The Fox Makeover Has Begun.

I don't care for his programming but he still knows what to feed certain sections of the public, he certainly has a knack for that.

 

For the record, cable service providers pay ESPN to broadcast their programming. How that is packaged to the consumer is up to the cable service provider. With ESPN, it has been traditional for it to be packaged with basic service, but ESPN doesn't determine, the cable provider does.

If you dig down into the cable services, one can also fiind a limited service. But in general, most of the major cable based programming are an enclusive package.

 

Popularity isn't really a sign of truth or integrity.

Even so, I don't trust any of the News stations. That you know where to go to hear what "kind" of News you want to hear means that it's likely all a concerted mind-(*)(*)(*)(*).

What has anyone done to improve the Union, besides lip service? Most of the things people trump up as improvements of the past were actually the things that led to the detriments of the present. Carter, Raegan, Nixon, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama...little-to-nothing came out of them that really helped the country. Things like social rights did not come out of their administration, they were contested for and fought for by people in the streets till the government finally gave in and gave it to them. Economic "improvements" were the equivalent of economic stalls that pushed addressing the US debt further and further into the future with a series of loans, and that increased the amount of credit which appeared like more cash, which sparked industry, yes, but you have to underline that with "all this has not been paid for, and the interest is gonna rock your world".

Then, there are the bubbles which include, but are not limited to the Housing crisis, nor have all the bubbles "popped".

When they say America in decline, they don't mean the past decade. This has been charted for a long time. It's a little complicated to explain though...but it follows the white elephant analogy.

 

Who says Im cherry picking data you?

<----- Beat ya skipped RIGHT over this eh?

 

That he does and in my opinion he does it using tactics that any self respecting person wouldn't.
But the right is not self respecting.

 

I agree again, it is not the behavior I would engage in.

 

I deny it. Please provide proof of your claim.

Really? So that is the ONLY reason Fox News has the ratings it does. It's not because they offer a viewpoint different from the other networks nearly identical to each other, it's ONLY because they supposedly force this or that, an assertion you will not be able to back up. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Ummm... Bill Clinton signed the most sweeping deregulation of banks since the Great Depression into law with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Many people think it was at least partially if not more responsible for the financial crash of 2008. Here are just a few examples of that (note these examples aren't exactly right wing publications):

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/10/1129954/-The-Clinton-Hypocrisy

Reality has a liberal slant? I think not. The liberals at these links aren't at all happy with Bill Clinton signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law.

 

Amen amen amen. Just out of curiosity, have you walked through an airport lately? Which news channel was playing? If ratings has everything to do with availability, then CNN would be out of business without the monopoly it has on airports. 48% of adults travel by air each year for either leisure or business, so it's quite a stranglehold CNN has. Thanks for bringing in the availability aspect of arguing reasons for ratings.

http://www.ustravel.org/news/press-kit/travel-facts-and-statistics

 

Actually, a person who makes an assertion has the obligation to back it up. In your specific case, I debunk quite a bit of what you post with facts and credible links. So in my opinion, there's even less reason to take what you say at face value than a typical poster here.

A non-answer answer. What you are really saying here is you have no rebuttal, and thus are defaulting to thinly-veiled personal attacks. But let's move on anyway. You've already changed your story on this. You went from saying this availability is the ONLY reason for Fox's ratings to saying it's the "main" reason. Both can't be true to you. And in reality, neither are true anyway. It's either the ONLY reason, or it's the "main" reason. Please clarify what your actual position is, as you have made two conflicting statements. I will be happy to continue from there.

 

I see percentages there. Where are the actual numbers?

 

You are right, it was pretty easy. Here is info on Time Warner's "bare bones" package, which includes MSNBC and Fox News:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622812880760750.html

And here is DirecTV's most basic package, which includes multiple news channels:

http://www.directstartv.com/directv_programming/directv_channel_lineup.html

I will be happy to review this for you. Any rational person can see that people will include ideology and viewpoints of news sources when they decide which news channel to watch. Obviously this will affect ratings. Do you have a rebuttal to this statement that offers actual substance, rather than lines about "picking nits" and thinly-veiled personal attacks?

Also, you have made conflicting statements as to the reason for Fox's ratings. First you said it was ONLY because of the availability issue you brought up. Incidentally, that is the same argument I just completely debunked with the two channel line ups I offered. But I digress... Then you said it was the "main" reason for Fox's ratings. You can't believe both are true. Which one do you think is true? Please clarify with actual points and substance.

 

INCORRECT!!!!!

the content owners not only dictate where certain channels must be carried they also dictate the type of hardware and software you must use to receive their signal. ESPN must be on the basic package. In other words, if you have 2 million subs then ESPN is charging you for 2 million subs. You can't put ESPN on your enhanced package and claim that of the 2 million subs, only 1 million subscribe, nope, you pay them for 2 million subs because of the "carriage agreement"


Edit- and it's the content owners who make it impossible to offer an ala carte service and also why over-the-top is not reality. It has nothing to do with being technically impossible. It's the content owners won't allow it and force bundling.

When you saw AMC wage an advertising campaign against one of the DTH firms (I can't recall if it was Dish or Direct) what they would not say is by how much they increased their monthly rate and what junk channels they own must also be taken, and paid for in order to receive AMC.

 

ESPN is not going to require Comcast or any other provider to have purchase special software and hardware just for them. I.e., customers would have a rack of cable boxes, one for each program.

 

LOL!!
A murdoch newspaper story?? That I have to pay to view?? LOL!
You haven't proven anything at all.

Again, epic failure.
What part of CABLE provider don't you get?

Keep trying man.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>>

 

Yes, I've proven you wrong. I didn't pay a dime to see that MSNBC and Fox News are offered. But here, since apparently you have some sort of grudge with Rupert Murdoch, pick another source you approve of. There are 219,000 hits on Time Warner's bare bones package. At this point, it is simply a matter of facing reality.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&...38,d.b2I&fp=6a53cf30761535b7&biw=1525&bih=666

LOL

I see. So this availability issue only affects cable TV and not satellite? Ummm.... OK. Whatever you say.

No need to "keep trying". I presented the logic of people deciding who they watch based on the ideology of each of the channels available for viewing. I cannot force you to acknowledge reality, it is your choice. Not a problem. So you are now on record as saying people don't consider the ideology of what is said on news channels when they decide what to watch. I am fine with letting people assess which view is correct.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>>

 

Rupert Murdoch is a savvy businessman.

His dumping the old kvetchers and updating his network's shtick to appeal to an emerging market is one credible and newsworthy story courtesy of Fox.

Follow the demographics.

 

What goes up must come down, fox has been and still is top dog in cable ratings and thats as more for its entertainment value than its news content. I doubt fox will fall too far, it will fall some everything on the very top does.
Fox went way over the top hucking for Romney and demeaning obama and the downturn Id bet is the moderates that left them

 

That link you posted to 'newscorpse'.....It's a liberal hate screed targeting Fox News. They have links to the Daily Kos, Media Matters etc. All radical ******* sites. They quote Jon Stewart (a comedian) as a reliable source. 'Wonderful' journalistic prose such as "Fox News Trades Toe-Sucking Dick Morris For Goat-Fu88ing Eric Erickson."

Do everyone a favor and take your garbage to some liberal landfill forum and stop dumping it here.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably from the same dark recess they pulled the percentages out of.

 

No, RPA.....Fox is doing swell. Being now eternally linked to "skewed polls" and "Romney landslide" only HELPS its image.

but you guys remain loyal and keep trusting Fox. So we get that surprised look on your face on Election Night again.

 

Fox will make changes and ONLY make changes when their bottom line dictates theres a need. Cable news is money news first, ideology second. Fox making a few changes doesnt indicate a major overhaul of ideology. Cnn is in a much bigger retooling than Fox, if you use the same reasoning in this thread for foxnews changes, then what of CNN ?
Id like to clarify I am not a faithful foxnews viewer, I view them all because I dont want one side of any issue forced on me.

 

I'm afraid that any makeovers of news outlets will be purely cosmetic.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

How in the world could that be?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-donors-prominent-in-presidential-campaign-contributions/

 

Brown isn't changing the face of fox news. This network is the most unbiased and fair reporting that I have ever seen. They always get their fox contributor's on the left to get their opinons like Juan Williams and Alan Colmes, just to name a few.

They report of what the media won't. We all know the media is totally left and the other stations ignore stories that fox gets to the bottom of.

 

If Fox's ratings continue to slide, you won't be able to make that claim for very long.

 

FOX is changing, that was the goal of the political hitjob they did on Murdoch over the phone hacking scandal in England. They called Murdoch himself to account over that, as if he was sitting in his palace taking calls from British reporters telling them "YES! Hack the phone systems! Get all you can for your stupid little story. I command it!"