Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[Pangloss]

Okay, you I am "unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary" but you are free of ad homimens. Okay. No really, not okay. Keep those ad hominems subtle and they don't count against you, right? Right... no, not right.

 

Uh, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being straight-up. It doesn't sound like he's familiar with that concept. It wasn't meant as an attack.

 

 

It is understood that the commentator does not speak for the outlet.

It is understood? By who?

 

By you' date=' for one, or you'd have long ago leveled the same charge at CNN and MSNBC. Or have you forgotten about all your angst regarding Lou Dobbs?

 

 

you're giving carte blanche to News Corp

 

No, I'm not:

 

Only enough to agree with you 100% about its bias toward the right. Only enough to notice that it is like other outlets in that regard. Only enough to notice that it has political commentators who like to get people riled up over some ideological position, just like most major news outlets.

[Mr Skeptic]

It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary, which is practiced today by most major news outlets. It is understood that the commentator does not speak for the outlet. Liberal Paul Krugman does not speak for the New York Times any more than conservative David Brooks does.

 

Of course I'm familiar with paid political commentary. The commentator should not be taken as speaking for their network word for word as their spokesman. The network just agrees with his overall message, and they will fire him should that fact change.

[Pangloss]

Of course I'm familiar with paid political commentary. The commentator should not be taken as speaking for their network word for word as their spokesman.

 

Quite right.

 

 

The network just agrees with his overall message, and they will fire him should that fact change.

 

I disagree. Outlets don't fire their pundits because they disagree with their message, they fire them because their message causes unwanted attention for the outlet. It's all fine and dandy when they're bringing in more listeners, but when they make an outrageous claim that causes demonstrators to appear outside the station and advertisers to call in a panic, support evaporates rapidly.

 

Certainly the 9.12 and tea party stuff suits Fox News Channel's ideological bias. CNN and MSNBC commentators suit their ideological bias as well. Commentators show up at rallies and organize their activities, and those activities frequently suit the outlets that employ them. There's nothing ground-breaking about this. It's not a revelation.

 

What's not evidenced here is that any of these outlets actually participate in the organization of such demonstrations. They prefer to keep a professional distance so that they can't be accused of creating the news, and they're not liable if something goes wrong.

 

And it isn't necessary -- the pundits do just fine without their help.

[bascule]

Outlets don't fire their pundits because they disagree with their message, they fire them because their message causes unwanted attention for the outlet.

 

So how do we interpret Fox not firing Beck after Beck has caused an advertising boycott and cost Fox many of their sponsors?

[Pangloss]

Obviously from their perspective Beck's "pros" still outweigh his "cons". Perhaps whatever attention you're referring to was less than the perceived increase in advertising revenue, viewers, etc.

[bascule]

Obviously from their perspective Beck's "pros" still outweigh his "cons". Perhaps whatever attention you're referring to was less than the perceived increase in advertising revenue, viewers, etc.

 

As I work for a media company I can tell you the bottom line generally trumps all. Looking at the Jay Leno / Conan deal, the decision was entirely motivated by the bottom line. A personality conflict erupted between Leno and Conan and one of them had to go. Leno had the bigger contract and would've been the bigger loss, so despite Leno being doomed to a shrinking audience and Conan having actual growth potential, they canned Conan.

 

Is Beck hurting Fox's bottom line? I don't know. He's bringing more viewers but alienating advertisers. The whole thing seems fishy to me, though.

[jackson33]

As I work for a media company I can tell you the bottom line generally trumps all.[/Quote]

 

bascule; An interesting and telling comment in itself, explaining a possible motive for many of your post.

 

Is Beck hurting Fox's bottom line? I don't know. He's bringing more viewers but alienating advertisers. The whole thing seems fishy to me, though.[/Quote]

 

While I've never directly worked for media, I have promoted a good many projects/programs and designed local advertising for them. Advertising 101, there is no such thing as bad advertising. The idea of any, is getting the name brand out there and discussed. Additionally and you should know this, programmed media is dependent on 'lead in' and 'lead out' programs and Beck has been the gorilla in the field in serving the five o'clock hour. When Beck started, not only did he bring his hour, out of the lowest rated hour for FNC, but increased both the 4 and 6 o'clock hours, which had been sliding, along with the prices they can get for advertising.

 

A great deal of advertising today were formerly half hour infomercial's, done in 15-30 seconds to that larger audience. Payments are 'response based' and often can be more profitable than direct cost per spot. Most of Limbaugh's advertising today is response based and he claims their bottom line has increased both last year and this, for this reason, as was Beck's radio program and now for FNC in general. There is nothing "fishy" going on, Beck, FNC and Murdoch have played a pretty good hand and it's paid off....

 

An advertising recovery helped cable channels such as Fox News and FX; News Corp.'s cable network programming unit posted operating income of $588 million, a 38 percent increase. [/Quote]

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_news_corp_4

[bascule]

I'm just going to throw this out here and see what the Fox apologists around here say...

 

8x-5wI_64x0

[Pangloss]

I made it through 1:47. According to this partisan hack whom you've put forth as some kind of objective informer, Fox News "edited out of the constitution" the restrictions on treason. Just chopped 'em right out of there, and now they no longer exist. Terrifying! Clearly we all need to register to vote Democrat immediately.

 

Why aren't you accusing that commentator of doing exactly the same thing that Fox News is doing? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

And why aren't you applying THIS policy:

 

Psst' date=' just because a newspaper includes a quote doesn't make it a "suggestion" on the part of the newspaper.

[/quote']

 

Or am I just "equivocating things which are simply no where close to being equal" again?

 

And more to the point, just because an outlet explores a question raised by the public doesn't mean that the constitutional right they're questioning has been eliminated from the constitution.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

According to this partisan hack

 

...and we're already to the ad hominems! Pangloss, am I confused? Aren't you supposed to be the moderator of this forum? Perhaps you could lead by example?

 

whom you've put forth as some kind of objective informer

 

Yes, let's see how exactly how he was "put forth as some kind of objective informer"...

 

I'm just going to throw this out here...

 

 

You know what... I'm done. Two fallacies in two sentences (when the first sentence was "I made it through 1:47.") is enough for me thanks, I'm full.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I can't even imagine liberals using scare tactics -- no no, it's only Fox News that uses exaggeration and fear to fight their ideological enemies!

 

UYKQJ4-N7LI

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think I've had quite enough of this.