ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Jupiter551]

Yeah, it was Shepherd Smith. Thanks.

My problem with your statement on popularity = quality is... it's backwards. Certainly many things that are high quality are also popular... But the quality is in no way a result of the popularity. In the case of Fox News, e.g., it's a case of HIGH QUALITY MARKETING, not high quality news.

I was a question, not a statement hence the question mark at the end. And not even a rhetorical question. Now I am not a fan of Fox News and I've said watch it less than PBS, probably a bit less than CNN, and more than MSNBC. I think the Fox news, not opinion, programs are much less biased than MSNBC, but slightly more biased than CNN.

I don't think the reason Fox is more popular than MSNBC or CNN has very little to do high quality marketing either. What the heck is Fox news marketing program anyhow? I think Fox puts out very watchable news program, and controversial opinion show that are more engaging than the other networks. There was book, it might have been the Fox Effect, that discussed all the smart things that Fox News does. For example compared the old fashion sets at MSNBC, Fox's have brighter colors and look more modern with a cleaner design. CNN set have go over board and with all crawlers, blinking lights, and weird iPad like effects, look like something of Mission Control, and I am a gadget guy. Same thing with graphics, CNN graphics are often convoluted and look like something I see on CNBC. Fox's graphics are simpler and easier to understand. Finally, lets talk about the on air talent. CNN has a few hotties, and Anderson Cooper, but plenty of not so special looking folks. MSNBC, has fat slovenly guys like Chris Matthews and Ed Shultz. In contrast, Fox has good looking guys like Shepard Smith, the masculine Bill O'Reilly and the Fox girls. Virtually every woman on Fox would do well as a MFC model. Fox glams the girls up puts them in sexy dress and make sure we can look at their legs. There are some real babes on the network, and they aren't dumb blondes, most of the Foxes on Fox have masters degrees,with quite a few PHd, Law degrees,and Md or two also.Gretchen Carlson for example is a former Miss America and is Stanford grad. In contrast, except for Oxford grad Rachel Maddow, plenty of the folks on MSNBC, went to a podunk school, and spent much of their career as a sportscaster.

Now you may say what the hell does hotness of the talent, and the look of the sets have to do with a quality of the news? Perhaps not much but from a style and presentation perspective Fox puts out a very high quality product which explains much of its popularity. It is really no different than the camgirl, who sits in her room with a crappy webcam, bad lighting, and texts her friends on her iPhone, she maybe gorgeous with a great personality, and super smart but nobody is going to watch her show if the presentation isn't any good. So how do you measure quality of a news network?

Style and presentation? It's meant to be news, not Dancing With The Idiots. You just made the equivalent argument of saying a rock band is amazing because they have awesome costumes and lots of lasers and smoke and shit at their show.

 

[schlmoe]

But in general in society if the only thing you know about two products or services is that one is more popular than another say, in the absence of other information you'd be wise to assume that more popular one is better.

I agree, if you're a lemming.

For instance you are new to town and you see two Italian restaurant on block, one has few people waiting the other is almost deserted. You check the menu and the prices are the same. Which one do you go to?

This is 50 years ago logic. On trips, my grandmother used to say "We'll stop where we see a lot of trucks (18 wheelers), Truckers really know where the good restaurants are." Sadly, she was wrong. My own empirical evidence (not peer reviewed, lol) is that Truckers want something fast and cheap, and their first priority is a large parking lot with easy freeway access. Today (as far as restaurants go), a review is a smartphone swipe/click away. Maybe the Italian place with a line, is temporarily full due to a private party, or something not indicative of quality.

Fox News is the most popular news networks, in large part because folks like O'Reilly, or Hannity are more popular than their counterparts on MSNBC or CNN. I believe their pure news shows are also higher rated. As far as quality goes I don't think they hold a candle to the PBS's Newshour. However, how do you go about judging the quality of say the Fox Report with Shepard Smith vs News Nation, or CNN Newsroom? As I said earlier I suspect much of the criticism is because people lump Fox opinion shows with their news shows. Which would be like a conservative saying that the Chris Matthew show is the same as Meet the Press cause the both air on MSNBC.

It's a known fact that TV (more so FOX News channel); all TV news; and the GOP skew older. And a lot of the younger demographic eschew TV in general. There are a ton of folks who exclusively watch TV (live streamed or recorded) on the internet. Internet-only TV viewers cannot be accurately captured for ratings. This is just one explanation on the FOX News "ratings phenomena". I believe other valid arguments (not the only ones) are the "loyal opposition" or "enemy camp" theories (this should be self-explanatory). It wouldn't surprise me if Jon Stewart/Colbert drive a number of viewers to FOX News, just to see if Comedy Central was making that shit up.

I am more than OK that you enjoy FOX News, I just find it odd that you feel you have to defend the ratings/quality thing. If you like something, who cares what anybody else thinks :twocents-02cents:

 

[Bocefish]

Fox is #1 in the 25-54 year old demographic IIRC.

Style and presentation? It's meant to be news, not Dancing With The Idiots. You just made the equivalent argument of saying a rock band is amazing because they have awesome costumes and lots of lasers and smoke and shit at their show.

Would you rather watch a beautiful woman with a nice voice on your screen or some old monotoned dude giving you the news? Content is usually the same but it's an easy choice for me, lol. Most of the cable news shows cover basically the same stories, but Fox also covers the stories the more liberal media would rather keep the public in the dark about. I still watch CNN too, sometimes Wolf Blitzer and others Kyra Phillips. I tried MSNBC but they were so biased it was ridiculous.

 

[Bocefish]

:lol: :lol:

What's even worse is that campaign managers actually select the people to be seen behind him. :lol:

 

[LadyLuna]

He has a screen shot where he looks bad? Oh noes! :roll: I've gotten some choice screen shots in awesome movies just by pausing at the wrong nano-second.

Fox is #1 in the 25-54 year old demographic IIRC.

Style and presentation? It's meant to be news, not Dancing With The Idiots. You just made the equivalent argument of saying a rock band is amazing because they have awesome costumes and lots of lasers and smoke and shit at their show.

Would you rather watch a beautiful woman with a nice voice on your screen or some old monotoned dude giving you the news? Content is usually the same but it's an easy choice for me, lol. Most of the cable news shows cover basically the same stories, but Fox also covers the stories the more liberal media would rather keep the public in the dark about. I still watch CNN too, sometimes Wolf Blitzer and others Kyra Phillips. I tried MSNBC but they were so biased it was ridiculous.

I would rather read my news online. I'm in the 25-54 year old demographic. I don't even own a TV. Therefore, I was not counted in the polls as someone who doesn't watch. If I *did* have a TV, I wouldn't watch ANY news station. They tend to focus on things like war and death. I know this world is fucked up already, I don't need to see it on the news. And important stuff, I don't remember what I hear and see visuals of as easily as remembering what I read and use.

For every one 25-30 year old who watches TV, there are at least two who don't watch it, which will skew the polls even more.

 

[mynameisbob84]

People watch FOX News unironically? What a crazy world we live in

 

[LadyLuna]

He has a screen shot where he looks bad? Oh noes! :roll: I've gotten some choice screen shots in awesome movies just by pausing at the wrong nano-second.

Never mind, I wasn't even looking at their shirts...

 

[Jupiter551]

Fox is #1 in the 25-54 year old demographic IIRC.

Style and presentation? It's meant to be news, not Dancing With The Idiots. You just made the equivalent argument of saying a rock band is amazing because they have awesome costumes and lots of lasers and smoke and shit at their show.

Would you rather watch a beautiful woman with a nice voice on your screen or some old monotoned dude giving you the news? Content is usually the same but it's an easy choice for me, lol. Most of the cable news shows cover basically the same stories, but Fox also covers the stories the more liberal media would rather keep the public in the dark about. I still watch CNN too, sometimes Wolf Blitzer and others Kyra Phillips. I tried MSNBC but they were so biased it was ridiculous.

I usually read news so how the journalist looks never even enters my brain. I did like the Naked News when it used to be on the net free tho.

 

[Jupiter551]

:lol: :lol:

What's even worse is that campaign managers actually select the people to be seen behind him. :lol:

are you commenting on their looks or that they selected election volunteers or whatever? I vaguely recall reading Romney paid some black people to cheer for him at a rally recently lol

 

[LadyLuna]

:lol: :lol:

What's even worse is that campaign managers actually select the people to be seen behind him. :lol:

are you commenting on their looks or that they selected election volunteers or whatever? I vaguely recall reading Romney paid some black people to cheer for him at a rally recently lol

It's the shirts of the ladies in the front. They had a litte touble speling foward.

 

[Bocefish]

:lol: :lol:

What's even worse is that campaign managers actually select the people to be seen behind him. :lol:

are you commenting on their looks or that they selected election volunteers or whatever?

#1 Did the girls make those shirts themselves or did they buy them? :lol:

#2 Nobody seemed to notice, not even the campaign managers who selectively seat people in the camera's view. :roll:

In case you think it's fake:

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/vide ... -trip.html

 

[Shaun__]

:lol: :lol:
What's even worse is that campaign managers actually select the people to be seen behind him. :lol:

You know what would be even more embarrassing than supporters misspelling something on their shirts? Your official app misspelling America.

 

[Tilly]

People watch FOX News unironically? What a crazy world we live in

My parents do, and they're so brainwashed.
I want to set up some type of child block.
No more Fox news for you two. :naughty:

 

[Nordling]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

 

[BullFrogBlues]

:lol: :lol:

What's even worse is that campaign managers actually select the people to be seen behind him. :lol:

are you commenting on their looks or that they selected election volunteers or whatever?

#1 Did the girls make those shirts themselves or did they buy them? :lol:

#2 Nobody seemed to notice, not even the campaign managers who selectively seat people in the camera's view. :roll:

In case you think it's fake:

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/vide ... -trip.html

I don't see what you are loling at. Please spell it out.

 

[Bocefish]

Maybe they should have just abbreviated it as FWD lol

 

[Jupiter551]

Yeah that is pretty dumb, though I'll admit I wasn't really looking at those ladies and their shirts til it was pointed out lol
Maybe it's an acronym. For Obama We Are Ready to Die

 

[Bocefish]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

 

[BullFrogBlues]

foward

 

[Jupiter551]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

The National Enquirer - More than 50 years of the best celebrity news!
Celebrity gossip, scandals, and the latest from Hollywood. Enquiring minds want to know!

http://www.nationalenquirer.com

 

[Bocefish]

The National Enquirer is news? That's like saying the WWF is real. :lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

The National Enquirer is news? That's like saying the WWF is real. :lol:

Still, it's been running for 50 years successfully, it certainly proves tabloid journalism is popular.

 

[Nordling]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

To your question, the answer is yes. Remember, Fox may be the top rated CABLE NEWS outlet but it fails to be on top compared to its non-news competitors...stuff like Sponge Bob. It also fails when compared with broadcast networks.

Because of the lack of credibility, the telling of legal lies (Fox won a SCOTUS case to be able to lie legally), it simply tells us that the average Fox viewer is a niche in the population with lousy ability to discern quality, credibility, and facts.

 

[Bocefish]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

To your question, the answer is yes. Remember, Fox may be the top rated CABLE NEWS outlet but it fails to be on top compared to its non-news competitors...stuff like Sponge Bob. It also fails when compared with broadcast networks.

Comparing Cable news to Spongebob and non-cable news is meaningless.

Because of the lack of credibility, the telling of legal lies (Fox won a SCOTUS case to be able to lie legally), it simply tells us that the average Fox viewer is a niche in the population with lousy ability to discern quality, credibility, and facts.

Now you sound like Olberman. Where is a link to this famous SCOTUS case you speak of?

 

[Nordling]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

To your question, the answer is yes. Remember, Fox may be the top rated CABLE NEWS outlet but it fails to be on top compared to its non-news competitors...stuff like Sponge Bob. It also fails when compared with broadcast networks.

Comparing Cable news to Spongebob and non-cable news is meaningless.

Because of the lack of credibility, the telling of legal lies (Fox won a SCOTUS case to be able to lie legally), it simply tells us that the average Fox viewer is a niche in the population with lousy ability to discern quality, credibility, and facts.

Now you sound like Olberman. Where is a link to this famous SCOTUS case you speak of?

No idea what "sound like Olberman is supposed to mean but, you really should pay attention to big stories and quit watching Fox.

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

 

[Bocefish]

Wow. I think it's pretty hilarious when someone denies that Fox's popularity is due to marketing, then elaborates on how good their marketing is. (Utilizing sex in the form of handsome men and pretty women in short dresses and skirts IS marketing)

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

To your question, the answer is yes. Remember, Fox may be the top rated CABLE NEWS outlet but it fails to be on top compared to its non-news competitors...stuff like Sponge Bob. It also fails when compared with broadcast networks.

Comparing Cable news to Spongebob and non-cable news is meaningless.

Because of the lack of credibility, the telling of legal lies (Fox won a SCOTUS case to be able to lie legally), it simply tells us that the average Fox viewer is a niche in the population with lousy ability to discern quality, credibility, and facts.

Now you sound like Olberman. Where is a link to this famous SCOTUS case you speak of?

No idea what "sound like Olberman is supposed to mean but, you really should pay attention to big stories and quit watching Fox.

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

That's the big SCOTUS case you're talking about? :lol: :lol: :lol: What a load of bovine excrement. It was a local TV station in Tampa that was affiliated with Fox and it was hardly a SCOTUS case. If lying on the news was illegal... then Axlerod lied about 100 times in the last week! He should be JAILED! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you even aware of what SCOTUS stands for?

 

[Nordling]

When it comes to news, popularity is nothing without credibility. You think people would be keeping Fox on top if they had no credibility?

As to the marketing angle, that's like a model's avatar... it attracts people to visit but they won't stay or keep coming back if it's a lousy show.

To your question, the answer is yes. Remember, Fox may be the top rated CABLE NEWS outlet but it fails to be on top compared to its non-news competitors...stuff like Sponge Bob. It also fails when compared with broadcast networks.

Comparing Cable news to Spongebob and non-cable news is meaningless.

Because of the lack of credibility, the telling of legal lies (Fox won a SCOTUS case to be able to lie legally), it simply tells us that the average Fox viewer is a niche in the population with lousy ability to discern quality, credibility, and facts.

Now you sound like Olberman. Where is a link to this famous SCOTUS case you speak of?

No idea what "sound like Olberman is supposed to mean but, you really should pay attention to big stories and quit watching Fox.

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

That's the big SCOTUS case you're talking about? :lol: :lol: :lol: What a load of bovine excrement. It was a local TV station in Tampa that was affiliated with Fox and it was hardly a SCOTUS case. If lying on the news was illegal... then Axlerod lied about 100 times in the last week! He should be JAILED! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you even aware of what SCOTUS stands for?

Can you list the 100 times Axelrod allegedly lied?

In the case it wasn't about a crime being committed but LAWSUIT, in which a fairly large award was reversed by an appeals court on a technicality. The POINT is, whether if was Fox News or a local affiliate is that Fox appealed and won "the right to lie" by not having to pay a fine or pay the plaintiffs.

In a dream world, a company accused of intimidating an employee to LIE under any circumstances would be adequate for a winning lawsuit.

I guess you don't care about people being intimidated to lie, and in fact laugh when they lose their job. And I guess you think an organization that thinks it's fine to behave that way is a good source of news.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Style and presentation? It's meant to be news, not Dancing With The Idiots. You just made the equivalent argument of saying a rock band is amazing because they have awesome costumes and lots of lasers and smoke and shit at their show.

Naw it is meant to be a network that gets viewers and makes money. It does a good job of making money for Mr.Murdoch. Reporting news is only a secondary concern. The problem is cable TV news is pretty much the equivalent of Kiss's musical talent, so the crazy a costumes and lasers that Kiss use to do make it a better show. I have yet to hear somebody present an argument why CNN news shows, much less MSNBC are significantly better than Fox's news shows.

 

[Nordling]

Style and presentation? It's meant to be news, not Dancing With The Idiots. You just made the equivalent argument of saying a rock band is amazing because they have awesome costumes and lots of lasers and smoke and shit at their show.

Naw it is meant to be a network that gets viewers and makes money. It does a good job of making money for Mr.Murdoch. Reporting news is only a secondary concern. The problem is cable TV news is pretty much the equivalent of Kiss's musical talent, so the crazy a costumes and lasers that Kiss use to do make it a better show. I have yet to hear somebody present an argument why CNN news shows, much less MSNBC are significantly better than Fox's news shows.

I have to agree in general. Cable news "shows" are a terrible way to get news. Read a newspaper. Until Murdoch added it to his harem of news outlets, I trusted even the staid, conservative Wall Street Journal for their news. News stories should be accurate and unslanted, no matter who owns or runs an outlet. And for the most part that's still true...but only for the printed sources. Exceptions certainly exist. I would NOT trust The Washington Times, e.g. (Moonie Owned)

 

[Bocefish]

The LOCAL courts ruled there was no law to uphold the lawsuit, period.

SCOTUS had NOTHING to do with it.

Fox company supplied the lawyers to defend their client and uphold the law. Fox is a lot more than just news in case you weren't aware. They have their own local stations all over the states that host local news along with some great TV shows.

The FOX news I and others have been talking about is the CABLE NEWS stations. One local Tampa station's actions does not mean that Fox cable news lies or all news stations lie.