5 ms·

It's hard to reach normal people, too. At least here in America the right wing has consolidated a lot of propaganda power into cable news like Fox

ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
Cable everything is dead. FOX is doing relatively well, but they reach maybe 1% or 2% of the population, and presumably that's almost all already unshifting right-wing people. I'm not saying it's impossible that it's a propaganda power center, but I don't personally know how that would work. It feels like a leftover enemy from the early 2000s that just doesn't make sense post-internet.
- icameron 1y ago
  "According to data from Nielsen, Fox News — from the period spanning June 20 through Sept. 1 — finished as the no. 1 network in all of broadcast television during the primetime hours of 8-11 PM. During those hours, Fox News averaged 2.43 million total nightly viewers in primetime — topping ABC at 2.38 million, NBC at 2.21 million, and CBS at 2.03 million. It is the second time in the network’s history they accomplished that feat — with the other coming in the summer of 2020." Whlie it sounds accurate that maybe 1-2% of the population watches it live, it is also the most highly rated and influencing "news" outlet in the US. Their reach is far deeper than 1-2%. It gets retweeted, talked about, and trickles down. It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection. I've seen in on 24/7 in hotels and some sport bars or restaurants too.
  - bongodongobob 1y ago
    Exactly. Come to the Midwest and you'll see Fox News on in bars, oil change waiting rooms, dentist offices, etc. The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes. Except that it's the opposite. The Dakotas are over-represented in the electoral college but getting them from 60% Republican to even 99% Republican wouldn't gain them a single electoral college vote. Meanwhile states like Michigan and Ohio where changing minds could change outcomes are under-represented in terms of electoral college votes. But the vote allocations are the least impactful part of the electoral college. If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California. The primary thing the electoral college does isn't to give red states slightly more power than blue states, it's to give swing states dramatically more power than safe states.
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        > If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California. There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat. Thus California has 52 times as many reps as Wyoming although its population is about 67 times greater. > The primary thing the electoral college does isn't to give red states slightly more power than blue states, it's to give swing states dramatically more power than safe states. Strictly speaking this too could be changed to some extent without changing the electoral college itself, namely by states switching to allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, instead of winner-take all. That is entirely possible now and two states already do it, but it has minimal effect because those states are tiny. But if, for instance, you could win 20 EVs in CA by winning ~40% of the popular vote, you can bet that some campaign dollars would shift to CA from, say, Ohio, because Ohio doesn't even have a total of 20 EVs. You could win more EVs in California while losing the election than you could by winning in Ohio! But most states will not do this because usually the party that wins all the EVs is also the party that controls the state government, and they don't want to give away half their EVs to the other party.
  - ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
    If I gather right-wing propaganda retweets, what fraction do you think will be retweets of FOX clips versus retweets of a right-wing propaganda twitter account? I don't have a methodology in mind, but I'm curious and will come up with something if you think substantially higher than me (<10%). I don't see why anyone would center FOX in the current media landscape. Musk alone has more than an order of magnitude more reach. My understanding is that Nielsen does track what people encounter at hotels etc. (though only recently), so that should be included (?)
  - switchbak 1y ago
    "It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection" - you had me right until you pulled this completely out of thin air. All the main news outlets totalling less than 9 million viewers? That's not compelling at all.
    - icameron 1y ago
      Appreciate it- thanks for the feedback. I was admittedly being inflammatory, much in the spirit of the network we are discussing. In my perception it was not always this way and when it first came out I remember liking it. It was generally "fair and balanced" as their slogan was (they dropped it around 2017 when Obama left the WH). I have only been paying attention the last 30 years or so, and what started with AM radio on the fringe seems to have become mainstream in the last 25 years since 9/11 basically and has accelerated to the point we are at now in the US.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  But what about all the re-presentations of the same content in YouTube clips, etc.? It's true that cable as a delivery mechanism is declining but that doesn't necessarily mean stuff like Fox as a content source is declining in influence.
beeflet 1y ago
Blast! Those propagandists will soon have an iron grip over every nursing home in the country that forgot to cancel their cable subscription.

ToValueFunfetti 1y ago

Cable everything is dead. FOX is doing relatively well, but they reach maybe 1% or 2% of the population, and presumably that's almost all already unshifting right-wing people. I'm not saying it's impossible that it's a propaganda power center, but I don't personally know how that would work. It feels like a leftover enemy from the early 2000s that just doesn't make sense post-internet.

icameron 1y ago
"According to data from Nielsen, Fox News — from the period spanning June 20 through Sept. 1 — finished as the no. 1 network in all of broadcast television during the primetime hours of 8-11 PM. During those hours, Fox News averaged 2.43 million total nightly viewers in primetime — topping ABC at 2.38 million, NBC at 2.21 million, and CBS at 2.03 million. It is the second time in the network’s history they accomplished that feat — with the other coming in the summer of 2020." Whlie it sounds accurate that maybe 1-2% of the population watches it live, it is also the most highly rated and influencing "news" outlet in the US. Their reach is far deeper than 1-2%. It gets retweeted, talked about, and trickles down. It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection. I've seen in on 24/7 in hotels and some sport bars or restaurants too.
- bongodongobob 1y ago
  Exactly. Come to the Midwest and you'll see Fox News on in bars, oil change waiting rooms, dentist offices, etc. The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes. Except that it's the opposite. The Dakotas are over-represented in the electoral college but getting them from 60% Republican to even 99% Republican wouldn't gain them a single electoral college vote. Meanwhile states like Michigan and Ohio where changing minds could change outcomes are under-represented in terms of electoral college votes. But the vote allocations are the least impactful part of the electoral college. If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California. The primary thing the electoral college does isn't to give red states slightly more power than blue states, it's to give swing states dramatically more power than safe states.
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      > If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California. There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat. Thus California has 52 times as many reps as Wyoming although its population is about 67 times greater. > The primary thing the electoral college does isn't to give red states slightly more power than blue states, it's to give swing states dramatically more power than safe states. Strictly speaking this too could be changed to some extent without changing the electoral college itself, namely by states switching to allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, instead of winner-take all. That is entirely possible now and two states already do it, but it has minimal effect because those states are tiny. But if, for instance, you could win 20 EVs in CA by winning ~40% of the popular vote, you can bet that some campaign dollars would shift to CA from, say, Ohio, because Ohio doesn't even have a total of 20 EVs. You could win more EVs in California while losing the election than you could by winning in Ohio! But most states will not do this because usually the party that wins all the EVs is also the party that controls the state government, and they don't want to give away half their EVs to the other party.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
  If I gather right-wing propaganda retweets, what fraction do you think will be retweets of FOX clips versus retweets of a right-wing propaganda twitter account? I don't have a methodology in mind, but I'm curious and will come up with something if you think substantially higher than me (<10%). I don't see why anyone would center FOX in the current media landscape. Musk alone has more than an order of magnitude more reach. My understanding is that Nielsen does track what people encounter at hotels etc. (though only recently), so that should be included (?)
- switchbak 1y ago
  "It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection" - you had me right until you pulled this completely out of thin air. All the main news outlets totalling less than 9 million viewers? That's not compelling at all.
  - icameron 1y ago
    Appreciate it- thanks for the feedback. I was admittedly being inflammatory, much in the spirit of the network we are discussing. In my perception it was not always this way and when it first came out I remember liking it. It was generally "fair and balanced" as their slogan was (they dropped it around 2017 when Obama left the WH). I have only been paying attention the last 30 years or so, and what started with AM radio on the fringe seems to have become mainstream in the last 25 years since 9/11 basically and has accelerated to the point we are at now in the US.
BrenBarn 1y ago
But what about all the re-presentations of the same content in YouTube clips, etc.? It's true that cable as a delivery mechanism is declining but that doesn't necessarily mean stuff like Fox as a content source is declining in influence.

beeflet 1y ago

Blast! Those propagandists will soon have an iron grip over every nursing home in the country that forgot to cancel their cable subscription.