3 ms·

I never watch/read fox nor cnn. I only secondarily end up reading them through other sources. >Watching Fox News can be like entering an alternative universe.

I never watch/read fox nor cnn. I only secondarily end up reading them through other sources. >Watching Fox News can be like entering an alternative universe. That's literally how they open the article? https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/02/21/cnns-ratings-collapse-prime-time-down-nearly-70-in-key-demo/?sh=1dd002066dda https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/02/21/cnns-rat... CNN ratings are WAY down. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/cnn-plus-low-viewership-numbers-warner-bros-discovery.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/cnn-plus-low-viewership-numb... CNN+ flopped. I could also link several high profile people resigning or being fired. What this article should be about is understanding why CNN is collapsing and what Fox news is doing right. >Given the steady stream of misinformation an avid Fox News consumer is subjected to, the viewers – predominantly elderly, white and Donald Trump-supporting Fox news = steady stream of misinformation? really? >Most of the CNN switchers stuck to the length of the task, according to the study. But once it was over, and the $15 an hour was taken away, “viewers returned to watching Fox News”, Kalla said. Of course they did. Lets discuss what they should have discussed. Fox news during the oreilly/hannity era was pretty trash. How awful was hannity/colmes? Oreilly? omg no. They'd cut off guests who werent giving the answer they like. It was bad. They took the criticism and took a long time to improve. Meanwhile on CNN you had Tucker Carlsen vs James Carville. That was some good stuff. 2 very smart people representing opposing sides going at it. Now today... you have nothing but utter trash coming out of CNN. The most recent hilarity is that Brian Stelter was at a 'disinformation' event. Presumably to answer for CNN's disinformation? Yet it took some kid from the crowd to ask Stelter about CNN's disinformation and he had no response. CNN needs to do some reflecting like fox news did back in the day. https://theweek.com/cnn/1012688/cnns-new-ceo-leaves-twitter-arguing-it-can-skew-whats-really-important https://theweek.com/cnn/1012688/cnns-new-ceo-leaves-twitter-... Journalism leaving twitter predated elon's poll on free speech. Obviously the implication is that they have reflected some. >"We can rely too much on Twitter as a reporting or feedback tool — which is especially harmful to our journalism when our feeds become echo chambers," Baquet said in a memo Nytimes guy said it. What happened is that conservatives were censored enough on twitter that it resulted in people experiencing echo chambers. It skews your view and therefore they end up in a circular feedback that hides criticism of your work. You start hearing echos and you stop reporting on reality. NYTimes during the Ottawa freedom protest https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/opinion/ottawa-trucker-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/opinion/ottawa-trucker-pr... >uring the protests after the murder of George Floyd — is to maintain a balance between public health and safety and a functioning society, with the right to free expression. Entertaining the use of force to disperse or contain legal protests is wrong. The NYTimes escaped their echo chamber and provided a legitimate opinion here. I applaud them for being consistent here, they dont agree with the goals of the protest but they understand why it must be allowed to happen. 4 days after they published this, Trudeau used force to utterly crush the legal protest. Conservatives in Canada no longer have the right to protest.

samhw 5y ago
I’m not quite sure how this screed is relevant to the article. The point of the study isn’t “Fox News bad, CNN good” (so the counterargument of “Fox News good, CNN bad” doesn’t really hit home). The point is about the nature of people’s beliefs and whether they can be convinced by a news source which they have – as both left- and right-wing outlets strive to do – been primed to dismiss and distrust. I mean, I understand your response to the Guardian’s favourable/unfavourable descriptions of CNN and Fox News respectively, but … well, what do you expect, really? I agree that the endless “here’s what you should think” adjectival avalanche is extraordinarily boring, and personally I tune out of it too, but it’s also utterly ordinary and inevitable. Speaking for myself, I was much happier once I started treating other people’s views not as an assault on my own, but as … just that, really, another person’s view, a fact of life just like a chair or a cucumber.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >’m not quite sure how this screed is relevant to the article. The point of the study isn’t “Fox News bad, CNN good” (so the counterargument of “Fox News good, CNN bad” doesn’t really hit home). I opened my post as such. I have no dog in the race. The far more interesting and poignant is indeed fox news good. Their ratings are sky high. Which is an important detail not to forget. When the study gets involved. They are studying that watching CNN can change your opinion but ultimately they go back to fox news. Because it is better. >The point is about the nature of people’s beliefs and whether they can be convinced by a news source which they have – as both left- and right-wing outlets strive to do – been primed to dismiss and distrust. I agree, but what I quoted is that they ultimately go back to fox news and this can be confirmed by much higher ratings. >I mean, I understand your response to the Guardian’s favourable/unfavourable descriptions of CNN and Fox News respectively, but … well, what do you expect, really? Guardian is also not a primary news source for me. I generally had a good opinion of them but I just looked up their media bias. A below 'mostly factual' score card is bad. Your response kind of got me to check on that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. > I agree that the endless “here’s what you should think” adjectival avalanche is extraordinarily boring, and personally I tune out of it too, but it’s also utterly ordinary and inevitable. Agreed. >Speaking for myself, I was much happier once I started treating other people’s views not as an assault on my own, but as … just that, really, another person’s view, a fact of life just like a chair or a cucumber. I am kind of inbetween here. Most people I find will not be an ideologue and usually can have a good convo with. However, there are absolutely people who are assaulting their views upon. They wish to force upon us. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/497005-when-you-wake-up-in-the-morning-tell-yourself-the https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/497005-when-you-wake-up-in-... In a way I realize the author of the article won't read my nobody comment, I don't wish to turn my back to this author. The idea of my post is to show, 'what was fox news doing wrong back then? and what are they doing right now?" Imagine they don't trust my words but they see nytimes and cnn admitting to their echo chamber. That they see the evil.

samhw 5y ago

I’m not quite sure how this screed is relevant to the article. The point of the study isn’t “Fox News bad, CNN good” (so the counterargument of “Fox News good, CNN bad” doesn’t really hit home). The point is about the nature of people’s beliefs and whether they can be convinced by a news source which they have – as both left- and right-wing outlets strive to do – been primed to dismiss and distrust. I mean, I understand your response to the Guardian’s favourable/unfavourable descriptions of CNN and Fox News respectively, but … well, what do you expect, really? I agree that the endless “here’s what you should think” adjectival avalanche is extraordinarily boring, and personally I tune out of it too, but it’s also utterly ordinary and inevitable. Speaking for myself, I was much happier once I started treating other people’s views not as an assault on my own, but as … just that, really, another person’s view, a fact of life just like a chair or a cucumber.

incomingpain 5y ago
>’m not quite sure how this screed is relevant to the article. The point of the study isn’t “Fox News bad, CNN good” (so the counterargument of “Fox News good, CNN bad” doesn’t really hit home). I opened my post as such. I have no dog in the race. The far more interesting and poignant is indeed fox news good. Their ratings are sky high. Which is an important detail not to forget. When the study gets involved. They are studying that watching CNN can change your opinion but ultimately they go back to fox news. Because it is better. >The point is about the nature of people’s beliefs and whether they can be convinced by a news source which they have – as both left- and right-wing outlets strive to do – been primed to dismiss and distrust. I agree, but what I quoted is that they ultimately go back to fox news and this can be confirmed by much higher ratings. >I mean, I understand your response to the Guardian’s favourable/unfavourable descriptions of CNN and Fox News respectively, but … well, what do you expect, really? Guardian is also not a primary news source for me. I generally had a good opinion of them but I just looked up their media bias. A below 'mostly factual' score card is bad. Your response kind of got me to check on that. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. > I agree that the endless “here’s what you should think” adjectival avalanche is extraordinarily boring, and personally I tune out of it too, but it’s also utterly ordinary and inevitable. Agreed. >Speaking for myself, I was much happier once I started treating other people’s views not as an assault on my own, but as … just that, really, another person’s view, a fact of life just like a chair or a cucumber. I am kind of inbetween here. Most people I find will not be an ideologue and usually can have a good convo with. However, there are absolutely people who are assaulting their views upon. They wish to force upon us. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/497005-when-you-wake-up-in-the-morning-tell-yourself-the https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/497005-when-you-wake-up-in-... In a way I realize the author of the article won't read my nobody comment, I don't wish to turn my back to this author. The idea of my post is to show, 'what was fox news doing wrong back then? and what are they doing right now?" Imagine they don't trust my words but they see nytimes and cnn admitting to their echo chamber. That they see the evil.