The man who build Fox News, Roger Ailes, has been sued for sexual harassment by one of its stars, and a number of women have made similar claims against Ailes. It has been reported that Ailes is being terminated. So the question is what happens to the network Ailes built? Will Fox News continue to operate as the public relations arm of the Republican Party? http://www.bostonherald.com/busines.../07/fox_could_lose_edge_with_roger_ailes_exit http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-ailes-out-fox-news-drudge
This legacy of Nixon, bastard child of Roger Ailes, which has brought us the tea nuts, Trump, arguably destroyed the Republican Party, and done immeasurable damage to this country, will never be the same, thank goodness. Isn't it ironic that the ghost of Nixon, the Fox propaganda model, would lead to the death of the republican party, and Fox Noise as we have known it dies along with it. Maybe there is justice after all. But they have brainwashed so many people that the damage will last a generation. It reminds me a bit of the glue sniffing craze - damaged for life.
They're just dumping him to offload legal liability. Fox News, meanwhile, has remade the entire American media landscape in its own image - neither it, nor the Republican Party, is in any immediate danger of being replaced by its imitators. And if they are, their replacements will take over their roles.
Murdoch's son has already hinted at a more moderate Fox News being in the works. There are suspicions that Ailes might end up joining the Trump campaign.
What could that possibly mean? Are they going to stop coordinating with Breitbart and the like? Stop delivering the viewpoints they are being paid to promulgate? You might as well talk about a more "moderate" ad agency approach for Coors beer. Less dramatic lighting, maybe?
They will likely seek to emulate the format of CNN, which is kicking their butt in the ratings with their more balanced approach. http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/fox-news-takes-huge-hit-ratings/ Apparently the tea party movement is over and what remains of the Fox News Party can no longer sustain Fox News. They made Donald Trump possible and it seems to me that he has contributed greatly to their demise. Ironic.
It will be difficult to rebrand Fox News. Like it or not Fox News has a diminished and tarnished brand. They may have to change their name. The older white demographic which is Fox's demographic is shrinking and now it's fragmented. Fox News needs a miracle worker. The irony here is they did it to themselves. They are solely responsible for their demise. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers related to Republican talk radio, are their ratings contracting as well? In my area, which is a hot bed for right wing conservatism, Republican talk radio is being replaced with sports programming.
It's CNN that increasingly emulates Fox, not the other way around. "Balanced approach" my ass. If they shift to using CNN for a while, that would be standard procedure. They often switch between brands as one or another becomes odious in the aftermath of whatever happened this time - and use the interval to rehabilitate the tarred one. Look at Newt Gingrich's career - he's been switched out and back three or four times now. The Tea Party was just a temporary label for a stage of an ongoing movement that has taken over and been using the Republican Party, and that movement isn't going anywhere for a long time - it is on the brink of dominating and using Congress, not just preventing function, and if it gets hold of the White House this year it will probably get the Supreme Court as well. So was Glenn Beck's, Newt Gingrich's, Bill Kristol's, Breitbart's, the entire Republican Party's, W's, Cheney's, - - of course the tools and brands become odious, but slap on a new name and coat of shellac, wait a couple of years, and the only people who will notice are those who remember what happened and who did it. And CNN will be of absolutely no help in that remembering. The contrary.
It is punditry rather than reporting more than not, but they do have a fair representation for both sides. Unfortunately it is a never-ending spin session with pundits from each side trying to out spin each other. I sit here watching and wonder how many people can't see how transparent the whole thing has become. I guess the answer is that the right wing buys into all of this crap because I don't typically hear Democrats spinning conspiracy theories, denying science, clambering to allow the global economy to crash, or more to the point, twisting the words of Trump. Trump says what he says and righties simply deny it. Or they suddenly accept torture and the killing of innocent people as a national agenda, and pretend this is nothing new; deny that they are calling for a definitively tyrannical leader. On the left I hear typical spin. But the right wing is running on pure fantasy. And most of all, I don't see a bit of integrity in any of them. You are over the top left in my view. I think you all need to turn off the computer and TV for awhile.
From the Huffington Post, July 21, 2016: CNN saw a higher spike in ratings than any other network in the first quarter of 2015 compared with the same period last year. The network was up from last year in viewers for both primetime and total day. The largest jump was in total day, with a 22 percent increase (to 466,000) and a 20 percent increase in the key 25-54 age demo (to 147,000). No other cable news network saw an overall jump from the previous year. Even still, Fox News topped the cable news rankings once again, bringing in 1.72 million primetime viewers, an increase of 10 percent, and an average of 1.07 million total day viewers. The network came in 4th place among all basic cable channels. CNN came in next with 535,000 primetime total viewers and 466,000 total day total viewers. The number 1 news program is the O'Reilly Factor on FOX news. FOX is a business with a very successful business model, as inferred by its highest market share, which is almost 4 to 1 over number two. They are doing what the majority of news viewers wish to see, which is why they are number one. If you have a good product, done the way most people want it, people will watch. Even if you call FOX a Republican puppet, Republicans have good business sense and can make the puppet profitable while reaching the widest audience with a good product. Another consideration, that one needs to take to account is, there are way more TV News outlets today, than ever before. That means the talent pool is spread much thinner than ever. It would be like going from 6 baseball teams to 20 baseball teams, while still only having only a dozen super stars. The result is that all the teams get watered down, with more and more minor league players, to fill all the teams. While the largest and most successful team; FOX, has the money from their market share to get the picks of the litter. FOX is to TV cable news, what the Yankee were to baseball; they can stack their team with all-stars and win.
Well here is the problem with your post, today is July 21, 2016. Your Huffington post article was written and published in April of last year and it referred to the period between January 1, 2015 and March 30, 2015. Your article is more than a year old. Below is the link you forgot to provide. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/cable-news-ratings-q1-2015-cnn-msnbc_n_6984866.html
That was what the Fox audience was told, and believed, originally. Fair and Balanced, remember? Then that collapsed - - - so they morphed into "we present the conservative point of view, as opposed to the mainstream liberal media" . Then that collapsed, - - - so "both sides" is the current mantra and approach of Fox News, and has been ever since Katrina if not before. CNN adopting this approach, pioneered by Fox, is not a good sign. When your "balance" is between lies and truth, delusion and reality, propaganda and journalism, who are you being "fair" to? You are acting in the interests and to the benefit of the liars and propagandists. When your balance is struck between weak and incompetent arguments, who are you being "fair" to? You are acting in the interests and to the benefit of those reason and competence would oppose. Essentially, if you hear the words "both sides" as a term of praise for a major media newscast you are listening to a world created by Fox. There is no such thing as "both sides" in complex or reality based issues. There is sometimes just one side, more often a variety of points of view, even of the reality based interests, and CNN is not presenting a good share of them. It is becoming more like Fox. I'm barely "left" at all. Very slightly left of center on those Political Compass type sites, for example. A market capitalist advocate in all but very specific circumstances. So your view is badly obstructed or altered by something. What do you think that is?
It's over, Ailes has resigned effective immediately from Fox News. Ruppert Murdoch is taking over until another replacement can be found. What does that do to on going operations. Ailes was a very hands on manger and was very involved in convention coverage. I think it probably safe to presume things are a bit chaotic over at Fox News. There are not plans for this kind of event. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, Trump and Ailes were good buddies and Ailes has been a big Trump backer. They both are masters of the Orchestra Pit theory. So what does this do to the Trump campaign? How will it affect Trump's coverage and election bid? Will Fox suddenly sour on Trump? http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/media/roger-ailes-leaves-fox-news/index.html
I'm not going by what I am told. I am going by who I see. I have been following people like David Gergen for 25 years or more. I agree. But it isn't the job of the journalist to edit what the pundits are saying. People like Wolf Blitzer and others do intervene when the information is false and known to be false. Okay, I guess you are just nutty and happen to be favoring the left of late. You are like the right wingers who see conspirators around every corner. The truth is that government is more chaotic than that. For example, I seriously doubt that Bush knew half of what Cheney authorized. Anyway, the wicked witch is dead! It is time for Hillary and her tin man to march onto Oz. But then really it was the Wizard, the man behind the smoke and mirrors, who died.
It's the end of Fox News as we know it It's the end of Fox News as we know it It's the end of Fox News as we know it, and I feel fiiiiine (Six o'clock, TV hour, don't get caught in foreign tower Slash and burn, return, listen to yourself churn...)
I haven't been favoring the Left of late. Speechwriter for the man who brought us the Southern Strategy, former staffer for (and admirer of) Cheney and Rumsfeld, media relations overseer for Reagan (Southern Strategy again), excuse monger for the Iraq War, who never asked a single tough followup question of any Republican government executive on camera in his life? That's CNN's notion of somebody who should manage their news coverage, oversee their journalists, deliver trustworthy analysis - an executive committee member of the Trilateral Commission? I rest my case. Here's a typical Gergen contribution: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/05/opinions/gergen-bush-cheney-rumsfeld/ Vacuous, disingenuous, essentially meaningless. You learn nothing from it, except a vague impression that the US government was in good, honest hands under W and Cheney - people might have had some disagreements, but honest ones of policy that Gergen leaves vague. Look, say, at how he describes Cheney's refusal to account for his meetings with oil industry execs, defying even Congressional committee requests for information - as just some sort of opinion about "transparency" that Gergen is careful to make clear he favored, nothing in there about Cheney's conflicts of interest (Halliburton investments, business contacts), his betrayal of his country and his oath of office, anything like that. No, they don't. He, in particular, doesn't. They - the respectable punditry - quit doing that some years ago, with consequences all too visible. Seriously: that's the critical, fundamentally important fact of the last twenty years of US major media. They have more or less abandoned their formerly central role of distinguishing fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, what happened from what didn't. Instead, they report "both sides", give "fair representation" to any amount of bs, etc. And the standard first question, then, is: cui bono? How is that even slightly in conflict with anything I've posted? What's the word for somebody who sees conspiracy theories in posts like mine? - simple accounts of historical event, observations of current reality, etc. It's not a conspiracy to point out that Fox News is replaceable as it becomes odious to even the casual observer, and that the pattern is a common one in modern Republican politics - and that that doesn't mean it will go away.
So you don't think Bernie is on the left? Unfortunately for you Iceaura people are just not as dumb as you need them to be. You always favor the left and more than that the extreme left. You have touted a number of left wing conspiracy theories e.g. the Brown shooting. The fact is you are just outright dishonest, just as dishonest as anyone on the right wing of the political spectrum.
Well here is the thing, Fox News while dishonest, unpatriotic, and morally abhorrent, it is very profitable. It makes a lot of money. So there is a huge financial incentive to not change. As much as I would like to see a truly fair and balanced Fox News, it might not be in the cards because pandering to America's right wing nuts is incredibly profitable. But, Fox New's demographic, old white people, is a shrinking demographic. Fox is primed for a long slow decline if it continues to be the network of and for right wing nuts. At some point demographics will force Fox to truly become more fair and balanced. That might be a few years from now or 20 years from now, but that time is coming. And perhaps Murdoch's children can see that too.
