Dick Morris: Trump is Right for Not Going Back to Fox

NewsMax ^ | 9-23-15 | Bill Hoffmann

[mupcat]

I seem to recall something like that. I am not sure if it came from Politico or not.

Could be although I usually don't read that site.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Wouldn’t a balanced presentation have to include an almost constant ultra-Conservative spin to balance out all the Leftist media advantage?

If Fox were going to provide an almost constant ultra-conservative spin, they couldn't claim to be "fair and balanced" and they wouldn't be taken seriously outside a very small group.

You can't expect them to throw away most of their audience just to make your media intake what you want it to be, when you can adjust it on your own as you see fit.

To the contrary, FNC has had much better ratings than any other cable news network. Those ratings didn’t come from the tooth fairy, they came from the fact that FNC was less biased - not unbiased but less biased - against conservatism than the others.

The infamous FNC debate was given to Fox precisely because they were less biased and not expected to be acting like George Stephanopolis. That decision was, of course, made by the RNC before Trump entered the race, and they suddenly wanted one of the candidates to be embarrassed. Trump was able to pull off what he did in no small part because the large live audience was behind him when he challenged the gotcha questioning.

If Trump had been anticipating the “Trump War on Women” challenge he might have done even better by talking down to Kelly by pointing out that FNC had a ratings advantage because it had a reputation advantage. And that Kelly obviously didn’t know her audience because everyone there - and everyone watching at home - was worried sick about out-of-bounds executive actions and callous disregard for US interests in the White House (cheers of approval from the audience). NOBODY was tuned in to hear about irrelevancies such as Rosie O’Donnell.

The FNC moderators said in so many words that they were at pains to not appear to other journalists as having "gone easy" on the candidates. IOW, they were there at cross purposes to their audience, which wanted to know what was right about their candidates.

All the other channels - and now FNC - are liberal. As Rush Limbaugh says, “I am equal time.” “Fair and Balanced” is a fatuous conceit in that context; having an outright “Limbaugh Cable Network” would not cause the overall cable offering to be “conservative,” any more than MSNBC, for example, is balanced liberal vs conservative. The idea of objectivity as a state of being, as journalists use the term is a chimera. You can try to be objective - IMHO Rush Limbaugh, and most conservative commentators do - but you cannot know that you are objective.

[Bullish]

I watch OAN on verizon FIOS on 616

[chris37]

Yeah, she’s alright. Eventually she even starts to look halfway attractive somehow.

Powers is considerably smarter than Holder. I wonder if people actually pay Holder to represent them.

[ldish]

I think OAN is 1208 on ATT Uverse

[CottonBall]

“why listen to the horse’s ass when I can listen to the horse? - and this applies to more than news about Trump!”

Great line!

[Baldwin77]

Thank you for the info on OAN. I’ll give it a try.

[Ms Mable]

Thanks!

[DoughtyOne]

Wouldn’t a balanced presentation have to include an almost constant ultra-Conservative spin to balance out all the Leftist media advantage?

That's your job. I mean, you can select your news sources to balance out prevailing media biases.

I don't believe that you actually believe that.  Where do you go if not to FoxNews to find something Conservative?

It's not like you have three of that sort of network to choose from.

If Fox were going to provide an almost constant ultra-conservative spin, they couldn't claim to be "fair and balanced" and they wouldn't be taken seriously outside a very small group.

I would argue against this mindset also.  Why do I say that?  Just the perception of FoxNews being more right, garnered them a major portion of that media segment.  With so many other networks out there to provide the Leftist viewpoint, FoxNews could have gone much farther right and still have been very popular.  Why should they have to sell themselves as partly Leftist?  Seriously.  Put it out there and watch what happens.

For close to twenty years I have urged Conservatives to finally get serious about illegal immigration.  People said, no you can't.  Well guess what, the most popular candidate by a wide margin is selling an illegal immigration plan and hard Right values.  People are eating it up, and would have years ago.

I'm tellling you right now, a clearly unabashed Right wing media outlet would rip this nation up.

Sell Americana, America first, morals, reglion, and exclusively Conservative values.  The citizens of this nation are starving for this.  The FoxNews slice of the pie would go from the 2.5 million neighborhood, to 10 million.  The time for timid is done!  Is Trump timid?

You can't expect them to throw away most of their audience just to make your media intake what you want it to be, when you can adjust it on your own as you see fit.

I already addressed this, but no it isn't my job.  I'm not trying to sell my network to the public.  I shouldn't have to do their job for them.

And yet FoxNews always had Leftist views, even sometimes predominantly, in their presentations.

Sure, there's always one person in a discussion to represent the other side, but to say FNC had predominantly Leftist views is going way too far. Even if you didn't like O'Reilly or Greta, there was always Hannity.

Is the Geraldo show middle of the road?  Is Sheppard Smith a middle of the road guy?  Is O'Reilly really a Conservative?  Honsetly, you can go show by show and pick out full leftist programming.

I'm not trying to say O'Reilly is a full blown Leftist, but he is not a Conservative.  He does do some good stuff, but his commentary is very iffy.  If anything, you could term him as a man that muddies up Conservatism.  How confusing is he on some issues?  Very.

I'd like to agree with you, but FoxNews has frittered away it's position, and it isn't my job or anyone's job to go hung to Conservatism because they blow it.

[DoughtyOne]

At least part of the time Donna. You’re right.

[Bullish]

Like I said before I have FIOS.

OAN comes in on 116 and 616-HD

[AdaGray]

FOX can never admit it, but Trump is adding to his base of support by dumping them.

[chasio649]

Trump was interviewed by Sarah Palin on OAN a month ago.

[Chuckster]

I haven’t had access to to a TV since May.

[chasio649]

I saw it on youtube...I don’t have TV either.

[x]

I don't believe that you actually believe that. Where do you go if not to FoxNews to find something Conservative?

You said they should have "an almost constant ultra-Conservative spin." Now it's just "something Conservative." They give you that. If you want more it's up to you. Now there's the One America Network and maybe Newsmax TV (which will sound like it's going to be much more conservative than Fox News, but most likely will end up being just about the same ideologically).

Look at it this way: if you read the Washington Post and watch CBS, you get a liberal spin on the news, but you don't get what you do from the Nation or the Progressive or In These Times or MSNBC. If you want that further left stuff, you know where you can get it, but if they put it in the network evening news or the daily paper they'd lose subscribers. If you're trying to run the Weekly Standard or the American Spectator you can't go whole-hog Human Events conservatism or you'll lose readers.

Anyway, what we have now is a chance to test your assumptions. If OAN or Newsmax is substantially more conservative than FNC and manages to win a large(r) audience, it will prove your theory. If they are more conservative and don't thrive or even survive, it will go a long way to disproving it. I'm thinking, though, that if you were right, Bob Dornan or Alan Keyes or Pat Robertson or Duncan Hunter probably would have gotten elected president by now.

I'm not trying to say O'Reilly is a full blown Leftist, but he is not a Conservative. He does do some good stuff, but his commentary is very iffy. If anything, you could term him as a man that muddies up Conservatism. How confusing is he on some issues? Very.

They did have Glenn Beck on for a while as a host whose ideological views were clear, prominent, pronounced, and unavoidable (at least when they had him on). Maybe Hannity is that way as well, but not every host can be that. Look at it this way. If O'Reilly brings out two conservatives and one liberal for a discussion, then you've got two conservatives, one liberal, and one muddy-viewed guy. That's still better than the other established TV outlets. Even if it's only one conservative and one liberal, Fox still provides a fairer forum for the conservative point of view than MSNBC or CNN.