7 ms·

Imagine... If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points. Or a network like Fox o

Imagine... If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points. Or a network like Fox or MSNBC went all in on party loyalty and based all their content on party talking points. Or a media conglomerate like Sinclair or Clear Channel pushed out political messaging to their affiliates in small markets that had to be aired during prime viewership. oh wait...

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
The goal in for-profit communication is always going to be the same: getting return visits. The best way to do that is to tell people what they want to hear. This is why Rush and Fox and MSNBC and Breitbart have the content they have. This is also what Facebook is doing. However, since they have the advantage of being able to complete personalize your feed to give you what you want, they can provide 100% coverage across all demographics.
- Danihan 9y ago
  >The best way to do that is to tell people what they want to hear. It's about providing validation and reassurance. Which doesn't always require telling people what they want to hear, but it certainly helps. Rush and Fox and Breitbart exist because there is a need -- millions of people who are seeking emotional validation that their worldviews are correct. It's the same reason left-leaning publications exist. Emotional validation disguised as news.
threeseed 9y ago
I never understand why people put Fox News and MSNBC on the same pedestal. Fox News is an an outreach of Trump's political apparatchik. MSNBC was never particularly close to Obama.
- adjkant 9y ago
  Why are people downvoting this? What is incorrect here?
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Fox News is following its viewers’ sentiment; it originally favored anti-Trump stories prior to his nomination by the Republican Party. Now it pushes the Trump line, but this is due to the fact that Fox News rightly recognizes that its viewers want their biases confirmed.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      As does CNBC and CNN, admittedly to a far lesser degree, except theirs is the "correct" bias.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        CNN has bias that fluctuates wildly toward the perceived flavor of the week; it operates for maximum sensationalism. It basically invented the 24-hour news cycle and hasn’t altered its formula for decades. CNBC is business news; did you mean MSNBC? MSNBC has the least viewership of the three and I would not consider it particularly influential. It is biased towards a minority ultra-Democrat position, hence its relatively lower viewership due to its fringe editorial content.
        starik36 9y ago
        CNN's bias is firmly anti-Trump and it doesn't fluctuates in any way, shape or form. You can go to their home page and at any point, there will be some anti-Trump headlines.
        linkregister 9y ago
        You don’t think it’s coincidental that most Americans will click on a negative Trump article? CNN is a trend follower, not a leader in this regard.
      - fleitz 9y ago
        To be fair to Fox News I don't recall anyone in the RNC resigning because they gave candidates debate questions they were privy to as corespondents. (Donna Brazile)
- Steeeve 9y ago
  I wouldn't put them on a pedestal. And to think that MSNBC airs any kind of content that is non-partisan is a joke.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    I never said MSNBC wasn't partisan. But Fox News literally coordinates with the Trump team and he lavishes them personally with praise via Twitter almost every week. It's far more akin to campaign outreach rather than independent news. This never happened with Obama or the DNC. MSNBC also does have independent journalists e.g. Chuck Todd and right-wing commentators e.g. Hugh Hewitt, Joe Scarborough etc. So it's not entirely liberal.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - akkat 9y ago
      > This never happened when Obama or the DNC Except of course when CNN gave the debate questions to Hillary in advance. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...
  - favorited 9y ago
    There are Republicans with shows on MSBBC. Nicolle Wallace has an hour each afternoon – she was Bush's comms director & and worked for McCain's presidential campaign. Joe Scarborough was a Republican member of congress, and he gets 3 hours of MSNBC air per day.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tajen 9y ago
I’m happy 52m voters still voted for Trump, despite all media being on Hillary’s side (TV, social networks, Hollywood, etc, except what, FoxNews and Breitbart which wouldn’t have an audience if people weren’t disgusted of MSM). It proves people don’t vote what they’re told to. Note: If you don’t believe it, try to listen to conversations in uncensored areas, places where there’s no social push to behave in a certain way.
- krapp 9y ago
  >It proves people don’t vote what they’re told to. ... except for all of the people who voted for Trump because they were told to, or because of the conspiratorial BS fed to them by the right and alt media. It's not actually true that all media was on Hillary's side - that's just propaganda fed to Trump supporters to discourage them from thinking critically about their candidate, and only trust in the cult of personality. You shouldn't be happy that it worked. >places where there’s no social push to behave in a certain way. Try to go to those places and make pro liberal, pro feminist, pro multicultural or, hell, even pro Israel comments and see where it gets you. There is definitely a social push to behave a certain way in most "uncensored" communities because such communities are usually started by or attract right or alt-right posters escaping what they believe to be the censorship of "politically correct" society.
  - tajen 9y ago
    I’m outside USA and studied the election from a feminism axis. Geek as we all are here, I tracked the original studies and discovered that literally every statistics said by feminists, namely Hillary Clinton and Obama, is false. It’s mind blowing, they just misrepresent the studied group, or the hypothesis, they omit a whole part of the study, every-single-time, not a thing from feminists can be trusted. You will believe I started from an ideological stance, but I only started because I was surprised at the big, announced figures and wanted to geek into it. I only ended up, indeed, meeting « those guys » because I was trying to expose the mismatch between journalism and underlying scientific studies, not the opposite. And I discovered there are whole groups who do that already, it’s just MSM who lie on science. Plain lies, such as saying the opposite as the science paper (the example I have in mind is « Women can multitask, men can’t », saying it’s nonconclusive, and the corresponding BBC article saying it’s an unequivocal fact).
TheRealDunkirk 9y ago
> If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points. I happened to catch his comments about the FCC's pending net neutrality reversal, and he was wholly in support of it. There's no way you can argue for that unless you've been captured by the minority of interests/majority of money that wanted it to happen.

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

The goal in for-profit communication is always going to be the same: getting return visits. The best way to do that is to tell people what they want to hear. This is why Rush and Fox and MSNBC and Breitbart have the content they have. This is also what Facebook is doing. However, since they have the advantage of being able to complete personalize your feed to give you what you want, they can provide 100% coverage across all demographics.

Danihan 9y ago
>The best way to do that is to tell people what they want to hear. It's about providing validation and reassurance. Which doesn't always require telling people what they want to hear, but it certainly helps. Rush and Fox and Breitbart exist because there is a need -- millions of people who are seeking emotional validation that their worldviews are correct. It's the same reason left-leaning publications exist. Emotional validation disguised as news.

threeseed 9y ago

I never understand why people put Fox News and MSNBC on the same pedestal. Fox News is an an outreach of Trump's political apparatchik. MSNBC was never particularly close to Obama.

adjkant 9y ago
Why are people downvoting this? What is incorrect here?
- linkregister 9y ago
  Fox News is following its viewers’ sentiment; it originally favored anti-Trump stories prior to his nomination by the Republican Party. Now it pushes the Trump line, but this is due to the fact that Fox News rightly recognizes that its viewers want their biases confirmed.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    As does CNBC and CNN, admittedly to a far lesser degree, except theirs is the "correct" bias.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      CNN has bias that fluctuates wildly toward the perceived flavor of the week; it operates for maximum sensationalism. It basically invented the 24-hour news cycle and hasn’t altered its formula for decades. CNBC is business news; did you mean MSNBC? MSNBC has the least viewership of the three and I would not consider it particularly influential. It is biased towards a minority ultra-Democrat position, hence its relatively lower viewership due to its fringe editorial content.
      - starik36 9y ago
        CNN's bias is firmly anti-Trump and it doesn't fluctuates in any way, shape or form. You can go to their home page and at any point, there will be some anti-Trump headlines.
        linkregister 9y ago
        You don’t think it’s coincidental that most Americans will click on a negative Trump article? CNN is a trend follower, not a leader in this regard.
    - fleitz 9y ago
      To be fair to Fox News I don't recall anyone in the RNC resigning because they gave candidates debate questions they were privy to as corespondents. (Donna Brazile)
Steeeve 9y ago
I wouldn't put them on a pedestal. And to think that MSNBC airs any kind of content that is non-partisan is a joke.
- threeseed 9y ago
  I never said MSNBC wasn't partisan. But Fox News literally coordinates with the Trump team and he lavishes them personally with praise via Twitter almost every week. It's far more akin to campaign outreach rather than independent news. This never happened with Obama or the DNC. MSNBC also does have independent journalists e.g. Chuck Todd and right-wing commentators e.g. Hugh Hewitt, Joe Scarborough etc. So it's not entirely liberal.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - akkat 9y ago
    > This never happened when Obama or the DNC Except of course when CNN gave the debate questions to Hillary in advance. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/do...
- favorited 9y ago
  There are Republicans with shows on MSBBC. Nicolle Wallace has an hour each afternoon – she was Bush's comms director & and worked for McCain's presidential campaign. Joe Scarborough was a Republican member of congress, and he gets 3 hours of MSNBC air per day.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tajen 9y ago

I’m happy 52m voters still voted for Trump, despite all media being on Hillary’s side (TV, social networks, Hollywood, etc, except what, FoxNews and Breitbart which wouldn’t have an audience if people weren’t disgusted of MSM). It proves people don’t vote what they’re told to. Note: If you don’t believe it, try to listen to conversations in uncensored areas, places where there’s no social push to behave in a certain way.

krapp 9y ago
>It proves people don’t vote what they’re told to. ... except for all of the people who voted for Trump because they were told to, or because of the conspiratorial BS fed to them by the right and alt media. It's not actually true that all media was on Hillary's side - that's just propaganda fed to Trump supporters to discourage them from thinking critically about their candidate, and only trust in the cult of personality. You shouldn't be happy that it worked. >places where there’s no social push to behave in a certain way. Try to go to those places and make pro liberal, pro feminist, pro multicultural or, hell, even pro Israel comments and see where it gets you. There is definitely a social push to behave a certain way in most "uncensored" communities because such communities are usually started by or attract right or alt-right posters escaping what they believe to be the censorship of "politically correct" society.
- tajen 9y ago
  I’m outside USA and studied the election from a feminism axis. Geek as we all are here, I tracked the original studies and discovered that literally every statistics said by feminists, namely Hillary Clinton and Obama, is false. It’s mind blowing, they just misrepresent the studied group, or the hypothesis, they omit a whole part of the study, every-single-time, not a thing from feminists can be trusted. You will believe I started from an ideological stance, but I only started because I was surprised at the big, announced figures and wanted to geek into it. I only ended up, indeed, meeting « those guys » because I was trying to expose the mismatch between journalism and underlying scientific studies, not the opposite. And I discovered there are whole groups who do that already, it’s just MSM who lie on science. Plain lies, such as saying the opposite as the science paper (the example I have in mind is « Women can multitask, men can’t », saying it’s nonconclusive, and the corresponding BBC article saying it’s an unequivocal fact).

TheRealDunkirk 9y ago

> If somebody like Rush Limbaugh had a nationwide radio show where day by day he created content based on RNC talking points. I happened to catch his comments about the FCC's pending net neutrality reversal, and he was wholly in support of it. There's no way you can argue for that unless you've been captured by the minority of interests/majority of money that wanted it to happen.