Fox News Ratings Take Nosedive

[amadeus]

You're suggesting that FOX should be shut down/censored by the state? I didn't think in a trillion years you'd ever recommend such things.

 

[Masquerouge]

Are the other news stations #s going up or down? Is this an across the board type thing?

OP says the other stations are going up...

 

[Rambuchan]

You're suggesting that FOX should be shut down/censored by the state? I didn't think in a trillion years you'd ever recommend such things.

Yes I am, by the relevant authorities that oversee journalistic standards, not 'the state'. But I am recommending it in the context of my other comments, which you did not quote. I have no problem with them existing as a political lobby, if they so wish. But they should not be allowed to operate as a news operator, for all the reasons I mentioned above. Take the comments in context please.

 

[Leatherneck]

1.) They do not do TV rating in Aug thus why there are so many fill-in and the regular host are gone in Aug.
2.) It's a liberal Blog site in which your info came from, wouldn't be slanted would it.
3.) Nielsen Rating is the only thing to go by.

 

[Urederra]

Yes I am, by the relevant authorities that oversee journalistic standards, not 'the state'. But I am recommending it in the context of my other comments, which you did not quote. I have no problem with them existing as a political lobby, if they so wish. But they should not be allowed to operate as a news operator, for all the reasons I mentioned above. Take the comments in context please.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Period. But closing it? and who are the ones who will set journalistic standards in your opinion? Chomsky? No, thank you!!! Set up a censorship agency, governamental or not, and you'll end up living in 1984 utopia. No thanks, any regulations in that matter leads to losing freedom for the citizens.

Cuba has a very nice censorship agency.

 

[emzie]

Hey, in Canada, Fox will never be #1. Gogo Cancon!

 

[skadistic]

OP says the other stations are going up...

I ment are they going up at the same rate FOX is going down. Are the viewers going to the other news staions or are they watching something else all together like sitcoms and what not?

FOX is down 28 %

1000 - 28% = 997.2

CNN is up 46%

100 + 46 = 146

Just because FOX is down and the others are up, % numbers dont realy show me that its a mass exidus from FOX and the others are picking up the slack.

"TVNewser reports, are down since August of last year. Like, way down. Like down 28 percent in primetime"

If grammer is any way to judge how much trust can be put into a jurnalistic piece I'd this artical lacks alot of credibility. It like looks like it like was like writen like by like a vally girl.

 

[emzie]

FOX is down 28 %

1000 - 28% = 997.2

Could you explain that math for me? If you're going to judge grammar on an OPed piece (read: informal), you might want to make sure your own comments hold up to scrutiny.

And your numbers suggest that Fox has 10x the viewers of CNN. It's more like...

1000 - 28% = 720
330 + 46% = 480

Of course, this is only in the 'money' bracket and only during certain times... but eh....

EDIT 2:

Let's show real numbers. Article's source

Primetime:

Fox: 541 - 20% ; 432
CNN: 236 + 25% ; 294
MSNBC:145 + 8% ; 157

Before:
Marketshare
541 + 236 + 145 = 922

541 / 922 = 59%
236 / 922 = 26%
145 / 922 = 16%

After:
Marketshare
432 + 294 + 157 = 883

432 / 883 = 49%
294 / 883 = 33%
157 / 883 = 18%

So
Fox: down 10% Market share
CNN: up 7% Market share
MSNBC: up 2% Market share

 

[Xanikk999]

Murtha, youre right, its not run by the US government, its run by the Republican party.

Does fox news and the fox tv channel have any relation?

I highly doubt it because they are vastly different, jw.

 

[skadistic]

Could you explain that math for me? If you're going to judge grammar on an OPed piece (read: informal), you might want to make sure your own comments hold up to scrutiny.

And your numbers suggest that Fox has 10x the viewers of CNN. It's more like...

1000 - 28% = 720
330 + 46% = 480

[/quote=augurey]

My numbers were for lose perspective to show that fox has more viewers.
I did slide the decimal piont the wrong way in my math but I'm not a professional mathimatition like the professional writer who wrotethe artical in the OP.

 

[skadistic]

Does fox news and the fox tv channel have any relation?

I highly doubt it because they are vastly different, jw.

FOX and FOX NEWS are owned by Reupert Murdock (SP?) By way of Newscorp. He also owns 20th centry FOX the movie studio and SKY news and SKY sports net and FOX sports net and FOX Collage Sports (FCS) and.....

Heres the link check it out http://www.newscorp.com/index2.html

 

[Xanikk999]

FOX and FOX NEWS are owned by Reupert Murdock (SP?) By way of Newscorp. He also owns 20th centry FOX the movie studio and SKY news and SKY sports net and FOX sports net and FOX Collage Sports (FCS) and...........

Well i dont see the same kind of bias in local fox news on the fox channel.

 

[skadistic]

Well i dont see the same kind of bias in local fox news on the fox channel.

Your local news is two or three hours a day and has little editorial (none most likely). FOX news is on 24/7 and fills it time with alot of editorial. The straight news does not have the massive slant in it.

 

[Elrohir]

Yes I am, by the relevant authorities that oversee journalistic standards, not 'the state'. But I am recommending it in the context of my other comments, which you did not quote. I have no problem with them existing as a political lobby, if they so wish. But they should not be allowed to operate as a news operator, for all the reasons I mentioned above. Take the comments in context please.

FOX is no more biased in their way than CNN or BBC. They're slanted another way, to be sure, but no more slanted than the comptetition.

Besides, what right do you have to declare them an illegitimate news source? Who made you "God of the news room"? Forgive the sarcasm, but I don't think it's your call; if they are really that biased and wrong, then they'll eventually crash on their own because people will be sick of propaganda. That's how it works, and that's the beauty of the free market.

 

[CaptainF]

Yeah! To hell with O'Reilly and Hannity.

Bunch of whiny douches. Even more so than you would expect.

 

[downtown]

Are the other news stations #s going up or down? Is this an across the board type thing?

No, just Fox fell. CNN and MSNBC increased in ratings and market share. I dont know about other network's news programs.

You cause can call bias, but you can check the group that did the reporting...they're legit. The Huffington Post can type 1 + 1 = 2...doesnt make it LIBERAL MATH!1!

Besides, Im not one to browse partisan blogs anyways. I got this from Netscape.

 

[Sidhe]

FOX is no more biased in their way than CNN or BBC. They're slanted another way, to be sure, but no more slanted than the comptetition.

Besides, what right do you have to declare them an illegitimate news source? Who made you "God of the news room"? Forgive the sarcasm, but I don't think it's your call; if they are really that biased and wrong, then they'll eventually crash on their own because people will be sick of propaganda. That's how it works, and that's the beauty of the free market.

I agree, no one questions you when you buy a newspaper as to if you know how biased that paper is, man that's The Daily Mail, you might as well read mein kampf you foreigner hating conservative nazi! Or socialist worker are you mad, go join Stalin in Russia you militant loving socialist!!

Saying that though I resent a comparisson to the BBC which is considered by most people to be particularly unbiased, if that's a slant of bias I'm not getting it. Here's an example the BBC started off representing the attacks on Israel at the start of the news followed up by small representation of Lebanon, by the end of the war they were representing mostly Lebanon first and then with a ground force asking people for opinion in Israel, followed by serious coverage of Israels damage, can you compare that to Fox's coverage? They spent 15 minutes interviewing the one of the fathers of the kidnapped Israeli. The BBC has serious currency in journalism because it goes out of it's way to appear unbiased.

 

[emzie]

The BBC's news department is one of the least biased in the world. Giving equal voice to the side with whom you disagree doesn't equate to bias.

 

[The Fjonis]

(...) if they are really that biased and wrong, then they'll eventually crash on their own because people will be sick of propaganda. That's how it works, and that's the beauty of the free market.

I'm afraid you're overestimating the American public here. Even though things should work the way you say, I don't think they do. That's the thing about propaganda -- if it works, people won't realise (or care) that's what it really is.

I could be wrong though. Perhaps these latest figures in the OP are an indication of that. Let's hope so.

 

[GinandTonic]

FOX is no more biased in their way than CNN or BBC. They're slanted another way, to be sure, but no more slanted than the comptetition.

The BBC is legally bound to attempt impartiality, fox is not and does not.

BBC charter & agreement

The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter specifies that we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with "due accuracy and impartiality" in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy. It also states that we are forbidden from expressing our own opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting. The Accuracy, Impartiality and Politics and Public Policy sections of these guidelines constitute our code as required under section 5.3 of the Agreement, and give guidance as to the rules to be observed under section 5.1 (c) of the Agreement.

In addition, the Agreement forbids any BBC service funded by the licence fee or grant-in-aid from carrying advertising or sponsored programmes. To protect our editorial integrity and independence we have drawn up our own guidelines on standards for advertising and sponsorship for our commercial television and online services.

In a philosophical sense everyone is biased. Under the journalistic standards acepted by most of the world the BBC attempts impartiality but remains somewhat biased where Fox is wildly biased with little if any attempt to avoid bias.

In the interests of impartiality I went looking for Fox's mission statement/ policy document/ charter on impartiality. Dont seem to publish it online.