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

[PaulinVA]

Because it is an editorial term that resonates with their audience.

Yes, it resonates with their viewers, BUT, it reminds me of the bolsheviks. Bolshe in Russian is big or greater, so the Bolsheviks adopted that term, ever though they were the minority. I’m not saying Fox is communist, but, by definition, the highest-rated cable network has to be mainstream. Calling everyone else mainstream sets them apart to their viewers by giving the aura that only Fox tells the truth, which is blatantly false.

They are the new kid on the media block and when they first came out, the older outlets criticized them for not being mainstream.

Right wing fringe could be another term.

 

[jfz178]

Ok, you don’t like Fox, we get it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

I don’t, but I do find it funny how non-orthodox, non-politically conservative Catholics need such handles. Can’t their arguments stand on their own merit?



Also, this is your daily reminder that Donald J. Trump is not a racist, sexist or a homophobe and is the best president for minorities we’ve had in over 10 years.

 

[Theo520]

Right wing fringe could be another term.

That’s ridiculous. By definition of their viewership they are fairly mainstream, not fringe. Just right of you it seems.

Fringe is more like the below:
Left - Huffpost, Slate
Right - The Blaze, Glenn Beck

 

[SuperLuigi]

Barack Hussein Obama is the personification of what a person can achieve based on skin colour and having the right opinions instead of merit.

Also, those of you who keep whining about race: you are a free recruiting tool for Richard Spencer.

Enjoy!

 

[PaulinVA]

That’s ridiculous. By definition of their viewership they are fairly mainstream, not fringe. Just right of you it seems.

Uhm, Hannity is becoming a prime conspiracy theorist. That’s what I meant.

I actually like HuffPost to see what the liberals are thinking about. And, you do know that O’Reilly has been appearing on Glenn Beck?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t, but I do find it funny how non-orthodox, non-politically conservative Catholics need such handles. Can’t their arguments stand on their own merit?

I think you may be making some assumptions about the selection of my name that may or may not be true. It was inspired by another name for human being. Homo Sapien. I just changed the first part (which makes the name rather redundant, but that’s fine). There’s actually something in what you said that I take as a compliment. Without detailing what it is let me say “Thanks.”

 

[jfz178]

Hey I agree with your posts generally, so we are more on the same side than we’re not, but I have to opine that “SuperLuigi” is a pretty awesome handle on the same level. Nothing wrong with that. I would have a cooler handle if I could have thought of one!

 

[Theo520]

And, you do know that O’Reilly has been appearing on Glenn Beck?

What is the significance?

Fringe outlets still engage mainstream sources, if just put their slant on it. Also, O’Reilly was more of a cult of personality and opinion not news. don’t think he was considered hardcore conservative, like Rush.

The fringes is where both sides do push their conspiracy theories.

 

[7_Sorrows]

O’Reilly has been appearing on Friday mornings only on his radio show for 1-2 hours.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well that’s my point. The viewers create the media, not the other way around.

I’m inclined to agree with this, at least in part. I think we have some significant cultural differences in this country, that tend to be regional, but are not entirely so when it comes to state-by-state election outcomes. So, northern Ohio, for example, is always Democrat, while southern Ohio tends to be Repub. In any given year, it might switch around a bit to give one part or the other a majority.

There are basically three counties in Mo that are always Dem. Two additional counties are sometimes Dem. The rest of the state is always Repub, or has been for about 20 years. That has nothing to do with the media. It has to do with cultures.

 

[jfz178]

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.

I think you raise some pretty good points. Fox has not only targeted their audience well, but they have kept others out of their niche, which good businesses also. The left has lots of choices and they are all about the same. Fox is the only game in town for the right in terms of a full-service TV news organization.

I think the left-leaning outlets not moving to the center reflects the audience also. Look at the Democrats that make up most of their viewers. They are not moving to the center. Every indication is that for the midterms, they are going to double-down on moving farther left. And some people are predicting a Trump/Sanders contest in 2020. That, despite that even liberal pundits are calling that a recipe for ensuring Trump gets a second term.

I think Hillary set the stage. The DNC has clearly adopted an interesting two-part strategy that is paradoxical: One one hand, raise all the money you possibly can from big donors. On the other hand, appeal to the poorest voters as your base. Hillary spent roughly twice as much as Trump in 2016. She was at fundraisers while Trump was at voter rallies. Yet her media strategy was to buy a lot of ads depicting Trump as an elitist. She is gone, but the party structure is still set up that way. So to get back to the news media, that the audience they see their success as tied to.

As far as journalistic integrity, I think the new left view on that was expressed by Christiane Amanpour at the 2016 International Press Freedom Awards right after Trump won the election. She basically said that now the job of the press is no longer to be fair, or neutral, or just to report the facts, but to “report the truth.” Of course that begs the question, “Who’s truth?” Well, hers of course. Facts are facts, but truth is a judgement call. And she is not giving the audience credit for deciding truth based on a fair reporting of the facts. The audience must be told what to believe.

 

[Theo520]

Good commentary.

I remain surprised that at least one of the other majors didn’t shift more to the center. The move might lose some viewers from the fringe, but it would add more than it lost, which is good for selling ads.

CNN talked about moving right a couple of times, but their intention never became action. I still think ideology is driving them more than business, which surprises me. Based on viewers it seems Fox does cover the center and center right.

 

[jfz178]

I actually wish the Wall St. Journal would go full bore into TV news. I think they are actually the most centrist news organization and they have the reputation to get some traction in the market. They do a little internet broadcasting and they have radio. I hope they go full broadcast.

 

[Theo520]

I agree, they have solid reporting and seem to have balance in their opinion articles.

 

[Inisfallen]

I believe liberals brains are wired differently than those of conservatives so I definitely

believe FOX viewers are different than NPR listeners.

Obama said: "If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR.”

Whoever would have thought that 7_Sorrows and Barack Obama would be in complete agreement on something?

This is a historical moment.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes. I agree there has to be a reason liberals think the way they do and conservatives
think the way they do. When I was a registered democrat for 22 years, I was not a true
liberal. I can see that now.

Obama could just have well have said if you listen to NPR you are living on a different
planet than if you watch FOX news, but we know how Obama feels about FOX news.

And the planets could not be any farther apart than they are now!

 

[Luke6_37]

Yes. I agree there has to be a reason liberals think the way they do and conservatives
think the way they do. When I was a registered democrat for 22 years, I was not a true
liberal. I can see that now.

Obama could just have well have said if you listen to NPR you are living on a different
planet than if you watch FOX news, but we know how Obama feels about FOX news.

And the planets could not be any farther apart than they are now!

Given how much credence Fox News gave to the birther movement, I think Obama has every right to believe Fox News is perfectly willing to promote falsehoods in order to further its political agenda.

 

[7_Sorrows]

7_Sorrows:

Yes. I agree there has to be a reason liberals think the way they do and conservatives
think the way they do. When I was a registered democrat for 22 years, I was not a true
liberal. I can see that now.

Obama could just have well have said if you listen to NPR you are living on a different
planet than if you watch FOX news, but we know how Obama feels about FOX news.

And the planets could not be any farther apart than they are now!

Given how much credence Fox News gave to the birther movement, I think Obama has every right to believe Fox News is perfectly willing to promote falsehoods in order to further its political agenda.

I guess the same could be said about CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NYT, WAPO and others who have been promoting falsehoods about our president.

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

7_Sorrows:

Yes. I agree there has to be a reason liberals think the way they do and conservatives
think the way they do. When I was a registered democrat for 22 years, I was not a true
liberal. I can see that now.

Obama could just have well have said if you listen to NPR you are living on a different
planet than if you watch FOX news, but we know how Obama feels about FOX news.

And the planets could not be any farther apart than they are now!

Given how much credence Fox News gave to the birther movement, I think Obama has every right to believe Fox News is perfectly willing to promote falsehoods in order to further its political agenda.

I guess the same could be said about CNN, MSNBC, NBC, NYT, WAPO and others who have been promoting falsehoods about our president.

:thinking:Those news organizations covered the birther movement, but I don’t recall them ever promoting it.

Faux News had no such scruples. They amplified every crack pot voice out there - including that of the reality T.V. host who now sits in the oval office and plays at being POTUS.