fox's ratings. Smarter people go where they can get ALL the news and not just the news that bashes Republicans and/or makes Obama look good.

Once again you're staring at individual trees and ignoring the forest; the issues listed in these graphics are completely irrelevant to this discussion. What issues are discussed is meaningless; how they're discussed is crucial.

The point is the emotional keywords:
"will X cost your kids education?"
"the threat of X"...
"targeting X's pay --- are you next?"
"X set to spew more hate" (value judgement AND fearmongering)....

All completely indefensible. Journalism doesn't make value judgements or posit leading questions. But fearmongering always does.

I can't believe I have to actually spell out the obvious here... It's testimony to how far tabloid hucksters like Fox (and its imitators) have degraded the profession.

I will just agree to disagree Pogo because you apparently didn't read what I posted or you chose to ignore what I wrote. And you won't provide a link for your source that I'm pretty sure would have taken us straight to a leftwing "I hate everything Bush, Republican, conservative, and/or Fox News" site. Sites that are notorious for photoshopping photos and headlines and otherwise dishonestly representing what or who they attack. And even if those headlines are the real deal, they are teasers to lure people into a story. I use the same technique all the time. Anything ending with a question mark is not a statement you know.

But oh well. You have your prejudices and I have mine. You have your convictions and I have mine. And we probably are not going to agree on this subject or that Fox is a valid news organization and MSNBC, for the most part, is not.

The link is here, Foxy. I thought saying "Google" would be enough.

I simply Googled "Fox News chyrons" (no topics specified). These things are not exactly hard to find. If I had a haepenny for every suggestive chyron, leading question and example of fearmongering or value judgements rendered in a single day on Fox Noise, I could buy a new house. If I used the Weather Channel I could buy two. It's what sells.

Real news doesn't "sell" and cannot sell. It just is. If it's selling, it's more than news.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually those are all from Google. And they're the tip of the iceberg.



Nobody said or implied "black people are off limits". I made a list of stories that were played up to be bigger than they are and suggested a common reasoning.

The graphics though, don't lie. It's hard to defend that as anything within smelling distance of journalism. And yes, either of us could search similar images from MSNBC, from CNN, from our local Fraction News or from the freaking Weather Channel (them especially). What I'm describing is a common tactic in television as old as the medium itself. I picked on Fox because it's the low-hanging fruit-- the most ready material, the easiest to find.



Actually none of those images are from Glenn Beck. Actually they're not even from the fearmonger commentators on in prime time. These images are from the actual "News" dayparts of Fox News Channel.



Once again you're staring at individual trees and ignoring the forest; the issues listed in these graphics are completely irrelevant to this discussion. What issues are discussed is meaningless; how they're discussed is crucial.

The point is the emotional keywords:
"will X cost your kids education?"
"the threat of X"...
"targeting X's pay --- are you next?"
"X set to spew more hate" (value judgement AND fearmongering)....

All completely indefensible. Journalism doesn't make value judgements or posit leading questions. But fearmongering always does.

I can't believe I have to actually spell out the obvious here... It's testimony to how far tabloid hucksters like Fox (and its imitators) have degraded the profession.

I will just agree to disagree Pogo because you apparently didn't read what I posted or you chose to ignore what I wrote. And you won't provide a link for your source that I'm pretty sure would have taken us straight to a leftwing "I hate everything Bush, Republican, conservative, and/or Fox News" site. Sites that are notorious for photoshopping photos and headlines and otherwise dishonestly representing what or who they attack. And even if those headlines are the real deal, they are teasers to lure people into a story. I use the same technique all the time. Anything ending with a question mark is not a statement you know.

But oh well. You have your prejudices and I have mine. You have your convictions and I have mine. And we probably are not going to agree on this subject or that Fox is a valid news organization and MSNBC, for the most part, is not.

The link is here, Foxy. I thought saying "Google" would be enough.

I simply Googled "Fox News chyrons" (no topics specified). These things are not exactly hard to find. If I had a haepenny for every suggestive chyron, leading question and example of fearmongering or value judgements rendered in a single day on Fox Noise, I could buy a new house. If I used the Weather Channel I could buy two. It's what sells.

Real news doesn't "sell" and cannot sell. It just is. If it's selling, it's more than news.

Real news sells very well. It always has. I left the media as an active member of it when it stopped dealing in real news, but that wasn't out of a desire for greater sales, but out of a desire to play on emotions, shape society, and influence ideology. And not in an honest way.

Your link takes me to my Google search page and nothing else. You still have not provided a source for the montage of photos you copied and pasted which I am pretty sure you found all in one location on a specific website. You no doubt used Google to get there, but Google did not produce those.

 

[Pogo]

I will just agree to disagree Pogo because you apparently didn't read what I posted or you chose to ignore what I wrote. And you won't provide a link for your source that I'm pretty sure would have taken us straight to a leftwing "I hate everything Bush, Republican, conservative, and/or Fox News" site. Sites that are notorious for photoshopping photos and headlines and otherwise dishonestly representing what or who they attack. And even if those headlines are the real deal, they are teasers to lure people into a story. I use the same technique all the time. Anything ending with a question mark is not a statement you know.

But oh well. You have your prejudices and I have mine. You have your convictions and I have mine. And we probably are not going to agree on this subject or that Fox is a valid news organization and MSNBC, for the most part, is not.

The link is here, Foxy. I thought saying "Google" would be enough.

I simply Googled "Fox News chyrons" (no topics specified). These things are not exactly hard to find. If I had a haepenny for every suggestive chyron, leading question and example of fearmongering or value judgements rendered in a single day on Fox Noise, I could buy a new house. If I used the Weather Channel I could buy two. It's what sells.

Real news doesn't "sell" and cannot sell. It just is. If it's selling, it's more than news.

Real news sells very well. It always has. I left the media as an active member of it when it stopped dealing in real news, but that wasn't out of a desire for greater sales, but out of a desire to play on emotions, shape society, and influence ideology. And not in an honest way.

Your link takes me to my Google search page and nothing else. You still have not provided a source for the montage of photos you copied and pasted which I am pretty sure you found all in one location on a specific website. You no doubt used Google to get there, but Google did not produce those.

Google returned those. Again, I went to the little Google box where you put search terms in and typed "fox news chyrons" and then chose the best ready examples. And I chose obvious examples to make it easy. Anyone can do this. And there are plenty more.

I can't believe you're trying to play like these are unusual images. Are we not talking about the same Fox News Channel? Is there another one that does not work like this? Maybe I need a new antenna...

 

[Foxfyre]

The link is here, Foxy. I thought saying "Google" would be enough.

I simply Googled "Fox News chyrons" (no topics specified). These things are not exactly hard to find. If I had a haepenny for every suggestive chyron, leading question and example of fearmongering or value judgements rendered in a single day on Fox Noise, I could buy a new house. If I used the Weather Channel I could buy two. It's what sells.

Real news doesn't "sell" and cannot sell. It just is. If it's selling, it's more than news.

Real news sells very well. It always has. I left the media as an active member of it when it stopped dealing in real news, but that wasn't out of a desire for greater sales, but out of a desire to play on emotions, shape society, and influence ideology. And not in an honest way.

Your link takes me to my Google search page and nothing else. You still have not provided a source for the montage of photos you copied and pasted which I am pretty sure you found all in one location on a specific website. You no doubt used Google to get there, but Google did not produce those.

Google returned those. Again, I went to the little Google box where you put search terms in and typed "fox news chyrons" and then chose the best ready examples. And I chose obvious examples to make it easy. Anyone can do this. And there are plenty more.

I can't believe you're trying to play like these are unusual images. Are we not talking about the same Fox News Channel? Is there another one that does not work like this? Maybe I need a new antenna...

I didn't say they were unusual images. I said they are images used in the usual leftwing dishonest way to create a false illusion. So you are saying that YOU put the montage together from several different links? Did you bother to check the context of any of them to determine whether the chyron was misleading or not?

 

[Decus]

Objectivity in media is a myth. It never existed. If you look at the history of newspapers in the US, it becomes all too evident. Thomas Patterson (Harvard) wrote an article some years ago based on a little survey of European and US journalists. Surprisingly American journalists were outed as being left of center, not surprisingly, so were their European counterparts. He goes on to write that this bias comes through in how stories are reported.

http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffl...decisions_ Journalists as partisan actors.pdf

The fact is that whether it's Fox News or the New York Times, it's all color commentary.

 

[Pogo]

Real news sells very well. It always has. I left the media as an active member of it when it stopped dealing in real news, but that wasn't out of a desire for greater sales, but out of a desire to play on emotions, shape society, and influence ideology. And not in an honest way.

Your link takes me to my Google search page and nothing else. You still have not provided a source for the montage of photos you copied and pasted which I am pretty sure you found all in one location on a specific website. You no doubt used Google to get there, but Google did not produce those.

Google returned those. Again, I went to the little Google box where you put search terms in and typed "fox news chyrons" and then chose the best ready examples. And I chose obvious examples to make it easy. Anyone can do this. And there are plenty more.

I can't believe you're trying to play like these are unusual images. Are we not talking about the same Fox News Channel? Is there another one that does not work like this? Maybe I need a new antenna...

I didn't say they were unusual images. I said they are images used in the usual leftwing dishonest way to create a false illusion. So you are saying that YOU put the montage together from several different links? Did you bother to check the context of any of them to determine whether the chyron was misleading or not?

Sheesh Foxy, this is way simpler than you're making it out to be...

Yes, those are different images from different places, the only thing they have in common is that they involve Fox News chyrons. The chyron IS the context. When you put "coming to spew hate" on your screen you have made a value judgement, period. And that is not even distantly related to "news". You can't whitewash it with context; the message is clear-- a terrorist "threat" from here, a financial "threat" from there, a Constitutional "threat" from everywhere. Hoods in the house; they're coming for you. Be afraid, be very afraid, we're here to alert you, trust us.

That ain't news, that's emotion. News is cold hard fact. Any conclusion of "spewing hate" or "threat" is the role of the viewer; it's not the job of a news box to put it in there.

I could turn on Fox Noise right now and come up with a new list of the same stuff in five minutes. It's what they're built on. I could but unfortunately (read: fortunatley) I'm in a Fox-News-free country right now. But you could.

 

[Foxfyre]

Google returned those. Again, I went to the little Google box where you put search terms in and typed "fox news chyrons" and then chose the best ready examples. And I chose obvious examples to make it easy. Anyone can do this. And there are plenty more.

I can't believe you're trying to play like these are unusual images. Are we not talking about the same Fox News Channel? Is there another one that does not work like this? Maybe I need a new antenna...

I didn't say they were unusual images. I said they are images used in the usual leftwing dishonest way to create a false illusion. So you are saying that YOU put the montage together from several different links? Did you bother to check the context of any of them to determine whether the chyron was misleading or not?

Sheesh Foxy, this is way simpler than you're making it out to be...

Yes, those are different images from different places, the only thing they have in common is that they involve Fox News chyrons. The chyron IS the context. When you put "coming to spew hate" on your screen you have made a value judgement, period. And that is not even distantly related to "news". You can't whitewash it with context; the message is clear-- a terrorist "threat" from here, a financial "threat" from there, a Constitutional "threat" from everywhere. Hoods in the house; they're coming for you. Be afraid, be very afraid, we're here to alert you, trust us.

That ain't news, that's emotion. News is cold hard fact. Any conclusion of "spewing hate" or "threat" is the role of the viewer; it's not the job of a news box to put it in there.

I could turn on Fox Noise right now and come up with a new list of the same stuff in five minutes. It's what they're built on. I could but unfortunately (read: fortunatley) I'm in a Fox-News-free country right now. But you could.

The issue however isn't chryons that ALL news organizations, and I do mean ALL use. The issue is whether Fox News is fear mongering with the chryons they use and whether they use that tactic as fear mongering while all the others don't. You seem to see it that way. I don't. And I believe your perception is generated by a deep seated prejudice against Fox News and its conservatism in general. Yes, it is just as simple as that.

I have long railed against dishonest teasers and headlines used specifically to mislead. I do not see Fox News guilty of that in any sense. And if you say you put that montage together, okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But it is curious to me why you won't provide a single link of where you found those photos when requested to do so. That really does provide ammunition to believe that you are ashamed to admit your sources.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't say they were unusual images. I said they are images used in the usual leftwing dishonest way to create a false illusion. So you are saying that YOU put the montage together from several different links? Did you bother to check the context of any of them to determine whether the chyron was misleading or not?

Sheesh Foxy, this is way simpler than you're making it out to be...

Yes, those are different images from different places, the only thing they have in common is that they involve Fox News chyrons. The chyron IS the context. When you put "coming to spew hate" on your screen you have made a value judgement, period. And that is not even distantly related to "news". You can't whitewash it with context; the message is clear-- a terrorist "threat" from here, a financial "threat" from there, a Constitutional "threat" from everywhere. Hoods in the house; they're coming for you. Be afraid, be very afraid, we're here to alert you, trust us.

That ain't news, that's emotion. News is cold hard fact. Any conclusion of "spewing hate" or "threat" is the role of the viewer; it's not the job of a news box to put it in there.

I could turn on Fox Noise right now and come up with a new list of the same stuff in five minutes. It's what they're built on. I could but unfortunately (read: fortunatley) I'm in a Fox-News-free country right now. But you could.

The issue however isn't chryons that ALL news organizations, and I do mean ALL use. The issue is whether Fox News is fear mongering with the chryons they use and whether they use that tactic as fear mongering while all the others don't. You seem to see it that way. I don't. And I believe your perception is generated by a deep seated prejudice against Fox News and its conservatism in general. Yes, it is just as simple as that.

I have long railed against dishonest teasers and headlines used specifically to mislead. I do not see Fox News guilty of that in any sense. And if you say you put that montage together, okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But it is curious to me why you won't provide a single link of where you found those photos when requested to do so. That really does provide ammunition to believe that you are ashamed to admit your sources.

:sigh: Foxy, have you forgotten how Google works? You go to Google.com, you put in search terms, you get returns. That's IT. There's no secret ingredient. Anyone on earth can do this, any time they want.

Nowhere did I indicate "Fox does this and others don't". I specifically said I entered the terms "fox news chyrons" because I knew that would provide me with easy examples of what advocacy journalism looks like, and it did. Just as if I wanted examples of junk fast food I could put "mcdonald's food" in the search box. It doesn't mean Burger King and Wendy's and Hardee's don't exist but it does provide easy and quick returns. That's literally all there is to it. Fox makes it easy.

So I gave you my link, and my search terms. I can't imagine why that's not enough to go on.

But it is interesting when people around here jump emotionally to defend a news channel, to crow about one's high ratings or pile on to another's low ratings, as if we're talking about some kind of sports team -- which is where this thread started. Seems to me if I'm watching CBS news and the channel goes off the air, I shrug and switch to ABC; It's not an emotional investment; I don't really care. But this idea of rooting for and against a news channel as if it's the local football team is kinda kinky. And affirms that what we're talking about are not channels that provide a news service but channels that provide an emotional hook.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sheesh Foxy, this is way simpler than you're making it out to be...

Yes, those are different images from different places, the only thing they have in common is that they involve Fox News chyrons. The chyron IS the context. When you put "coming to spew hate" on your screen you have made a value judgement, period. And that is not even distantly related to "news". You can't whitewash it with context; the message is clear-- a terrorist "threat" from here, a financial "threat" from there, a Constitutional "threat" from everywhere. Hoods in the house; they're coming for you. Be afraid, be very afraid, we're here to alert you, trust us.

That ain't news, that's emotion. News is cold hard fact. Any conclusion of "spewing hate" or "threat" is the role of the viewer; it's not the job of a news box to put it in there.

I could turn on Fox Noise right now and come up with a new list of the same stuff in five minutes. It's what they're built on. I could but unfortunately (read: fortunatley) I'm in a Fox-News-free country right now. But you could.

The issue however isn't chryons that ALL news organizations, and I do mean ALL use. The issue is whether Fox News is fear mongering with the chryons they use and whether they use that tactic as fear mongering while all the others don't. You seem to see it that way. I don't. And I believe your perception is generated by a deep seated prejudice against Fox News and its conservatism in general. Yes, it is just as simple as that.

I have long railed against dishonest teasers and headlines used specifically to mislead. I do not see Fox News guilty of that in any sense. And if you say you put that montage together, okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But it is curious to me why you won't provide a single link of where you found those photos when requested to do so. That really does provide ammunition to believe that you are ashamed to admit your sources.

:sigh: Foxy, have you forgotten how Google works? You go to Google.com, you put in search terms, you get returns. That's IT. There's no secret ingredient. Anyone on earth can do this, any time they want.

Nowhere did I indicate "Fox does this and others don't". I specifically said I entered the terms "fox news chyrons" because I knew that would provide me with easy examples of what advocacy journalism looks like, and it did. Just as if I wanted examples of junk fast food I could put "mcdonald's food" in the search box. It doesn't mean Burger King and Wendy's and Hardee's don't exist but it does provide easy and quick returns. That's literally all there is to it. Fox makes it easy.

So I gave you my link, and my search terms. I can't imagine why that's not enough to go on.

But it is interesting when people around here jump emotionally to defend a news channel, to crow about one's high ratings or pile on to another's low ratings, as if we're talking about some kind of sports team -- which is where this thread started. Seems to me if I'm watching CBS news and the channel goes off the air, I shrug and switch to ABC; It's not an emotional investment; I don't really care. But this idea of rooting for and against a news channel as if it's the local football team is kinda kinky. And affirms that what we're talking about are not channels that provide a news service but channels that provide an emotional hook.

No, no emotional hook. But when you use terms like "Fox noise", your objectivity is immediately called into question. Just as mine rightfully is when I refer to the President as 'the annointed one' or 'the messiah'. I long ago gave up any pretense that this is not the way I see him, and I don't pretend to treat others equally because I don't see others as deserving of the labels.

But you didn't give me a link. All you did was tell me what search engine you used and what words you typed into it. I did the same and came up with links to a dozen or so rabidly leftwing and dishonest sites, most of which were pretending to show chryons that I am pretty darn sure never appeared on Fox news. If you pulled fake ones from Daily Kos or Mediamatters or rigged/altered ones that have made their way around the internet and presented as 'real', that would not reflect well on your research skills, would it?

I'm also pretty sure you didn't do any kind of search like that on anybody other than Fox News.

And this isn't meant to rag on you, Pogo, because you know I adore you. But I also don't want to give any illusion that I believe or buy into false information, however unintended it might be, about anybody. And that would include Fox News since it was comments about that I was responding to. I was not the one to bring it up.

And it is quite typical from the left on these threads, that if there is ANYTHING negative about any of the other news media, they immediately turn the spotlight and attack machine on Fox and say the most utterly ridiculous things about it. And that gets really boring after awhile.

 

[Dot Com]

The link is here, Foxy. I thought saying "Google" would be enough.

I simply Googled "Fox News chyrons" (no topics specified). These things are not exactly hard to find. If I had a haepenny for every suggestive chyron, leading question and example of fearmongering or value judgements rendered in a single day on Fox Noise, I could buy a new house. If I used the Weather Channel I could buy two. It's what sells.

Real news doesn't "sell" and cannot sell. It just is. If it's selling, it's more than news.

Real news sells very well. It always has. I left the media as an active member of it when it stopped dealing in real news, but that wasn't out of a desire for greater sales, but out of a desire to play on emotions, shape society, and influence ideology. And not in an honest way.

Your link takes me to my Google search page and nothing else. You still have not provided a source for the montage of photos you copied and pasted which I am pretty sure you found all in one location on a specific website. You no doubt used Google to get there, but Google did not produce those.

Google returned those. Again, I went to the little Google box where you put search terms in and typed "fox news chyrons" and then chose the best ready examples. And I chose obvious examples to make it easy. Anyone can do this. And there are plenty more.

I can't believe you're trying to play like these are unusual images. Are we not talking about the same Fox News Channel? Is there another one that does not work like this? Maybe I need a new antenna...

good luck trying to get her to admit that the Right's *cough* "news" use fear & hate & fear to get clingers to watch their channel.

 

[Dot Com]

Sheesh Foxy, this is way simpler than you're making it out to be...

Yes, those are different images from different places, the only thing they have in common is that they involve Fox News chyrons. The chyron IS the context. When you put "coming to spew hate" on your screen you have made a value judgement, period. And that is not even distantly related to "news". You can't whitewash it with context; the message is clear-- a terrorist "threat" from here, a financial "threat" from there, a Constitutional "threat" from everywhere. Hoods in the house; they're coming for you. Be afraid, be very afraid, we're here to alert you, trust us.

That ain't news, that's emotion. News is cold hard fact. Any conclusion of "spewing hate" or "threat" is the role of the viewer; it's not the job of a news box to put it in there.

I could turn on Fox Noise right now and come up with a new list of the same stuff in five minutes. It's what they're built on. I could but unfortunately (read: fortunatley) I'm in a Fox-News-free country right now. But you could.

The issue however isn't chryons that ALL news organizations, and I do mean ALL use. The issue is whether Fox News is fear mongering with the chryons they use and whether they use that tactic as fear mongering while all the others don't. You seem to see it that way. I don't. And I believe your perception is generated by a deep seated prejudice against Fox News and its conservatism in general. Yes, it is just as simple as that.

I have long railed against dishonest teasers and headlines used specifically to mislead. I do not see Fox News guilty of that in any sense. And if you say you put that montage together, okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But it is curious to me why you won't provide a single link of where you found those photos when requested to do so. That really does provide ammunition to believe that you are ashamed to admit your sources.

:sigh: Foxy, have you forgotten how Google works? You go to Google.com, you put in search terms, you get returns. That's IT. There's no secret ingredient. Anyone on earth can do this, any time they want.

Nowhere did I indicate "Fox does this and others don't". I specifically said I entered the terms "fox news chyrons" because I knew that would provide me with easy examples of what advocacy journalism looks like, and it did. Just as if I wanted examples of junk fast food I could put "mcdonald's food" in the search box. It doesn't mean Burger King and Wendy's and Hardee's don't exist but it does provide easy and quick returns. That's literally all there is to it. Fox makes it easy.

So I gave you my link, and my search terms. I can't imagine why that's not enough to go on.

But it is interesting when people around here jump emotionally to defend a news channel, to crow about one's high ratings or pile on to another's low ratings, as if we're talking about some kind of sports team -- which is where this thread started. Seems to me if I'm watching CBS news and the channel goes off the air, I shrug and switch to ABC; It's not an emotional investment; I don't really care. But this idea of rooting for and against a news channel as if it's the local football team is kinda kinky. And affirms that what we're talking about are not channels that provide a news service but channels that provide an emotional hook.

Good objective & rational post. She'll weasel out of accepting the truth contained in it though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals dont need talking heads telling them what to think, Fox has very high ratings.

Do its just coincidence that you all "think" the exact same?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Pogo]

The issue however isn't chryons that ALL news organizations, and I do mean ALL use. The issue is whether Fox News is fear mongering with the chryons they use and whether they use that tactic as fear mongering while all the others don't. You seem to see it that way. I don't. And I believe your perception is generated by a deep seated prejudice against Fox News and its conservatism in general. Yes, it is just as simple as that.

I have long railed against dishonest teasers and headlines used specifically to mislead. I do not see Fox News guilty of that in any sense. And if you say you put that montage together, okay, I have no reason to disbelieve you. But it is curious to me why you won't provide a single link of where you found those photos when requested to do so. That really does provide ammunition to believe that you are ashamed to admit your sources.

:sigh: Foxy, have you forgotten how Google works? You go to Google.com, you put in search terms, you get returns. That's IT. There's no secret ingredient. Anyone on earth can do this, any time they want.

Nowhere did I indicate "Fox does this and others don't". I specifically said I entered the terms "fox news chyrons" because I knew that would provide me with easy examples of what advocacy journalism looks like, and it did. Just as if I wanted examples of junk fast food I could put "mcdonald's food" in the search box. It doesn't mean Burger King and Wendy's and Hardee's don't exist but it does provide easy and quick returns. That's literally all there is to it. Fox makes it easy.

So I gave you my link, and my search terms. I can't imagine why that's not enough to go on.

But it is interesting when people around here jump emotionally to defend a news channel, to crow about one's high ratings or pile on to another's low ratings, as if we're talking about some kind of sports team -- which is where this thread started. Seems to me if I'm watching CBS news and the channel goes off the air, I shrug and switch to ABC; It's not an emotional investment; I don't really care. But this idea of rooting for and against a news channel as if it's the local football team is kinda kinky. And affirms that what we're talking about are not channels that provide a news service but channels that provide an emotional hook.

No, no emotional hook. But when you use terms like "Fox noise", your objectivity is immediately called into question. Just as mine rightfully is when I refer to the President as 'the annointed one' or 'the messiah'. I long ago gave up any pretense that this is not the way I see him, and I don't pretend to treat others equally because I don't see others as deserving of the labels.

But you didn't give me a link. All you did was tell me what search engine you used and what words you typed into it. I did the same and came up with links to a dozen or so rabidly leftwing and dishonest sites, most of which were pretending to show chryons that I am pretty darn sure never appeared on Fox news. If you pulled fake ones from Daily Kos or Mediamatters or rigged/altered ones that have made their way around the internet and presented as 'real', that would not reflect well on your research skills, would it?

I'm also pretty sure you didn't do any kind of search like that on anybody other than Fox News.

And this isn't meant to rag on you, Pogo, because you know I adore you. But I also don't want to give any illusion that I believe or buy into false information, however unintended it might be, about anybody. And that would include Fox News since it was comments about that I was responding to. I was not the one to bring it up.

And it is quite typical from the left on these threads, that if there is ANYTHING negative about any of the other news media, they immediately turn the spotlight and attack machine on Fox and say the most utterly ridiculous things about it. And that gets really boring after awhile.

I did give you a link, Foxy, and you complained it went to a white page with a search box, which is what Google is supposed to do. I keep telling you this and you keep asking as if it's not there. I'm about ready to construct one of those instructional videos with a big slow-moving arrow and a voiceover explaining what I'm doing step by step. Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, that montage (the arrangement) is my own work; it didn't come from some site. And when I say "work" I mean a few minutes worth, because that's all I had, which is why I picked a known fruitful tree.

Obviously I picked and chose from the images Google returned. Some of them didn't even relate to Fox News, and yes I know the difference between real and photoshopped. But with this gang photoshopping isn't even necessary. The only alteration I'm aware of is where somebody highlighted the typo in the word "education" but since my point was not about typos, I ignored it.

Actually a look back tells us you did bring this up, by pointing out that the ratings were led by the Fox commentary bloc, which I then noted was due to its employment of fearmongering "tabloid TV", which you then disavowed the existence of, hence the documentation. With all due respect (and you know I worship you), this wasn't exactly the most challenging task.

I happen to like the pun "Fox Noise". You know me, I like puns, especially when they can serve a double duty as description. If Fox gets the lion's share of attention, it's for the same reason that I used it as the low-hanging fruit to make the point: it's an easy target. It has worked long and hard to earn that reputation; who am I to deny them the credit they deserve?

 

[IanC]

You know who watches MSNBC these days? The far, far left only. In other words.....the fringe of the fringe.

I got it on a free trial from my cable for a coupla months. Sharpton is even more stupid than Saturday Night Live parodies him as.

still better than whiney though, and a lot funnier even if it is by accident.

 

[noose4]

Liberals dont need talking heads telling them what to think, Fox has very high ratings.

Do its just coincidence that you all "think" the exact same?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Smart people often have similar opinions.

 

[MarcATL]

I love Chris Hayes, but the decicion to replace Ed with him was abysmal.

Chris is simply too wonky.

Ed had good ratings, I don't know what crack the executives were smoking when they decided to pull Ed and replace him with Chris.

It's bringing the ratings down.

I used to watch Chris' weekend morning shows, but I haven't watchced a night-episode yet. I don't plan too, it's just too boring for that time of day.

They need to pull that boy and put back Ed...QUICK!!

Get rid of Morning Joe as well, and get someone one else for that slot, start the day off right.

If you're going to be Left, then be Left, don't water it down with RWers.