So even though O'Reilly is a self-aggrandizing bore who devotes about 60% of the show to fluff to maintain ratings, I want to know how he appeals to moderates and undecideds whom he seduces into watching a show.
Judging the Fox hosts on this basis, I do not care whether O'Reilly is overbearing or Hannity becomes tedious or if Greta gets too deeply into the weeds (for my taste I wish all the Fox hosts would get more deeply into the weeds-but that is not my test or my goal) except in so far as those deficiencies cause them to lose battles in the propaganda war.
On the other side, O'Reilly has a knack for articulating an issue and he usually comes out on the right side-but of course not always. Hannity almost always comes out on the correct side, but he grinds away at it. Moreover, Hannity permits guests to talk over one another which is just as irritating as watching O'Reilly himself interrupt and talk over his guests.
Greta deserves credit as the most improved of the Fox hosts and one who exudes credibility. On the downside, she talks to much and she betrays a level of naïveté and a tendency toward goody two shoes which annoys me but which might be very effective with the female audience.
I'm not inclined to be personally happy about Megan Kelly appearing at 9 PM because I expect her to present a news show and I want to watch opinion at that hour. In any event she will be better at it than Shepard Smith and more conservative, although not necessarily reliably so.
The proof is in the ratings and Roger Ailes has demonstrated a knack for getting ratings and I therefore conclude that his hosts, compared to those on MSNBC, are persuasive.
