MSNBC Viewership takes a HUGE dive!!!

[mudwhistle]

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.

Chris replaced Ed because Ed was looking too much like an angry middle-aged white male pissed off at the world and it wasn't going over too well. So in comes Chris, an intelligent homosexual with liberal viewpoints.

Perfect for MSNBC.

 

[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.

Chris replaced Ed because Ed was looking too much like an angry middle-aged white male pissed off at the world and it wasn't going over too well. So in comes Chris, an intelligent homosexual with liberal viewpoints.

Perfect for MSNBC.

That's not Ed at all, Ed's all about the American Worker. That's it.

You talk to the average American worker and they'll tell you about Ed.

He's affectionately known as "Big Eddie" in those circles.

He's well loved and msnbc has made a BIG mistake with that decision. Let's hope they get their senses back sooner than later.

 

[Katzndogz]

If people wanted Ed Schultz to stay on the air, they should have watched him. MSNBC is lower rated than HLN. They are trying to improve, they just aren't doing a very good job of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

If people wanted Ed Schultz to stay on the air, they should have watched him. MSNBC is lower rated than HLN. They are trying to improve, they just aren't doing a very good job of it.

That's the concept that some don't seem to grasp. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck--you know all the most hated and maligned conservative personalities out there--keep their jobs and/or time slots because people tune in. They command greater audiences than anybody else is able to command in those time slots. And they keep people tuning in because they offer a lot of perspective, concepts, anaylsis and facts related to a great many different topics of interest to the people who tune in. There is criticism of people and liberal concepts, yes, but there are also substantive discussions of what should be happening and why. Advertisers are attracted to market share and, while content of programming is of some interest, the demographics attracted is what really gets the advertisers to turn loose of all those mega bucks.

Liberal television and liberal radio is less successful because it is too one note and therefore boring. Even liberals get tired of tuning in to hear nothing other than bashing of conservatives and conservative concepts without anything whatsoever of substance offered in its stead. So their admirers give them a full stamp of approval--they ARE liberal after all--but don't give them an audience. With such a tiny market share, advertisers aren't as interested and the media outlets won't prosper as much. In the case of Air America and such ilk, starved of advertising revenues and eventually donations as donors weary of propping up a sinking ship, they don't survive at all.

This phenomenon should dispel once and for all the popular fallacy that corporate owners of media outlets exercise a lot of control over the programming.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Anderson Cooper spent alot of time trying to discredit Michele Bachmann last night and I thought wow - they will do anything to avoid the real news. Just incredible. It's like watching Jerry Springer now - these news media outfits have no idea how damaging this is to their reputations and credibility to ignore real stories while pursuing false ones - because of their witchhunt on conservatives. It definitely isn't working for them. - J.

Did he hear she isn't going to run for re-election. Why bother with bashing her? Oh that's right, he's a liberal moron and he can't help himself.

 

[Pogo]

If people wanted Ed Schultz to stay on the air, they should have watched him. MSNBC is lower rated than HLN. They are trying to improve, they just aren't doing a very good job of it.

That's the concept that some don't seem to grasp. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck--you know all the most hated and maligned conservative personalities out there--keep their jobs and/or time slots because people tune in. They command greater audiences than anybody else is able to command in those time slots. And they keep people tuning in because they offer a lot of perspective, concepts, anaylsis and facts related to a great many different topics of interest to the people who tune in. There is criticism of people and liberal concepts, yes, but there are also substantive discussions of what should be happening and why. Advertisers are attracted to market share and, while content of programming is of some interest, the demographics attracted is what really gets the advertisers to turn loose of all those mega bucks.

Let's be honest here. Audiences do not tune in for "perspective, concepts, analysis and facts". That's a pipe dream; they never have. Cerebral doesn't sell; silly sells. Fear and loathing and emotion is what sells. Paternity tests. A fire or a shooting in some neighborhood you never heard of. Scandal. Gossip. Fake wrestling. Who's dating who. Hence the infamous "if it bleeds it leads" and the appellation "the vast wasteland". The box finds its masses when it plays to the morbid curiosity of the basest human flaws. That's been the case since TV began. It tried the straight cerebral approach in the 1950s (and a few shreds survive on Sundays) but it settled on the LCD, because that's where the money is, and we are after all talking about a commercial venture, not an public service.

Like it or not, and it's not a positive thing, this is where the ratings are. If cerebral analysis sold, Bill Buckley would not have needed public TV to keep a show on the air. No offense to anyone's watching preferences but a walk through the ocean of the intellectual depth of "Dancing With the Stars" wouldn't even get your feet wet. But it is what sells.

Liberal television and liberal radio is less successful because it is too one note and therefore boring. Even liberals get tired of tuning in to hear nothing other than bashing of conservatives and conservative concepts without anything whatsoever of substance offered in its stead. So their admirers give them a full stamp of approval--they ARE liberal after all--but don't give them an audience. With such a tiny market share, advertisers aren't as interested and the media outlets won't prosper as much. In the case of Air America and such ilk, starved of advertising revenues and eventually donations as donors weary of propping up a sinking ship, they don't survive at all.

This is a whole 'nother fascinating psychology as to why the same approach works "here" but not "there". For one thing you're oversimplifying the Air America experience, leaving out its internal business mismanagement. On my radio dial I hear the same talking (radio) heads that were the AA roster still there, under a new umbrella. And I've heard some of them blast AA for that mismanagement -- yet they're still on the air doing the same thing they were before.

AA tried to take the Limblob attack-dog model and apply it in reverse and audiences didn't bite. Does that mean the ideology doesn't sell .... or does it mean those who favour the ideology don't care for the attack dog model? Which is the cart and which is the horse? Just sayin'. But the dynamic is embodied in your opening phrase here: "Liberal television and liberal radio is less successful" -- "success" of course being defined as monetary return rather than intellectual content. And those are mutually antagonistic.

This phenomenon should dispel once and for all the popular fallacy that corporate owners of media outlets exercise a lot of control over the programming.

Not sure how we leapt to this. We haven't been talking about corporate control here but about audience psychology. I don't remember corporate control of programming even being brought up, but in general if you're a corporation doing broadcasting, then of course you're going to exercise control. I think this point flew over my head.

 

[Foxfyre]

Air America didn't have a clue about the concept Limbaugh uses which is not at all an 'attack dog model." Yes Limbaugh focuses pretty much on conservative concepts and pays a lot of attention to those in government who utilize anything other than conservative concepts, but he provides a tremendous amount of history, background, and objective concepts to go along with that. And he isn't picky on what letter follows a name as to who he chooses to criticize.

I have long known that most--not all, but most--liberals are incapable of explaining their point of view in any kind of objective and non accusatory manner--Rush can do that very well--and thus Air America programmed an almost constant attack dog format and offered almost nothing else.

Internal mismanagement perhaps, but the bottom line is that they could not attract a sufficient audience and therefore could not attract advertisers and they wore out their welcome with the donors, including George Soros, who were keeping them afloat. Neither Fox News nor Rush Limbaugh need donors to stay afloat.

 

[Pogo]

Air America didn't have a clue about the concept Limbaugh uses which is not at all an 'attack dog model." Yes Limbaugh focuses pretty much on conservative concepts and pays a lot of attention to those in government who utilize anything other than conservative concepts, but he provides a tremendous amount of history, background, and objective concepts to go along with that. And he isn't picky on what letter follows a name as to who he chooses to criticize.

I have long known that most--not all, but most--liberals are incapable of explaining their point of view in any kind of objective and non accusatory manner--Rush can do that very well--and thus Air America was constant attack dog and offered almost nothing else.

(John McEnroe voice): You cannot be serious. You're back to swimming in deNial again. Rush is not an "attack dog model"?? You posted that with a straight face?

I suspect "Feminazis" and "the White House dog" are not amused. Lush invented the model. The Hannitys and Boortzes are his imitators.

-- Coincidentally this all took off (as a business "success", decidedly not a rhetorical one) around 1990 just after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, and whether that's relevant or not, the general climate of our political discourse has degenerated and polarized itself ever since, and that's a whole 'nother worthy discussion. But the origins rest sqarely on Limblob's shoulders. And that, before you point it out, is why I call him "Limblob" and such; for dumbing down and polluting the discourse in the pursuit of "success". It means "success" in terms of his personal pocketbook; it means "failure" to the public discourse. Which is something that doesn't carry a price tag.

Internal mismanagement perhaps, but the bottom line is that they could not attract a sufficient audience and therefore could not attract advertisers and they wore out their welcome with the donors, including George Soros, who were keeping them afloat.

And again, the definition of "success" in this context means commercial success, i.e. "does it draw enough flies?". But you seem to want to translate that into rhetorical success, i.e. the inherent value of the argument. Again, one does not follow the other. They act more like the same poles of two magnets: they repel each other. More commercial = less intellectual, and vice versa. So you can't take the result of one side (the commercial) and then claim it represents the other (the intellectual). It doesn't begin to.

What we're approaching here is a discussion on the corrupting power of money on discourse. Which is itself a worthy discourse.

 

[MarcATL]

If people wanted Ed Schultz to stay on the air, they should have watched him. MSNBC is lower rated than HLN. They are trying to improve, they just aren't doing a very good job of it.

That's the concept that some don't seem to grasp. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck--you know all the most hated and maligned conservative personalities out there--keep their jobs and/or time slots because people tune in. They command greater audiences than anybody else is able to command in those time slots. And they keep people tuning in because they offer a lot of perspective, concepts, anaylsis and facts related to a great many different topics of interest to the people who tune in. There is criticism of people and liberal concepts, yes, but there are also substantive discussions of what should be happening and why. Advertisers are attracted to market share and, while content of programming is of some interest, the demographics attracted is what really gets the advertisers to turn loose of all those mega bucks.

Let's be honest here. Audiences do not tune in for "perspective, concepts, analysis and facts". That's a pipe dream; they never have. Cerebral doesn't sell; silly sells. Fear and loathing and emotion is what sells. Paternity tests. A fire or a shooting in some neighborhood you never heard of. Scandal. Gossip. Fake wrestling. Who's dating who. Hence the infamous "if it bleeds it leads" and the appellation "the vast wasteland". The box finds its masses when it plays to the morbid curiosity of the basest human flaws. That's been the case since TV began. It tried the straight cerebral approach in the 1950s (and a few shreds survive on Sundays) but it settled on the LCD, because that's where the money is, and we are after all talking about a commercial venture, not an public service.

Like it or not, and it's not a positive thing, this is where the ratings are. If cerebral analysis sold, Bill Buckley would not have needed public TV to keep a show on the air. No offense to anyone's watching preferences but a walk through the ocean of the intellectual depth of "Dancing With the Stars" wouldn't even get your feet wet. But it is what sells.

Liberal television and liberal radio is less successful because it is too one note and therefore boring. Even liberals get tired of tuning in to hear nothing other than bashing of conservatives and conservative concepts without anything whatsoever of substance offered in its stead. So their admirers give them a full stamp of approval--they ARE liberal after all--but don't give them an audience. With such a tiny market share, advertisers aren't as interested and the media outlets won't prosper as much. In the case of Air America and such ilk, starved of advertising revenues and eventually donations as donors weary of propping up a sinking ship, they don't survive at all.

This is a whole 'nother fascinating psychology as to why the same approach works "here" but not "there". For one thing you're oversimplifying the Air America experience, leaving out its internal business mismanagement. On my radio dial I hear the same talking (radio) heads that were the AA roster still there, under a new umbrella. And I've heard some of them blast AA for that mismanagement -- yet they're still on the air doing the same thing they were before.

AA tried to take the Limblob attack-dog model and apply it in reverse and audiences didn't bite. Does that mean the ideology doesn't sell .... or does it mean those who favour the ideology don't care for the attack dog model? Which is the cart and which is the horse? Just sayin'. But the dynamic is embodied in your opening phrase here: "Liberal television and liberal radio is less successful" -- "success" of course being defined as monetary return rather than intellectual content. And those are mutually antagonistic.

This phenomenon should dispel once and for all the popular fallacy that corporate owners of media outlets exercise a lot of control over the programming.

Not sure how we leapt to this. We haven't been talking about corporate control here but about audience psychology. I don't remember corporate control of programming even being brought up, but in general if you're a corporation doing broadcasting, then of course you're going to exercise control. I think this point flew over my head.

One man standing ovation...

 

[Foxfyre]

Air America didn't have a clue about the concept Limbaugh uses which is not at all an 'attack dog model." Yes Limbaugh focuses pretty much on conservative concepts and pays a lot of attention to those in government who utilize anything other than conservative concepts, but he provides a tremendous amount of history, background, and objective concepts to go along with that. And he isn't picky on what letter follows a name as to who he chooses to criticize.

I have long known that most--not all, but most--liberals are incapable of explaining their point of view in any kind of objective and non accusatory manner--Rush can do that very well--and thus Air America was constant attack dog and offered almost nothing else.

(John McEnroe voice): You cannot be serious. You're back to swimming in deNial again. Rush is not an "attack dog model"?? You posted that with a straight face?

I suspect "Feminazis" and "the White House dog" are not amused. Lush invented the model. The Hannitys and Boortzes are his imitators.

-- Coincidentally this all took off (as a business "success", decidedly not a rhetorical one) around 1990 just after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, and whether that's relevant or not, the general climate of our political discourse has degenerated and polarized itself ever since, and that's a whole 'nother worthy discussion. But the origins rest sqarely on Limblob's shoulders. And that, before you point it out, is why I call him "Limblob" and such; for dumbing down and polluting the discourse in the pursuit of "success". It means "success" in terms of his personal pocketbook; it means "failure" to the public discourse. Which is something that doesn't carry a price tag.

Internal mismanagement perhaps, but the bottom line is that they could not attract a sufficient audience and therefore could not attract advertisers and they wore out their welcome with the donors, including George Soros, who were keeping them afloat.

And again, the definition of "success" in this context means commercial success, i.e. "does it draw enough flies?". But you seem to want to translate that into rhetorical success, i.e. the inherent value of the argument. Again, one does not follow the other. They act more like the same poles of two magnets: they repel each other. More commercial = less intellectual, and vice versa. So you can't take the result of one side (the commercial) and then claim it represents the other (the intellectual). It doesn't begin to.

What we're approaching here is a discussion on the corrupting power of money on discourse. Which is itself a worthy discourse.

Your cartoon is in itself dishonestly misleading. She didn't want her insurance to cover contraceptives. She wanted her insurance to cover contraceptives without any cost to her. She wanted the government to provide her contraceptives or force her insurance company to furnish her contraceptives for free because so many women couldn't afford to pay for them. And to forego sex until you could afford to be responsible about it was just unthinkiable. Somehow liberals always leave out that part don't they? Perhaps you can find anything even remotely comparable to use in the comparison of what Sarah Palin was ridiculed, demonized, diminished, or accused of?

And yes, I measure the success of all for profit enterprise on whether it generates sufficient profits to be profitable. For media that is in business to make a profit, that profit normally depends on attracting audience and, because it attracts audience, attracts advertisers willing to pay for exposure to that audience.

Was Air America a not-for-profit organization? No it was not. Was it able to attract audience despite more advertising on its behalf than ANY for profit entity has ever enjoyed? No it was not. Did advertisers see it as a viable source of exposure for their profits? No they did not. The ONLY way Air America survived for as long as it did is via contributions from people who wanted it to succeed. And those donors fnally had to admit defeat. The programming content of Air America wasn't interesting to them or much of anybody else.

When content is uninteresting and enjoys no redeeming qualities, the media source is not going to enjoy high ratings or a lot of profitability. And if it can garner almost no market share at all, it does and should close up shop.

 

[Avatar4321]

That can't possibly be right.

They have viewers?

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

MSNBC, what does it stand for? Morons, Socialists, Nerds, Buffoons, Cockroaches.

 

[Pogo]

Air America didn't have a clue about the concept Limbaugh uses which is not at all an 'attack dog model." Yes Limbaugh focuses pretty much on conservative concepts and pays a lot of attention to those in government who utilize anything other than conservative concepts, but he provides a tremendous amount of history, background, and objective concepts to go along with that. And he isn't picky on what letter follows a name as to who he chooses to criticize.

I have long known that most--not all, but most--liberals are incapable of explaining their point of view in any kind of objective and non accusatory manner--Rush can do that very well--and thus Air America was constant attack dog and offered almost nothing else.

(John McEnroe voice): You cannot be serious. You're back to swimming in deNial again. Rush is not an "attack dog model"?? You posted that with a straight face?

I suspect "Feminazis" and "the White House dog" are not amused. Lush invented the model. The Hannitys and Boortzes are his imitators.

-- Coincidentally this all took off (as a business "success", decidedly not a rhetorical one) around 1990 just after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, and whether that's relevant or not, the general climate of our political discourse has degenerated and polarized itself ever since, and that's a whole 'nother worthy discussion. But the origins rest sqarely on Limblob's shoulders. And that, before you point it out, is why I call him "Limblob" and such; for dumbing down and polluting the discourse in the pursuit of "success". It means "success" in terms of his personal pocketbook; it means "failure" to the public discourse. Which is something that doesn't carry a price tag.

Internal mismanagement perhaps, but the bottom line is that they could not attract a sufficient audience and therefore could not attract advertisers and they wore out their welcome with the donors, including George Soros, who were keeping them afloat.

And again, the definition of "success" in this context means commercial success, i.e. "does it draw enough flies?". But you seem to want to translate that into rhetorical success, i.e. the inherent value of the argument. Again, one does not follow the other. They act more like the same poles of two magnets: they repel each other. More commercial = less intellectual, and vice versa. So you can't take the result of one side (the commercial) and then claim it represents the other (the intellectual). It doesn't begin to.

What we're approaching here is a discussion on the corrupting power of money on discourse. Which is itself a worthy discourse.

Your cartoon is in itself dishonestly misleading. She didn't want her insurance to cover contraceptives. She wanted her insurance to cover contraceptives without any cost to her. She wanted the government to provide her contraceptives or force her insurance company to furnish her contraceptives for free because so many women couldn't afford to pay for them. And to forego sex until you could afford to be responsible about it was just unthinkiable. Somehow liberals always leave out that part don't they? Perhaps you can find anything even remotely comparable to use in the comparison of what Sarah Palin was ridiculed, demonized, diminished, or accused of?

Foxy, perhaps a nice cup of caffeine before reading is in order, because you have deftly ducked under the entire point, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Sandra Fluke or her issue. The point was Lush Rimjob, of whom you just blindly disavowed his continuous use of ad hominem. The cartoon gives you a pictorial egregious and famous example thereof; two other examples were provided in the text. And yet even with all that, somehow you want to shunt this off to Sandra Fluke? Why? Because your position is false and worthless, that's why. You are truly drowning in DeNial.

And yes, I measure the success of all for profit enterprise on whether it generates sufficient profits to be profitable. For media that is in business to make a profit, that profit normally depends on attracting audience and, because it attracts audience, attracts advertisers willing to pay for exposure to that audience.

Once again, you're trying to make the argument about business, which affects only that business. What we actually were dissecting is discourse. Whether XYZ Broadcast Corporation makes its profit, who gives a snit. Whether the national discourse is helped or hurt in the process -- aye, there's the rub. And that's where we were.

Was Air America a not-for-profit organization? No it was not. Was it able to attract audience despite more advertising on its behalf than ANY for profit entity has ever enjoyed? No it was not. Did advertisers see it as a viable source of exposure for their profits? No they did not. The ONLY way Air America survived for as long as it did is via contributions from people who wanted it to succeed. And those donors fnally had to admit defeat. The programming content of Air America wasn't interesting to them or much of anybody else.

I don't know that any of that is true, save the first question/answer-- it was a for-profit venture. I'm not privy to their accounting books, nor do I care. Again, that's business, and their business. What I do know is they experienced some kind of mismanagement internally (again, not sure of the details nor do I care), and that the roster of talent they had on the air, is still on the air doing the same thing they were doing before under new management. That would seem to put the lie to your theory about inability to draw advertising, since they're still doing it several years later. It also puts the lie to this imaginary equivalence between business success and rhetorical assent ... but that's a point we've already established with TV audience psychology where we started all this.

However I do agree that attack-dog models of radio blather are not of any benefit to the national discourse and have been used to varying "success" (commercial) by ideological sides. But as we've established over and over, commercial success isn't related to intellectual/rhetorical success; the two are mutually antagonistic. So this desperation of martyr-complexed wags like the OP to see ratings as some kind of "vote" on content has no basis. But I still think it's a fascinating tangent to explore why attack media seems to "work" (in commercial terms) for the right, but doesn't work so well for the left. It's tantalizing to ponder what it is about the psychological makeup of each that would set up such a preference.

People tune in shock jocks. People watch NASCAR for the wrecks. People rubberneck at traffic accidents. It doesn't mean they "like" or "agree with" traffic accidents. Some of y'all, deliberately or ignorantly, conflate attention with assent. When Lush Rimjob starts yelling "slut!" for three days, what he's getting is the former. If he was also getting the latter, he wouldn't have had a hundred advertisers pull out and issued an apology.

When content is uninteresting and enjoys no redeeming qualities, the media source is not going to enjoy high ratings or a lot of profitability. And if it can garner almost no market share at all, it does and should close up shop.

True but that's entirely a statement about the commercial model of broadcasting, and we've got to assign half the blame to the audience on that as the enablers. If the unwashed simply refused to watch Gong Shows and people deserted on an island eating bugs and fake wrestling and Fraction News' big story on a fire in some neighborhood you've never heard of and Dog the Bounty Hunter, then it would all go away. But they're happy to exploit this character flaw, so we'll continue to get Lush Rimjob yelling "slut" and Fox Noise's creeping chyrons along with the rest of the vast wasteland of no redeeming qualities. They get attention; they don't get justification. There's a vast difference.

Actually you've just made an excellent argument for public broadcasting, where content can be driven by intellectual needs rather than commercial ones.

But don't be naïve, as far as ratings it still comes down to this:
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" -- H.L. Mencken

 

[Foxfyre]

(John McEnroe voice): You cannot be serious. You're back to swimming in deNial again. Rush is not an "attack dog model"?? You posted that with a straight face?

I suspect "Feminazis" and "the White House dog" are not amused. Lush invented the model. The Hannitys and Boortzes are his imitators.

-- Coincidentally this all took off (as a business "success", decidedly not a rhetorical one) around 1990 just after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded, and whether that's relevant or not, the general climate of our political discourse has degenerated and polarized itself ever since, and that's a whole 'nother worthy discussion. But the origins rest sqarely on Limblob's shoulders. And that, before you point it out, is why I call him "Limblob" and such; for dumbing down and polluting the discourse in the pursuit of "success". It means "success" in terms of his personal pocketbook; it means "failure" to the public discourse. Which is something that doesn't carry a price tag.




And again, the definition of "success" in this context means commercial success, i.e. "does it draw enough flies?". But you seem to want to translate that into rhetorical success, i.e. the inherent value of the argument. Again, one does not follow the other. They act more like the same poles of two magnets: they repel each other. More commercial = less intellectual, and vice versa. So you can't take the result of one side (the commercial) and then claim it represents the other (the intellectual). It doesn't begin to.

What we're approaching here is a discussion on the corrupting power of money on discourse. Which is itself a worthy discourse.

Your cartoon is in itself dishonestly misleading. She didn't want her insurance to cover contraceptives. She wanted her insurance to cover contraceptives without any cost to her. She wanted the government to provide her contraceptives or force her insurance company to furnish her contraceptives for free because so many women couldn't afford to pay for them. And to forego sex until you could afford to be responsible about it was just unthinkiable. Somehow liberals always leave out that part don't they? Perhaps you can find anything even remotely comparable to use in the comparison of what Sarah Palin was ridiculed, demonized, diminished, or accused of?

Foxy, perhaps a nice cup of caffeine before reading is in order, because you have deftly ducked under the entire point, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Sandra Fluke or her issue. The point was Lush Rimjob, of whom you just blindly disavowed his continuous use of ad hominem. The cartoon gives you a pictorial egregious and famous example thereof; two other examples were provided in the text. And yet even with all that, somehow you want to shunt this off to Sandra Fluke? Why? Because your position is false and worthless, that's why. You are truly drowning in DeNial.



Once again, you're trying to make the argument about business, which affects only that business. What we actually were dissecting is discourse. Whether XYZ Broadcast Corporation makes its profit, who gives a snit. Whether the national discourse is helped or hurt in the process -- aye, there's the rub. And that's where we were.

Was Air America a not-for-profit organization? No it was not. Was it able to attract audience despite more advertising on its behalf than ANY for profit entity has ever enjoyed? No it was not. Did advertisers see it as a viable source of exposure for their profits? No they did not. The ONLY way Air America survived for as long as it did is via contributions from people who wanted it to succeed. And those donors fnally had to admit defeat. The programming content of Air America wasn't interesting to them or much of anybody else.

I don't know that any of that is true, save the first question/answer-- it was a for-profit venture. I'm not privy to their accounting books, nor do I care. Again, that's business, and their business. What I do know is they experienced some kind of mismanagement internally (again, not sure of the details nor do I care), and that the roster of talent they had on the air, is still on the air doing the same thing they were doing before under new management. That would seem to put the lie to your theory about inability to draw advertising, since they're still doing it several years later. It also puts the lie to this imaginary equivalence between business success and rhetorical assent ... but that's a point we've already established with TV audience psychology where we started all this.

However I do agree that attack-dog models of radio blather are not of any benefit to the national discourse and have been used to varying "success" (commercial) by ideological sides. But as we've established over and over, commercial success isn't related to intellectual/rhetorical success; the two are mutually antagonistic. So this desperation of martyr-complexed wags like the OP to see ratings as some kind of "vote" on content has no basis. But I still think it's a fascinating tangent to explore why attack media seems to "work" (in commercial terms) for the right, but doesn't work so well for the left. It's tantalizing to ponder what it is about the psychological makeup of each that would set up such a preference.

People tune in shock jocks. People watch NASCAR for the wrecks. People rubberneck at traffic accidents. It doesn't mean they "like" or "agree with" traffic accidents. Some of y'all, deliberately or ignorantly, conflate attention with assent. When Lush Rimjob starts yelling "slut!" for three days, what he's getting is the former. If he was also getting the latter, he wouldn't have had a hundred advertisers pull out and issued an apology.

When content is uninteresting and enjoys no redeeming qualities, the media source is not going to enjoy high ratings or a lot of profitability. And if it can garner almost no market share at all, it does and should close up shop.

True but that's entirely a statement about the commercial model of broadcasting, and we've got to assign half the blame to the audience on that as the enablers. If the unwashed simply refused to watch Gong Shows and people deserted on an island eating bugs and fake wrestling and Fraction News' big story on a fire in some neighborhood you've never heard of and Dog the Bounty Hunter, then it would all go away. But they're happy to exploit this character flaw, so we'll continue to get Lush Rimjob yelling "slut" and Fox Noise's creeping chyrons along with the rest of the vast wasteland of no redeeming qualities. They get attention; they don't get justification. There's a vast difference.

Actually you've just made an excellent argument for public broadcasting, where content can be driven by intellectual needs rather than commercial ones.

But don't be naïve, as far as ratings it still comes down to this:
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" -- H.L. Mencken

Ah yes. Now we've shifted from blaming the media to blaming the viewers. LOL. There is a third possibility, however, that some of the 'idiot' shows provide a pleasant diversion for recreation other than playing solitaire on the computer - or - these shows challenge our imaginations--could I do that? Would I? Would I want to?--or actually contain content that makes us think.

"All in the Family" written as pure comedy, was originally intended to promote liberal concepts and ridicule/expose Archie's conservatism as ridiculous and hateful. But when it turned out that the audience related to Archie's point of view in many conservative concepts--not his skewed views of racism which has never been a conservative thing--but in basic conservative principles, the theme of the show changed. It equally exposed the ridiculousness of liberal and conservative extremism and in addition to entertainment and genuine belly laughs, also offered concepts to think about and learn from.

I especially remember the segment in which Lionel finally pushed back on Mike who was so eager to brag on his non racism, he would never allow Lionel to see himself as just another guy. Mike forced Lionel to always be the black guy with the black perspective and Lionel saw that and rightfully recognized it as racist. And I wanted to stand up and cheer. To refuse to allow color blindness is perhaps the most evil and insiduous of racism remaining in our society today.

So, I don't embrace your concept of the American people being so clueless or quite the idiots you seem to see them. I think they might be more perceptive and intelligent than you give them credit for.

 

[Pogo]

One exception does not a rule break, Foxy. Happily there were, are and will be the idealistic program creators who buck the system and accept the challenge of taking on the LCD mentality, All In the Family being a fine example.

But as far as mass audience psychology and what "sells", the dustbin is still the cash cow.

Just to take a random sample, here's a list of the latest top ten rated TV shows:

1 The Bachelorette
2 Arrested Development
3 True Blood
4 Pretty Little Liars
5 Mad Men
6 The Voice
7 American Idol
8 Dancing with the Stars
9 Scandal
10 NCIS

Not exactly mother's milk for the synapses that leaves the viewer any richer, is it?

I rest my case.