Obama rips Fox News viewers: ‘You are living on a different planet’

[JonNC]

As in the past, it doesn’t have to apply to every source before it influences the national discussion, and reduces some of the current polarization. It would swing some of the weight from the extremes towards the middle.

I don’t see that as a role for government under the 1st amendment.

 

[sallybutler]

The original logic behind regulating what was on the news shows was a that the airwaves were public and available to everyone to view.

There are still many rules the non-cable broadcasters have to adhere to, especially if they want their licenses renewed.

 

[JonNC]

The original logic behind regulating what was on the news shows was a that the airwaves were public and available to everyone to view.

There are still many rules the non-cable broadcasters have to adhere to, especially if they want their licenses renewed.

I understand the reason given, I still disagree with the concept of politicians controlling news and opinion content.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s interesting that the comment is being interpreted as antagonistic and presented as an insult. There wasn’t anything insulting about what was said; it was a comment on people with entirely different world views and different premises not being able to agree.

 

[jfz178]

I agree with @ThinkingSapien, and I like that screen name, BTW.

I have one of my masters in Media Communication, a field that researches such things. There are long proven givens:

• All media is biased.
• Despite some misguided attempts to do so, there is no valid way to say where the center is, because even that measure would have some bias, so there is no way to test whether an outlet is is left of right of it. We all have gut feel for that, but that’s all that is, a gut feel.
• Audience members, including politicians, strongly tend to watch media they agree with and criticize outlets they don’t agree with.
• It is common for people who don’t agree with an outlet to criticize it and it’s audience for all sorts of things. But it is rarely a clear-cut situation.

Fox as been the highest rated news channel for 16 years. they have something like 14 of the top 15 news programs on TV. So a large audience seeks them out because they agree with them and find them credible. The very liberal Washington Post reported that Fox also has the highest rating from their audience as being trustworthy. Fox’s left wing alter-ego, MSNBC, does not have either the viewership or the viewer confidence that Fox does.

Does that make them right? No. But it also does not make them wrong.

 

[Hereiam]

Whether right or wrong, it will all work out in the 2018 general election or 2020 at the latest.

 

[exnihilo]

When I was a kid, my family watched the news every night. We had 30 minutes of “World News”, at the end of that broadcast there might be a “commentary” segment. It was clearly established this was commentary. People selected which network to watch based on the commentary that best aligned with their world view, but, they did not have this virulent hate for the other commentators that we see today.

Now, everything is commentary. There is no line, we hate everyone who does not speak to our personal bias.

There was bias even in the non commentary portion. Bias always exists. Bias even exist in what they choose to report and what they choose to ignore.

 

[jfz178]

@TheLittleLady. True and well said. It reflects the audience. Back in the day, there was not so much division in the country and the media reflected that. So what appeared to be lack of bias back then was actually a bias for the status quo. The mainstream media was slow to get on board with the racial equality movement and the anti-war movement. But once they saw the audience going there, they followed.

Also, journalistic standards were more strictly enforced by editors. No reporter would ever have been allowed to put out anything that was not either fact checked, independently verified, or both. Now getting the scoop and staying with the narrative is rewarded more than integrity. The audience had a role in getting us here. Viewership and readership started following sensationalism and scandal more than it had in the past and that eventually shaped editorial policies. Journalism is not a vocation. It is a business.

 

[exnihilo]

Back in the day, there was not so much division in the country and the media reflected that.

I would say the media created that. The media’s purpose was and is to manufacture consent.

 

[jfz178]

@exnihilo Well, you can chose to see it that way and that is very understandable. But media research and prevailing expert theory says that the audience shapes the media more than the other way around, especially in a more or less free speech society where people have media choices. It is sort of a “social Darwinism.” There is a great vein of thinking in media called “The Spiral of Silence.” The idea is that as the more moderate voices get tuned out by the audience, they eventually disappear from the airwaves and all we hear are the the divisive voices.

 

[Theo520]

Your comments sound defeatist. That there is always bias is not an excuse to let it run rampant, to not try minimize it and do journalism with integrity.

I don’t mind solid journalism with a bias, I mind shoddy work that is intentionally deceptive (not same as bias)

 

[jfz178]

I agree with your conclusion. I was not trying to be defeatist, so sorry if I came off that way. I was just pointing out a few widely accepted principles of media, and some facts, that bear on the original post. Nothing more.

 

[exnihilo]

Then media has changed. When I was a kid you had the three major networks and newspapers which were mostly owned by large media corporations. They absolutely could manufacture consent. I don’t think these institutions have changed all that much. But we do have newer media sources which do offer more variety.

 

[jfz178]

You are right. Also, those three networks were still in competition with print media, which is less true today. In addition, society back then was more united in their views, so the media was to. The one thing that hasn’t changed is that their #1 goal is always to sell advertising. A lot of people forget that.

 

[PaulinVA]

Fox as been the highest rated news channel for 16 years. they have something like 14 of the top 15 news programs on TV. So a large audience seeks them out because they agree with them and find them credible. The very liberal Washington Post reported that Fox also has the highest rating from their audience as being trustworthy. Fox’s left wing alter-ego, MSNBC, does not have either the viewership or the viewer confidence that Fox does.

This says move about the viewers than about Fox.

And, since Fox is the number one basic cable news channel, how come they call all of the other channels the Main Stream Media?

 

[petra22]

I’d like to give you 20 likes on this one! I totally agree.

 

[PaulinVA]

We cannot survive as a nation without common shared values and identification AS a nation, and we are losing that. Our schools (from grade schools through universities) are predominately leftists who focus on what is WRONG with America instead of what is RIGHT with America. Instead of teaching how great we are, despite our mistakes, they focus on our mistakes and instill in our children that America is somehow to blame for many of the wrongs of the world.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote about this in Mexifornia

Massive illegal immigration from Mexico into California, Victor Davis Hanson writes, “coupled with a loss of confidence in the old melting pot model of transforming newcomers into Americans, is changing the very nature of state. Yet we Californians have been inadequate in meeting this challenge, both failing to control our borders with Mexico and to integrate the new alien population into our mainstream.” Part history, part political analysis, and part memoir, “Mexifornia” is an intensely personal work by one of our most important writers

 

[jfz178]

Well that’s my point. The viewers create the media, not the other way around. Fox calls the other outlets mainstream for two reasons I can tell:

1. Because it is an editorial term that resonates with their audience.
2. They are the new kid on the media block and when they first came out, the older outlets criticized them for not being mainstream.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I watched the Obama/Letterman interview. Letterman is obviously still under the Obama
spell. He sat there gazing adoringly into Obama’s eyes throughout most of the show.
This is a different format for Letterman. I actually found the show a little on the boring
side. I think Dave took a little hiatus after his Mom had a stroke and after she passed he
was ready to get back on TV. Obama seemed a little uncomfortable, a little exposed.
It was a big stage with just the 2 chairs in front of the audience. His next guess will
be George Clooney. Having the big beard is fine for retirement, but I prefer Dave without
the beard trim it down. He looks like a crazy Unabomber.

 

[Theo520]

This says move about the viewers than about Fox.

And, since Fox is the number one basic cable news channel, how come they call all of the other channels the Main Stream Media?

I think it says alot about Fox, as a business. They are effective in targeting their audience, as a business should.

It also raises a question I’ve had about the other primary news channels. It’s clear they have a bias to the left yet they’ve chosen not to shift more to the middle. They seem to be driven more by ideology than basic business sense.

They could readily move more to the center and do journalism with integrity, but they stay left in spite of the viewership implications.