Fox Hunting

My oh my, how giddy has the MSM been lately over all this personnel shuffling sexual harassment dog shit pile over at Foxnews? They are tripping all over themselves, reveling in the schadenfreude . The news entity that has been kicking all their butts for 25 years has developed some cracks. No, your news coverage still sucks, still partisan and petty to the point of inducing vomit, still blatantly in the tank for Hillary (or Bernie), still running interference for the democratic party/raising money for the democratic party/shooting every news story thru the prism political expediency, still carrying water for the democratic party, but lets just take a moment to soak it all in. Too bad they are just as bad at news reporting as they are at economics. Taking money from the rich does not enhance the financial condition of the poor, and bringing the news leader down a few notches does not make your unwatchable news shows better, if only life was that easy.

Some bullet points;

Ailes is out (about time, what a creep).

Gretchen Carlson is now $20 million richer, nice work if you can get it.

Andrea Tantaros wants to wet her beak as well, Fox can afford it.

Gretta Van Sustern is out, backing the wrong horse and paying the price for it.

Bill Oreilly is laying low, being implicated (but not named personally in the suit)

Megyn Kelly is sitting pretty, financially. The riff between her and Oreilly is palatable.She is still miffed over the network not supporting her during the Trump attacks (bleeding in the eyes and ………..wherever, ickky). So now Foxnews must decide if they want to break the bank to keep her, or let her go over to CNN and erode their base even further.

I know it is de-rigueur to rip Foxnews, everybody does it.But here’s the deal, we owe Foxnews a lot. In the land of group speak they were the only alternative, the only place where you did not get your news filtered thru democrat cheerleaders, that was huge. And oh boy did the country need it, to the point of making Foxnews the highest rated (by a mile) news station in decades. Without Foxnews, Rush, and all the subsequent copycats (the right wing radio stations and right wing books annihilate the other side consistently) the public would be even less informed then they are now, if that’s possible.

So now some bloom is coming off the rose, to be expected. Their actual news shows (not commentary) is still top notch, but many of their commentators are getting long in the tooth. Some people I could see less of ( a lot less), Bill Oreilly, Eric Bohling, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Austin Goolsbee. I didn’t mention Hannity because I never watch his show anyway.

There is a new kid on the block that I mention because they do good work and occasionally get my eyeballs, One America News. One show in particular, Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler, terrific. Here is a sample;

and if you have a few minutes, her speech at the last CPAC was great;

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and competition always benefits the consumer. The template is out there, even if Foxnews wains, others can step up and deliver.

5 comments:

  1. ilovecress

    A couple of points from the liberal side…

    The Shadenfreude thing is basically because it confirms the narrative. Old white men groping women lie it was still the 1950s. I’m not sure that anyone expects the station to fall or anything like that. To be honest the narrative has been more connecting Trump and Ailes.

    No one really knows how to feel about Megyn – she’s an evil tool of the corporate media – but she’s also a victim. I think she’ll make a lot of money playing both sides on this one…

     the public would be even less informed then they are now, if that’s possible.

    This is the bit where I trot out the statistic about FoxNews viewers being consistently the least informed. Just because they have an alternative narrative, doesn’t mean that they don’t have a narrative they’re pushing.

    Fox has a great business model – but that doesn’t mean that it’s journalism. In the UK we have the BBC specifically because we don’t think that competition benefits the consumer when it comes to news. The internet is exasserbating the problem a millionfold. I can go on about the state of journalism all day, so forgive me the rant – but commercialisation of the fifth estate stops it being the fifth estate. I can’t remember the last time I spoke to an actual experienced journalist, as opposed to a junior who has no contacts, no context and doesn’t actually understand the situation – 90% of the time my press releases simply get printed with a different byline – because speed and clicks win. Playing the media has never been easier – especially if you’ve got advertising dollars on your side (and yes, that makes a hell of a difference to the coverage you get).

    The non-profit driven model is broken, and no one has come up with an alternative yet. Until then, we’re stuck with click bait, outrage factories, and simply getting the commercial filter on the information we’re getting.

    Makes my job easier though ;-)

    Thumb up 1

  2. richtaylor365 *

    The Shadenfreude thing is basically because it confirms the narrative

    Only took you 25 years to prove it. Sheesh, a stopped watch is right a heck of a lot more than you guys.

    This is the bit where I trot out the statistic about FoxNews viewers being consistently the least informed

    So, you have a dubious university study (same universities that are routinely targeted by conservatives as being mouth pieces for the democrat party) coming out with a study slamming the network that always calls them out on it. Then you have the progressive networks, who drink from the same cool aid as the academicians parroting the finding. Too bad it has already been debunked.

    Fox has a great business model – but that doesn’t mean that it’s journalism

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but business models don’t mean dick if you ain’t got eyeballs watching.

     Just because they have an alternative narrative, doesn’t mean that they don’t have a narrative they’re pushing.

    But isn’t it nice to have a choice? Before Fox we were only getting one narrative. Clearly there is different political socio-economic viewpoints out there,  was it really healthy or productive to have all the networks in lock step with their talking points? Foxnews gave us an alternative.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    The Shadenfreude thing is basically because it confirms the narrative. Old white men groping women lie it was still the 1950s. 

    Funny how you only hear about “the narrative” when it is someone else that does it. I recall no less than a dozen incidents, just in the last year or two, of worse behavior than these allegations, that have all been ignored by the MSM because the person involved was a democrat or friend of one. And every time I hear leftists grandstanding about shit like this I only mention one name: Bill Clinton.

    That trumps any of that repugnant social signalling by the justice warriors that are full of shit.

    The left is all about projection: they do it so they assume the other side has to be doing it too. Again, if you want proof, look at any democrat poll. but especially Obama or the Clintons.

    Thumb up 0

  4. ilovecress

    business models don’t mean dick if you ain’t got eyeballs watching.

    My point exactly. News used to be a loss leader because the importance of the fifth estate was more important than the dollar value. We’ve lost that, and I don’t think anyone has found a way to get it back again. Where we are now is that eyeballs watching is the prime thing, and informing the public and keeping public entities to account is secondary. You guys complain about this all the time with regards to Hillary- and I agree. I’m saying that it’s not a liberal bias, it’s a profit bias that ditches news in favour of liberal (or conservative in Fox case) entertainment, alongside catering to corporate and political interests.

    But isn’t it nice to have a choice? Before Fox we were only getting one narrative. Clearly there is different political socio-economic viewpoints out there,  was it really healthy or productive to have all the networks in lock step with their talking points? Foxnews gave us an alternative.

    The news shouldn’t have a ‘point of view’. I’m not saying that Fox shouldn’t exist and MSNBC should. I’m saying they both aren’t news. They exist to entertain and outrage their viewer base in order to sell ads. (I don’t have a solution by the way – I don’t think anyone has come up with one yet…)

    Funny how you only hear about “the narrative” when it is someone else that does it.

    That was kind of my point.

    Thumb up 0

  5. richtaylor365 *

    Cress, it is clear that you not only do not watch Foxnews, but have never watched, and got all your opinions of Foxnews from your biased news sources, whatever they are.

    The news shouldn’t have a ‘point of view’.

    Correct, this is where we delineate between news reporting (the hard news shows) and news commentary. I watch the news reporting on Foxnews because it is delivered without a point of view. Sometime (call it research so you will be better prepared in these discussions) watch the news shows (America’s Newsroom with Hemmer and MacCallum, Shephard Smith Reporting, Neil Cavuto Show,  Special Report with Brett Baier) Notice that they have representatives from both sides, both get equal time and no shouting matches between the host and the quests, unlike MSNBC and the other networks where everything you hear get filtered through the particular bias of the news head at that station.

     I’m not saying that Fox shouldn’t exist and MSNBC should. I’m saying they both aren’t news.

    The actual news shows are, take a look.

     

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply