Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » The latest cable tv news ratings.

The latest cable tv news ratings.

4 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Bob wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:

You are right that this world of corporate "news" is geared toward profits for advertisers and we can never forget that. The corporations don't care about telling it like it is, they care about profits. Profits depend on the plans of the powers that be and that involves feeding us whatever it takes to support the military/industrial complex and the "health care industry" to name a couple of favorite causes of the corporate world.[/color]

The four major cable news networks (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and HLN) are owned, respectively, by News Corp, Comcast Cable and Time-Warner (both CNN and HLN).

News Corp and Time-Warner and Comcast have only media-related assets. Nothing else. That's verified here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast

I'm not sure why any of them would have any allegiance to the "military/industrial" complex. And their only allegiance to the health insurance industry would have the same implications with any other industry, that they sell commercial time to it. But they're not selling it to the health insurance in any more appreciable degree than they sell it to any other industry.

I think the primary motivation for all three is to run any content which will both, one, attract commercial sponsors and, two, increase the price of a given minute of commercial time.
I don't think they have any allegiance to anything except that. I think the only reason Murdoch keeps the tone and format (and content) of Fox News Channel the way it is, is because it works from a business perspective.
Fox News Channel makes him big bucks as it is now and that's all that matters.
In other words, I think if Murdoch felt it would be more profitable to morph Fox News Channel into a "democrat/liberal/fight big business" format, he would do that in a second.


I'm saying the connection between corporate media and corporations of other types is less direct than I think your evidence implies. I see all the high rollers in it together. One hand washes the other. The connection is not as clear as Say a cable network owning a munitions or military equipment company but rather that it is more of a long term relationship that keeps the general public/tax payer at the mercy of their plans.

I mean just look at which players in our economy have done well financially over the past 30 years. It is the big fish, not us down here in the trenches. You have to view this from like 10,000 feet up, as it were, in order to connect the dots.

Guest


Guest

William wrote:
PACEDOG#1 wrote:
William wrote:
Bob wrote:
William wrote:It's true that FN wins the war of noise, but their golden boyz are all experiencing dramatic drops in viewership.

Hannity's are way off from last year, etc...


Can you link us to your source for that?

............................................

I assumed at least you had already read the article.


Fox News Ratings: Hannity, Van Susteren Plunge To New Lows In Demo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/fox-news-ratings-hannity-van-susteren-worst-demo-ratings_n_3001096.html?ir=Media

So you are going to use a LEFTWING site to show as a source that RIGHTWING shows are losing viewership?

BAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

......................................

I love these outright barnyard stupid posts from you. They make you seem so sane and stable.

Do continue.
You didn't answer the question you old goat.

Guest


Guest

Your "question" was either rhetorical or a snarky statement.

Are you still beating your wife...?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


Carry on Airman.


Guest


Guest

William wrote:Your "question" was either rhetorical or a snarky statement.

Are you still beating your wife...?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


Carry on Airman.



And again you make statements that you cannot back up. I guess putting together a complete sentence to back up your assertion is too much to ask a drooling, doddering gump.

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
William wrote:Your "question" was either rhetorical or a snarky statement.

Are you still beating your wife...?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


Carry on Airman.



And again you make statements that you cannot back up. I guess putting together a complete sentence to back up your assertion is too much to ask a drooling, doddering gump.

..................................................

Have fun.

Be careful to not trip over your big floppy shoes or your insipid rhetoric.

Feel free to deconstruct my assertions and explain away your well known reputation.


Carry on Airman.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

othershoe1030 wrote:

I'm saying the connection between corporate media and corporations of other types is less direct than I think your evidence implies. I see all the high rollers in it together. One hand washes the other. The connection is not as clear as Say a cable network owning a munitions or military equipment company but rather that it is more of a long term relationship that keeps the general public/tax payer at the mercy of their plans.

I mean just look at which players in our economy have done well financially over the past 30 years. It is the big fish, not us down here in the trenches. You have to view this from like 10,000 feet up, as it were, in order to connect the dots.

Only one thing puzzles me. For many years, General Electric owned NBC/MSNBC until just very recently. GE not only has many associations with the military/industrial complex, GE is actually ONE OF the corporations itself which comprise the military/industrial complex.
But paradoxically, their own media mouthpiece, MSNBC, has for years been the loudest voice on commercial television to challenge everything the military/industrial complex stands for.
So how do we explain that?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

BOTTOM LINE: What we have for television "news media" is all very questionable. And I'm not even sure what the questions are, let alone the answers.
It gives me the same sickly feeling I have in my stomach when I try to make sense of the stock market. And I gave up on that long ago.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Bob wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:

I'm saying the connection between corporate media and corporations of other types is less direct than I think your evidence implies. I see all the high rollers in it together. One hand washes the other. The connection is not as clear as Say a cable network owning a munitions or military equipment company but rather that it is more of a long term relationship that keeps the general public/tax payer at the mercy of their plans.

I mean just look at which players in our economy have done well financially over the past 30 years. It is the big fish, not us down here in the trenches. You have to view this from like 10,000 feet up, as it were, in order to connect the dots.

Only one thing puzzles me. For many years, General Electric owned NBC/MSNBC until just very recently. GE not only has many associations with the military/industrial complex, GE is actually ONE OF the corporations itself which comprise the military/industrial complex.
But paradoxically, their own media mouthpiece, MSNBC, has for years been the loudest voice on commercial television to challenge everything the military/industrial complex stands for.
So how do we explain that?

good point about GE however MSNBC only looks like a lefty outfit compared to the other corporate MSM guys. As an example, going back to all the lies we were told re the need for the Iraq invasion, how many anti-war points of view did we see on ANY MSM news outlets? Very few. Overall we saw retired military officers coming on and presenting their opinion as to how many troops the operation should take, how long the war would last, which invasion routes should be taken, etc. There was very little discussion about should we or should we not go to war, only about the best way to do so.

Meanwhile all around the world and in this country too there were massive protests against a US invasion but they were not covered by MSM or MSNBC either. To see those you had to go to some independent media or freelance reporter. Same went for reports from scientists in the know about the dreaded aluminum tubes that were not fit for atomic energy/bomb functions and same for the yellow cake from Niger. The Bush administration got so PO'd about that one that they outed the wife of the ambassador even though she had been working undercover.

I agree that Maddow and crew give the R's in congress a lot more grief than the other networks but they are still mainstream in a lot of ways.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

You're making some sense, shoe, but I'm gonna have to digest all this. And right now I've got to see what condition my condition is in. Except I know it's not conducive to posting. So I shouldn't have even posted this. Except to tell you that you've got me thinking.

Markle

Markle

William wrote:It's true that FN wins the war of noise, but their golden boyz are all experiencing dramatic drops in viewership.

Hannity's are way off from last year, etc...


Please show us the link to a reliable source showing those ratings compared with the other stations previous year.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:
William wrote:It's true that FN wins the war of noise, but their golden boyz are all experiencing dramatic drops in viewership.

Hannity's are way off from last year, etc...


Please show us the link to a reliable source showing those ratings compared with the other stations previous year.

TV Newser is very reliable. This is what it says about Hannity...

Like the competition, the network has lost viewers in primetime compared to the year-ago quarter. “The O’Reilly Factor” is flat in Total Viewers and down -26% in the demo. (Note: percentages are based on a blend of Live +7 and Live +3 data.) “Hannity” is down -5% and -28%, while “On the Record” is down -13% and -35%, respectively.
____________________

and now for Maddow...

“The Rachel Maddow Show” was down -3% in Total Viewers but up +5% in A25-54 viewers, while “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” was up +2% and flat, respectively.

So, in the 25-54 advertising demo (the one that really matters), Hannity was down 28 from a year ago, and his head to head competition, Rachel Maddow, was up 5 from a year ago.
And if you read the whole page, there was a smaller change between the other primetime spots, and a smaller change between the two networks in daytime ratings.
BUT there is no denying that Hannity is losing ground to Maddow.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

Bob wrote:You're making some sense, shoe, but I'm gonna have to digest all this. And right now I've got to see what condition my condition is in. Except I know it's not conducive to posting. So I shouldn't have even posted this. Except to tell you that you've got me thinking.

Thinking is good!

With some exceptions (billionaires who are deep into philanthropy) it looks to me as if they feel a kinship with others of great wealth. Look at how Democrats and Republicans are at each others throats in the Congress except when it comes to voting through something like their own pay raises or another exemption from some rule for them. Suddenly they are all on board!

Ironically this kinship concept for the 99% of the rest of us is undermined by actively splitting the majority of citizens into armed (verbally as here) camps. In many cases right leaning and left leaning people can't even discuss an issue because we have difficulty agreeing on what the facts of the matter are.

I think a good case can be made that this is done intentionally by talking heads and MSM in general. It is the old divide and conquer tactic. This inability to understand or know the real facts of a case is rendering us impotent to join together in what should be a common cause to make the multinationals into the good citizens they should be but aren't.

The politicians, largely bought and paid for by the corporate world pass laws that are good for the wealthy no matter what line of business they are in. It is all about money and power.

So while the rest of us argue about this and that, they go about doing what they do best, making money without a care as to the effects on people or the environment.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » The latest cable tv news ratings.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum