Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Fox News is helping Obama

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Fox News is helping Obama



    Jonathan Freedland: Because Fox has put off the best Republican candidates, Barack Obama will be much less vulnerable at the election


    By any normal standards, Obama should be extremely vulnerable. Not only is the economy in bad shape, he has proved to be a much more hesitant, less commanding White House presence than his supporters longed for. And yet, most surveys put him comfortably ahead of his would-be rivals. That's not a positive judgment on the president – whose approval rating stands at a meagre 44% – but an indictment of the dire quality of a Republican field almost comically packed with the scandal-plagued, gaffe-prone and downright flaky. And the finger of blame for this state of affairs points squarely at the studios of Fox News.

    It's not just usual-suspect lefties and professional Murdoch-haters who say it, mischievously exaggerating the cable TV network's influence. Dick Morris, veteran political operative and Fox regular, noted the phenomenon himself the other day while sitting on the Fox sofa. "This is a phenomenon of this year's election," he said. "You don't win Iowa in Iowa. You win it on this couch. You win it on Fox News." In other words, it is Fox – with the largest cable news audience, representing a huge chunk of the Republican base – that is, in effect, picking the party's nominee to face Obama next November.

    This doesn't work crudely – not that crudely, anyway. Roger Ailes, the Fox boss, does not deliver a newspaper-style endorsement of a single, anointed candidate. Rather, some are put in the sunlight, and others left to moulder in the shade. The Media Matters organisation keeps tabs on what it calls the Fox Primary, measuring by the minute who gets the most airtime. It has charted a striking correlation, with an increase in a candidate's Fox appearances regularly followed by a surge in the opinion polls. Herman Cain and Rick Perry both benefited from that Fox effect, with Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, the latest: in the days before he broke from the pack, Gingrich topped the Fox airtime chart. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney cannot seem to break through a 20-to-25% ceiling in the polls – hardly surprising considering, as the league table shows, he has never been a Fox favourite.

    Worth reading the whole thing. The moderate republicans here seem to favour some of the candidates who are being more marginalised, is this a real effect do you think?
    Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
    Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
    We've got both kinds

  • #2
    More publicity can equal higher popularity. Not that amazing. And to FOX, if there's no real race, there's no news. It's in FOX's best interest to keep people believing that it's not a done deal yet. I do wish there was more time spend on some of the other more rational candidates.
    It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
    RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

    Comment


    • #3
      But Fox's worldview is not rational.
      Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
      Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
      We've got both kinds

      Comment


      • #4
        No, it's a bit slanted.

        But if you want coverage of the candidates, FOX covers them more than the other networks. So as much as I'm not a fan of FOX, there's really not a lot of variety available else where.
        It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
        RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

        Comment


        • #5
          Their coverage of science stories is certainly not rational.
          Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
          Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
          We've got both kinds

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't go there for their science coverage. (unless I'm really in need of a good laugh, or just want to see what the wackos are currently spewing.)

            And almost all news outlets have their own subtle brand of bias. FOX doesn't quite get the subtle part.
            It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
            RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

            Comment


            • #7
              Their coverage of other topics is no more rational on science subjects. IMO.
              Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
              Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
              We've got both kinds

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't think it's as bad as that. Some stories are OK. The local Chicago outlet is fine on local stories. (which is what I normally see when I watch FOX) I don't tune in the national coverage often. Just a bit more lately due to their coverage on the candidates. But no, I won't defend the national feed.
                It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                Comment


                • #9
                  It is probable the stories that have been brought to my attention include some of the worst abuses.
                  Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
                  Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
                  We've got both kinds

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That's usually the case. Not all the stories are that bad, but FOX does mostly deserve the crap it takes.
                    It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                    RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                    Comment


                    • #11


                      Quick, were Egyptian protesters successful in their bid to overthrow longtime president Hosni Mubarak earlier this year?

                      According to a new poll (PDF) from Fairleigh Dickinson University, if you watch Fox News you are significantly less likely to know the correct answer to that question than if you mostly avoid news shows and newspapers all together.

                      After controlling for factors like partisanship, education, and other demographic factors, the pollsters found that Fox New viewers were 18 points less likely to know that the revolt was successful than their non-active news consuming counterparts. Fox News viewers were also 6 points less likely to know that the Syrian uprising has yet to succeed.

                      "Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a Fairleigh Dickinson political science professor who took part in the analysis of the PublicMind data. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."


                      18 points! That's impressive.
                      Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                      GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Fox has seen the light and agrees Obama's the ONE.
                        Blah

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          They're sure not helping Romney with their audience.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	foxinfographicfail_romneyisobama.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	53.8 KB
ID:	9092454
                          Tutto nel mondo è burla

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think there's a mistake in that graphic. When's the last time Santorum got more than 4% in a poll?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Right now Intrade's pricing in ~12-15% chance that somebody other than Romney, Obama or Newt wins the presidency in 2012.

                              Other than Obama dying before election day, does this seem reasonable?
                              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                              Stadtluft Macht Frei
                              Killing it is the new killing it
                              Ultima Ratio Regum

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X