Friendly Fire at Faux News

[*michaelsean*]

(03-23-2018, 08:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Michael, Looking at the audience size of the highest rated cable news program and saying that on any given night there are not enough numbers to "seize power" misses how Fox exercises its influence.

E.g., some people watch Fox News and choose their presidential advisors and cabinet members from its commentators, right?

By supporting uncritical and fringe views, and undermining "liberal" news organizations with higher standards, all they have to do is expand the existing right wing voting base enough to shave 3-5% off center or independent voters in critical states to "seize power."  And don't forget that Fox commentator Rush Limbaugh claims between 8-12 million listeners each week. Think of Hannity and Levin and Savage as well.  How many of the 39% of Trump supporters were nurtured in this media environment, even if they don't watch on a given night?

And who IS "in power" right now, riding a wave of birther fame and anti-government sentiment?  How many people are actually needed to keep enough congressmen from checking presidential power?

Rush isn't with Fox.  There is no data that I know of that says they are shaving off 3-5% of independent voters. If everyone who watched Fox voted, and voted for a Republican, that's 2 percent. People seek out Fox.  Fox doesn't convert.  And it's still a drop in the bucket to the 3 major networks which probably get 25-30 million between them.  

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 08:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Rush isn't with Fox.  There is no data that I know of that says they are shaving off 3-5% of independent voters. If everyone who watched Fox voted, and voted for a Republican, that's 2 percent. People seek out Fox.  Fox doesn't convert.  And it's still a drop in the bucket to the 3 major networks which probably get 25-30 million between them.  

How many people from the 3 major networks are on the current president's cabinet and national security council?  Which of the 3 major networks does Trump tune into everyday, once he pushes aside his "boring" PDB?

To repeat, assessing nightly audience numbers and then translating them into a proportion of voters is not a very accurate or useful way to measure the influence of a news network--especially Fox.

You know of no data showing Fox shaves off independent voters? There have been a number of studies of Fox's reach and effect on viewers. Here is one, which found that in some markets its introduction correlated to a 3-28% boost in Republican voters. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/FoxVoteQJEAug07.pdf

Rush is carried by Fox affiliates nationwide, not to mention the coverage he gets as a guest commentator on Fox.
http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/rush-limbaugh/   He is a disseminator of Fox talking points, extending their reach.

I am surprised you speak of Fox in terms of "converting" or not.  All they have to do is continually keep alternative, disinformational narratives in the public sphere to create doubt and diversion, even among marginal viewers.  As you have phrased it, it would appear news media have no affect on viewers worldview at all. Where do people get their political views, and can the latter remain unaffected by the kind news information they do or don't get on a daily basis?

[*michaelsean*]

Paragraph one is on the President.

3-28%? Pretty big gap. I read about half so far, and once I got into the study, I saw a whole bunch of ways Fox DIDN'T affect anything, which I'm sure they will explain how I didn't read what I read later. Did you know that places with Fox rose 5+% while places without Fox rose 7+% in Republican voters, but that's not really real. Maybe in the 2nd half they will discuss Clinton fatigue since it's comparing 1996 to 2000. It's just possible that some independents wanted to move on. Or perhaps maybe Gore wasn't quite the candidate Clinton was and so independents moved on. I wonder what the difference between 2004 and 2008 was. I mean comparing one presidential election to the next and coming up with causation? But I've only read about half so maybe they do more.

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2018, 02:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So not really a lot of people. Certainly not enough to seize power even if Fox influenced them all which of course they didn’t. Many people would watch Fox because Fox says what they want to hear. They were always going to vote Republican. Some watch Fox because they hate them.  Some people who watch Fox don’t vote.

But you are not including the people who "never watch" but still spend so much of their time researching Fox news so that they know all the commentators and exactly what they are talking about all of the time.

What about all of those experts on Fox News who never actually watch?  Surely they are being influenced in some way.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 09:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Paragraph one is on the President.  

3-28%?  Pretty big gap.  I read about half so far, and once I got into the study, I saw a whole bunch of ways Fox DIDN'T affect   anything, which I'm sure they will explain how I didn't read what I read later.  Did you know that places with Fox rose 5+% while places without Fox rose 7+% in Republican voters, but that's not really real.  Maybe in the 2nd half they will discuss Clinton fatigue since it's comparing 1996 to 2000.  It's just possible that some independents wanted to move on.  Or perhaps maybe Gore wasn't quite the candidate Clinton was and so independents moved on.  I wonder what the difference between 2004 and 2008 was.  I mean comparing one presidential election to the next and coming up with causation?  But I've only read about half so maybe they do more.

Michael, you questioned whether Fox viewing could effect voting. There are many studies on the "Fox effect." continuous from 1996 to the present; I just gave you one.  Before you are too swayed by "places without Fox", check the conclusions.

When you say that people who watch Fox are already "converted," no doubt some are. But a great many who are on the bubble, or easily swayed by misinformation, and come to rely on Fox News, will be drawn more firmly to the Right.  When Fox first appeared in the '90s, there were still many centrists and Right-leaning people whose political views were not solidified and focused. The MSM still a certain authority for them.  Fox has "converted" those folks, in part by undermining the MSM.

So far as I can tell, studies of Fox tend to concentrate on bias in the reporting and misinformed beliefs of the viewership.  The latter is especially important, when considering topics like climate science and the Iraq war. One generally doesn't believe climate change is a hoax and Bush DID find WMDs--and then pull the lever for a Democrat.

So there is an interesting issue here. I wonder how many people believe, and to what degree, that the daily political information pumped from news sources has little or no effect on political beliefs. Hopefully no one argues that political beliefs have no effect on voting.

But remember my essential point--you can't just point to prime time viewing numbers, guess voter percentages, and assume you have closed the case on Fox's influence.  That one news channel has become a veritable think tank for U.S. domestic and foreign policy.  No news organization has EVER had such direct influence on U.S. politics in the history of the Republic. One of its worst, most biased and histrionic commentators now heads the Security Council of the POTUS.

[ballsofsteel]

(03-23-2018, 09:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Paragraph one is on the President.  

3-28%?  Pretty big gap.  I read about half so far, and once I got into the study, I saw a whole bunch of ways Fox DIDN'T affect   anything, which I'm sure they will explain how I didn't read what I read later.  Did you know that places with Fox rose 5+% while places without Fox rose 7+% in Republican voters, but that's not really real.  Maybe in the 2nd half they will discuss Clinton fatigue since it's comparing 1996 to 2000.  It's just possible that some independents wanted to move on.  Or perhaps maybe Gore wasn't quite the candidate Clinton was and so independents moved on.  I wonder what the difference between 2004 and 2008 was.  I mean comparing one presidential election to the next and coming up with causation?  But I've only read about half so maybe they do more.

Wow, your spouting off a lot of figures and numbers about Faux, I mean Drumph ?News. You must of done a lot of research. You appear to be obsessed with them. Are these figures your opinion or based on fact. I find it funny that you are always defending such an obvious biased right wing hate site. Keep up the good work.

[Millhouse]

I like Fox when Shephard Smith is on. Otherwise they are as useful as CNN or MSNBC are to me, as all of them are biased overall and are anything but a true news network.


Fyi Smith is gay, and is at odds with the likes of Hannity who I cant stand.

[Dill]

(03-22-2018, 02:26 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: http://www.money.cnn.com/2018/03/21/media/ralph-peters-fox-news-employees/index.html

Hey guyz, this is what we should be talking about!

In the note to a handful of colleagues, Peters said that he could not in good conscience renew his contract with the network, explaining that he believed Fox News had become a "propaganda machine" for President Donald Trump. . . . .

Peters' note, however, underscored the divide at Fox News between the network's opinion programming and hard news. Peters cited the Fox News opinion hosts' relentless attacks on the FBI, Justice Department, intelligence agencies, and other branches of government and said he believed Fox News was knowingly causing harm to the country in exchange for profit. His comments helped expand a rift that has grown incredibly deep as of late, the longtime Fox News employee told CNN.

It seems to me that with Trump's election, Fox moved past undermining the legitimate press and now works also to undermine the intel services. That is largely what has moved Peters, the soldier patriot, to reject another contract.

"The Obama deep state" thesis is a narrative that keeps his base behind Trump and the Congress which would normally check his excesses. And it is primary fuelled by Fox commentators.

That is bad for the country.  

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 04:49 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Wow, your spouting off a lot of figures and numbers about Faux, I mean Drumph ?News. You must of done a lot of research. You appear to be obsessed with them. Are these figures your opinion or based on fact. I find it funny that you are always defending such an obvious biased right wing hate site. Keep up the good work.

(03-23-2018, 11:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But you are not including the people who "never watch" but still spend so much of their time researching Fox news so that they know all the commentators and exactly what they are talking about all of the time.

What about all of those experts on Fox News who never actually watch?  Surely they are being influenced in some way.

Hey friends, ease up a little. Michael is reading/assessing a study. I'd like to hear what he thinks about it.

The conversation will be over if we don't respect each other.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-23-2018, 02:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So not really a lot of people. Certainly not enough to seize power even if Fox influenced them all which of course they didn’t. Many people would watch Fox because Fox says what they want to hear. They were always going to vote Republican. Some watch Fox because they hate them. Some people who watch Fox don’t vote.

(03-23-2018, 04:49 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Wow, your spouting off a lot of figures and numbers about Faux, I mean Drumph ?News. You must of done a lot of research. You appear to be obsessed with them. Are these figures your opinion or based on fact. I find it funny that you are always defending such an obvious biased right wing hate site. Keep up the good work.

Uhhh...it’s from the study Dill posted. I take it you don’t embarrass easily.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-23-2018, 05:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Hey friends, ease up a little. Michael is reading/assessing a study. I'd like to hear what he thinks about it.

The conversation will be over if we don't respect each other.

Oh that’s quite alright. I just have to avoid getting caught up in the stupidity.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-23-2018, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Michael, you questioned whether Fox viewing could effect voting. There are many studies on the "Fox effect." continuous from 1996 to the present; I just gave you one.  Before you are too swayed by "places without Fox", check the conclusions.

When you say that people who watch Fox are already "converted," no doubt some are. But a great many who are on the bubble, or easily swayed by misinformation, and come to rely on Fox News, will be drawn more firmly to the Right.  When Fox first appeared in the '90s, there were still many centrists and Right-leaning people whose political views were not solidified and focused. The MSM still a certain authority for them.  Fox has "converted" those folks, in part by undermining the MSM.

So far as I can tell, studies of Fox tend to concentrate on bias in the reporting and misinformed beliefs of the viewership.  The latter is especially important, when considering topics like climate science and the Iraq war. One generally doesn't believe climate change is a hoax and Bush DID find WMDs--and then pull the lever for a Democrat.

So there is an interesting issue here. I wonder how many people believe, and to what degree, that the daily political information pumped from news sources has little or no effect on political beliefs. Hopefully no one argues that political beliefs have no effect on voting.

But remember my essential point--you can't just point to prime time viewing numbers, guess voter percentages, and assume you have closed the case on Fox's influence.  That one news channel has become a veritable think tank for U.S. domestic and foreign policy.  No news organization has EVER had such direct influence on U.S. politics in the history of the Republic. One of its worst, most biased and histrionic commentators now heads the Security Council of the POTUS.

Well like I said I only read about half of the one you posted, and that wasn’t at all convincing, but I’ll get to the rest. I really don’t care either way, people have a right to do any of this, it just doesn’t seem plausible

But let’s say you are correct, do you think something should be done about it on a government level?

[ballsofsteel]

(03-23-2018, 05:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh that’s quite alright. I just have to avoid getting caught up in the stupidity.

In that case stop watching Faux news.  Watch Jake Tapper, the most trusted name in news.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 05:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But let’s say you are correct, do you think something should be done about it on a government level?

Thanks primarily to Fox and affiliates, millions of people currently believe that an Obama deep state (in the FBI and CIA) is trying desperately to stop Trump.  Hence all the lies and fake news about the dear leader.

Were the government to denounce them or limit their free speech or shut them down, that would be clinching proof that "the establishment" was taking government away from the people's chosen leader, and hence from the people themselves. And how would such government action be possible without the executive and congress on board?

Very hard then, to get that horse back in the barn.

Federal and state governments might do something about school curricula, requiring courses on media literacy, and more course work in US/world history, including a history of how democracies have fallen from the inside. (I wish all HS seniors were required to take a course on Thucydides The Peloponnesian War; great model for understanding US foreign adventures over the last 30 years, not to mention the perils of democracy and demogogues.)  But that in itself might be seen as government indoctrination.

A more immediate remedy would be  for the MSM taking this issue of disinformation and collusion between Fox and the Executive branch more seriously. The Trump/Fox base won't follow their reporting, but they could do a better job of explaining traditional precedents of Presidential behavior, not to mention how the intelligence services work, and how unlikely it is that cabals can work in them the way people think they can.  Also patriots within Fox and affiliates could start doing exactly what Peters has done. And  Congressmen and other prominent elected officials could do the same. Fox would have to report on it then, and their commentators would have to publicly debate the merits of conspiracy theories with reference to some journalistic standards other than their own.

[hollodero]

(03-23-2018, 05:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But let’s say you are correct, do you think something should be done about it on a government level?

Jumping in completely unsolicited like some creepy clown, I'd be happy if people just wouldn't say the other networks are just as biased and it's just two sides of the same coin. Because that's not accurate at all. Apart from that, nah.

--
Also, it more and more seems FOX is a policy maker these times. Trump retweets FOX, changes his position based on FOX, hires people he sees on FOX. Now that just can't be good.