Reply With Quote
It's not Ailes, it's the hot women. He's like the Hugh Hefner of TV News.
he says a lot of other stuff, but anyway
Gabriel Sherman’s exhaustive, inflammatory biography of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, released days ago by Random House, has already prompted network pushback. “While we have not read the book,” a Fox News spokesperson told the New York Times, “the only reality here is that Gabe was not provided any direct access to Roger Ailes and the book was never fact-checked with Fox News.”
( facts? fact check? Fox?)
I think Ailes has surpassed the Republican Party. Fox is driving the set of stories and the mission in a way that – it’s not that Ailes is doing it to help the Republican Party, Ailes has his own agenda. He is bigger than the Republican Party. He has a meeting, which I report on in the book, and he expresses disdain for the Republican Party — he jokes at one point that the GOP couldn’t organize a one-car funeral. So you know, to your question, why Ailes and not somebody else, I think because there is just a legitimate power vacuum in Republican politics. I mean, the biggest power center on the right in American life right now is Fox News. It is the toll booth that Republican politicians have to go through to speak to Republican primary voters. And Ailes has created an empire that effectively controls the message on the right. That’s why I write about him being the closest thing we have right now in American politics to a party boss.
And I see both him and Fox — you know, he is presiding over an empire that has a crumbling foundation. And it still is very much an empire, but the underpinnings holding it up are weakening.
And Ailes is clinging to power. So you can never predict when that end will come. But what has made Fox News powerful is speaking to a part of America that has continued to get older and older. And the time will come when that audience is no longer there to program to.
Without Roger Ailes, Fox News cannot exist in its present form. The culture of the newsroom, of how the news is programmed, is so tied to his worldview — and everything flows from his office — that if you take him out of the picture, that machine loses its life force.
That’s not to say there can’t be a conservative news network. There is a very vibrant conservative media in this country. But the sort of fear and drama that Fox is does not exist without Ailes. And I think it’s telling that he has not publicly discussed a successor. He kind of refuses to acknowledge who he would pick to take over, if and when he goes.
http://www.alternet.org/media/ailes-...tter949727&t=2
It's not Ailes, it's the hot women. He's like the Hugh Hefner of TV News.
Fox news has about as autocratic a culture as it is possible to get in private companies. Such organizations struggle greatly after the dictators leave, and you get the infighting and bloodletting that goes on when power vacuums need to get filled.he says a lot of other stuff, but anyway
Gabriel Sherman’s exhaustive, inflammatory biography of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, released days ago by Random House, has already prompted network pushback. “While we have not read the book,” a Fox News spokesperson told the New York Times, “the only reality here is that Gabe was not provided any direct access to Roger Ailes and the book was never fact-checked with Fox News.”
( facts? fact check? Fox?
I think Ailes has surpassed the Republican Party. Fox is driving the set of stories and the mission in a way that – it’s not that Ailes is doing it to help the Republican Party, Ailes has his own agenda. He is bigger than the Republican Party. He has a meeting, which I report on in the book, and he expresses disdain for the Republican Party — he jokes at one point that the GOP couldn’t organize a one-car funeral. So you know, to your question, why Ailes and not somebody else, I think because there is just a legitimate power vacuum in Republican politics. I mean, the biggest power center on the right in American life right now is Fox News. It is the toll booth that Republican politicians have to go through to speak to Republican primary voters. And Ailes has created an empire that effectively controls the message on the right. That’s why I write about him being the closest thing we have right now in American politics to a party boss.
And I see both him and Fox — you know, he is presiding over an empire that has a crumbling foundation. And it still is very much an empire, but the underpinnings holding it up are weakening.
And Ailes is clinging to power. So you can never predict when that end will come. But what has made Fox News powerful is speaking to a part of America that has continued to get older and older. And the time will come when that audience is no longer there to program to.
Without Roger Ailes, Fox News cannot exist in its present form. The culture of the newsroom, of how the news is programmed, is so tied to his worldview — and everything flows from his office — that if you take him out of the picture, that machine loses its life force.
That’s not to say there can’t be a conservative news network. There is a very vibrant conservative media in this country. But the sort of fear and drama that Fox is does not exist without Ailes. And I think it’s telling that he has not publicly discussed a successor. He kind of refuses to acknowledge who he would pick to take over, if and when he goes.
http://www.alternet.org/media/ailes-...tter949727&t=2
Fox news has a lot of problems facing it as a company, not least of which is that its viewer base is getting old and dying off.
I can't think of many young people that view Fox news as worth a . Most tend to get their news from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
turning to comedians for the news, oddly enough, is a very old pastime. how could there be professional comedians, without a tragicomic world?
It's hard to buy the notion that it is 'crumbling' when they still beat the out of every other news network in the ratings. And while white baby boomers are their top demographic, the south still exists in perpetuity.
What I think is sad is how often people leave the on all day when they are at home. I don't like TV much and cable news even less so I cannot imagine watching Fox News for 5 hours straight day after day after day. They had to change their logo because people were complaining about it freezing pixels with the static logo.
One of the reasons I condescend so much is in part because of people like the above. Good minions they are.
"they still beat the out of every other news network in the ratings'
The top billing for the night went to Megyn Kelly, whose “Kelly File” has been eagerly anticipated by Foxophiles and received massive PR in advance of the debut. Unfortunately for her, she came in second to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in the key 25-54 year old demographic.
It would be bad enough for a Fox host to lose to an MSNBC show under ordinary cir stances, but to trail on the one night that ought to have been a runaway victory is a major embarrassment for Kelly and Fox. There were no extenuating cir stances that might have contributed to an unexpected win for Maddow. For instance, she did not have an exclusive interview with President Obama wherein he announced that he really was born in Kenya after all. And Kelly’s show had booked the GOP flavor of the week, Sen. Ted Cruz (TX-Tea Party), as her first guest, so she ought to have been well positioned to draw in the Fox fanatics in bulk. But it was not to be.
What’s more, Greta Van Susteren, who had moved from 10:00pm to 7:00pm, lost to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. And Sean Hannity, who lost his 9:00pm slot to Kelly and took over the 10:00pm time that Van Susteren vacated, could only manage a tie with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. The only win for Fox the whole night was by their perennial top dog, Bill O’Reilly, who bested Chris Hayes, the newest MSNBC host who has yet to find an audience.
These dismal performances by Fox programs are all the worse because the network had poured so much money and promotional muscle into the evening
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?cat=6
2013 Cable News Ratings: Fox News Sees Sharp Demo Decline, CNN Suffers In Primetime
Like clockwork, Fox News led the pack with an average of 1.097 million total viewers in primetime,
It was Fox News, however, that saw the sharpest decline in viewers ages 25-54: the network lost 19 percent of its audience in the demo during total day, and a whopping 30 percent in primetime. Despite its continued dominance, falling viewership in the coveted 25-54 demo was a sore spot for the network last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/2013-cable-news-ratings-msnbc-cnn_n_4532020.html
Fox viewers are Repug voters, old, white, low-information, uneducated, dumbed-down.
But in general, avergage cable news audiences per channel are demographically trivial, Fox leading with 1M (out of 310M)
I already understand you like Maddow, and they still have more than twice the viewership over MSNBC"they still beat the out of every other news network in the ratings'
The top billing for the night went to Megyn Kelly, whose “Kelly File” has been eagerly anticipated by Foxophiles and received massive PR in advance of the debut. Unfortunately for her, she came in second to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in the key 25-54 year old demographic.
It would be bad enough for a Fox host to lose to an MSNBC show under ordinary cir stances, but to trail on the one night that ought to have been a runaway victory is a major embarrassment for Kelly and Fox. There were no extenuating cir stances that might have contributed to an unexpected win for Maddow. For instance, she did not have an exclusive interview with President Obama wherein he announced that he really was born in Kenya after all. And Kelly’s show had booked the GOP flavor of the week, Sen. Ted Cruz (TX-Tea Party), as her first guest, so she ought to have been well positioned to draw in the Fox fanatics in bulk. But it was not to be.
What’s more, Greta Van Susteren, who had moved from 10:00pm to 7:00pm, lost to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. And Sean Hannity, who lost his 9:00pm slot to Kelly and took over the 10:00pm time that Van Susteren vacated, could only manage a tie with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. The only win for Fox the whole night was by their perennial top dog, Bill O’Reilly, who bested Chris Hayes, the newest MSNBC host who has yet to find an audience.
These dismal performances by Fox programs are all the worse because the network had poured so much money and promotional muscle into the evening
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?cat=6
2013 Cable News Ratings: Fox News Sees Sharp Demo Decline, CNN Suffers In Primetime
Like clockwork, Fox News led the pack with an average of 1.097 million total viewers in primetime,
It was Fox News, however, that saw the sharpest decline in viewers ages 25-54: the network lost 19 percent of its audience in the demo during total day, and a whopping 30 percent in primetime. Despite its continued dominance, falling viewership in the coveted 25-54 demo was a sore spot for the network last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/2013-cable-news-ratings-msnbc-cnn_n_4532020.html
Fox viewers are Repug voters, old, white, low-information, uneducated, dumbed-down.
But in general, avergage cable news audiences per channel are demographically trivial, Fox leading with 1M (out of 310M)
I understand you can't do math. Averages: Fox 1M, MSNBC 640K.
I understand that 1.09m rounds to 1.1 esp when you are comparing it to .64. I will correct my previous statement. Despite the recent decline they still have 170% the viewers of MSNBC.
"170% the viewers of MSNBC."
and less that 1% of US population. Even CBS evening news has about 8M.
the median age of Fox viewers in 68 and increasing, while about 1% of Fox viewers a black, meaning Fox is even whiter than the Repug voters at about 2% black.
Stop Beating a Dead Fox
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/fox-news-2014-2/
BINGO!…It does matter if it is Fox news or MSNBC…They both have a profound negative impact on normal people, especially retirees…My Bro in law is a machinist, level headed, non political…Retired too young, and now he sits around the house & watches Fox news then sends out scary ranting political emails…I mean here is a guy who never voted until he retired now he is a political whack…
"They both have a profound negative impact on normal people"
... extrapolated from your ed up, whacky Bro?
As the Frank Rich article claims, (old white) people who watch Fox watch, read almost nothing else, indicating they bring their ignorance and stupidity to Fox watching, not that Fox watching causes them to be stupid and ignorant.
I could site numerous examples of people being impacted by these political Whack shows…(Especially co-workers)…I thought my non political Bro turned conservative whack was just a good example…
I guess the best defense is to not retire if you don’t fish or garden….
Hilarious Fox polling questions:
“In the aftermath of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya, the Obama administration falsely claimed it was a spontaneous assault in response to an offensive online video, even though the administration had intelligence reports that the attacks were connected to terrorist groups tied to al Qaeda.”
and
“The Internal Revenue Service admitted it targeted Tea Party and conservative groups for extra scrutiny. How concerned are you that the government’s surveillance program designed to track terrorists using phone and Internet records will be used in the same way to target specific groups and individuals that may disagree with an administration’s policies?”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...s?detail=email
well at least you read nakedcapitalism in addition to alternet."They both have a profound negative impact on normal people"
... extrapolated from your ed up, whacky Bro?
As the Frank Rich article claims, (old white) people who watch Fox watch, read almost nothing else, indicating they bring their ignorance and stupidity to Fox watching, not that Fox watching causes them to be stupid and ignorant.
I don't see how this is hilarious. I bet you are one of those who think that Obama was clueless about the IRS going after his compe or's political finances with the same brain that thinks Chris Christie was setting thermite charges on that bridge as retribution. Either way that mass data still being available to those types bothers the out of me.
The IRS was going after tea baggers was the equivalent of cops going after people with a " the police" bumper sticker.
"Obama was clueless about the IRS going after his compe or's political finances"
so you bought the Fox/Repug fabricated crisis, hook, line, sinker, and repeat their LIE.
IRS was doing its job, vetting both Repug and Dem "social welfare" orgs.
Whether or not she was a patsy, somebody had to take the fall. I thought it hilarious that the scapegoat was replaced by a guy who lied to a congressional hearing about having knowledge of the practices not once by twice. Those pesky emails and electronic storage.
And how involved do you think Christie was in the bridge closing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
