Fox News Hits Three Year Perception Low With Republicans

YouGov BrandIndex ^ | 2/24/16 | Ted Marzilli

[M. Thatcher]

Since the first GOP presidential debate last August, Fox News Channel seems to have lost its perception mojo with its core right-leaning audience.

By mid February, FNC’s perception by Republican adults 18 and over had reached its lowest point in more than three years, and has declined by approximately 50% since January of this year.

Coinciding with Trump’s rise to front-runner in the GOP presidential race, Fox News Channel has seen its perception by Republicans slide. In early August 2015, right after the first GOP debate aired on Fox News Channel,Trump went on a Twitter war with moderator Megyn Kelly, saying she “bombed” and calling her “a lightweight reporter.”

The picture hasn’t been rosy in terms of the general population either: since last May, Fox News Channel’s perception levels with adults 18+ have uncharacteristically been drawing significantly more negative feedback than positive. At this point, both FNC and CNN are scoring at similar perception levels and they are both negative.

To measure perception of the two networks, YouGov BrandIndex used its Buzz score, which asks respondents: "If you've heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?" A score can range from 100 to -100 with a zero score equaling a neutral position.

On January 1, 2013, Fox News Channel’s Buzz score with Republican adults 18 and over was 49. By the first GOP debate last August, the score had dropped to 38. The downward momentum accelerated earlier this year when Fox News Channel’s score dropped from 36 on January 18th to 14 on February 12th. Trump declined to participate in FNC’s sanctioned GOP debate on January 28th. Fox News Channel’s current Buzz score is 17.

[danamco]

Bair, Wallace and Kelly, (maybe with access to Roger Ailes’ sleeping quarters???). All four thought they were smart attacking “Sir” Donald Trump, stepped deep in the cow pasture, in my former country called Spinat and it backfired, rightfully so, and they see the result of viewer migration !!!

[RetiredArmy]

I quit watching them because of their liberal leanings over the past few years. I quit watching the alphabet news organizations because of their commie supporting crap. I quit watching Fox for the same reasons. I just come to the Internet and check the news and I don’t have to listen to the garbage mouths on the Satan tube.

[DoughtyOne]

Sadly, a lot of folks have done the same thing.

I don’t mean sadly because you fond an alternate place, but sad that you had to.

Those organizations are dyings, and haven’t the slightest clue why.

[ObamahatesPACoal]

So the last time they were this low as when Fox News was pushing gang amnesty?

[nathanbedford]

A debate host should ask the same question to each participant. (DoughtyOne )

It was more than that...the tone of her question - her interjecting "there was more than one" as he was answering the question (relentlessly)

The problem is the others didn’t get treated that way. (Finalapproach29er)

He talked over Megyn and pointed out that he didn't hate all women, but he had dissed Rosie O'Donnell. This was a masterful re-framing of the question, (grey_whiskers )

I have previously posted the most relevant portion of the transcript of the debate on this thread in my reply #130. A review of that transcript will reveal that most of the assumptions of the Trump supporters expressed on this thread are contrary to the transcript.

For example, the idea that Kelly had a tone and that she "interjected" is obviously false. It was Trump who characteristically and repeatedly in all the debates interrupted Kelly. In this case he interrupted with a lie-also characteristically.

Trump said "only Rosie O'Donnell" which of course was untrue. Kelly did not interrupt Trump, Kelly was interrupted. She then responded with the truth, "no it wasn't"

Obviously Trump is lying, Kelly is telling the truth, but this somehow is distorted into journalistic malpractice!

Trump immediately regrets from his lie, "no it wasn't" and Kelly goes on to quote more of Trump's own words.

The rest of the transcript is readily available on the Internet and it will show that there is no basis for the assertion, "The problem is the others didn’t get treated that way." Kelly had clearly stated that the object the line of questioning was to identify the electability of each of the seventeen candidates. This was undertaken with all of the candidates, not Trump alone. Kelly identified one area of election vulnerability of Trump, his misogynist history. Others were asked questions in other areas of their particular vulnerability.

The idea that, "A debate host should ask the same question to each participant." Is silly if it is meant that each candidate should get an identical question but it makes some sense if there is an overall fairness about questions in a particular area, such as electability. In other words, it makes no sense to ask Dr. Carson questions about his history in real estate development because you asked the same question of Donald Trump and it makes equally no sense to question Donald Trump about his knowledge of brain surgery.

The whole transcript shows an evenhandedness, contrary to the assertions born out of false assumptions that we are examining.

The idea that Trump responded well to a question does not make the question illegitimate, politically correct, or unfair.

Political correctness is really an adherence to political orthodoxy and an attempt to stifle speech to conform to that orthodoxy. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kelly engaged in that practice. Quite the contrary, she offered Trump an opportunity to explain or deny his own words and, according to gray whiskers, he seized the opportunity and prevailed. Kudos to Trump but no bad marks for Megan Kelly.

The actual facts of the matter simply do not support a claim of unfairness.

The outraged feelings of the beholders distorts reality and leads them to attack Kelly in defense of their champion. It is not I who cannot see reality but those who simply will not read the transcript.

[grey_whiskers]

...I watched the exchange as it happened.

...and your reply, does not cover the fact that Dem candidates are asked questions such as their favorite President or (I read this one) ice cream.

[DoughtyOne]

Prattling off a defense of Megyn Kelly doesn’t interest me.

[nathanbedford]

Prattling off a defense of Megyn Kelly doesn’t interest me.

Quoting the transcript is hardly "prattling". It is also clear that reading the transcript doesn't interest you either, your mind is made up and will not be confused with the facts.

[Cen-Tejas]

.....in my opinion, the least biased anchor and most professional by far at Fox News is Kelly Wright.

I’ve listened to him many times and cannot detect any bias at all. He may have it but he does not put it on display as far as I can tell. Another one is Shannon Bream. Megyn is just awful and Oreilly talks over people so much that I cannot stand to watch him anymore. On balance, I have cut watching Fox about 75% in the past year.

[ExTexasRedhead]

FNC is off at my house and has been since the first debate.

[DoughtyOne]

I watched the event myself. I’ve seen it several times in replay

I saw the two parties and what they did.

If you think a transcript is going to change that, you’re sadly mistaken.

Believe what you want, and quite trying to lay off your refusal to accept reality on me.

[nathanbedford]

when, where, who?

I have no brief for journalists in general and it is unfair to compel me to defend all journalism,all the time, everywhere.

Indeed Fox is not consistent, one day it is for Trump, the next for Rubio, in between perhaps for Jeb. More, one part of Fox might support Jeb at the same time another part is supporting Carson or Rubio. It is silly to believe that Judge Judy has the same politics as Greta.

Nor is it fair to expect me to defend Fox or any other journalistic for-profit enterprise against the mythical, perfect ideal.

The problem with conservatives and Fox news is that Fox has not lived up to their expectations but conservatives have varying expectations, some, such as you, support Trump and others such as myself support Cruz. It is impossible for Fox to please us both and in the event it has pleased neither of us.

The idea that Fox is worse than the other networks which has been expressed on this thread indicates the departure from reality the primary season drives us to.

[papertyger]

The actual facts of the matter simply do not support a claim of unfairness.

I'm glad you're satisfied with your polemic, but it sounds more like an argument against Lincon's famous trope about how many legs are on a horse.

[nathanbedford]

You're right, I won't believe the transcript I will believe your lying eyes.

[going hot]

Hey, it's Nate!

Say there, looks like more and more people are wrong every day, no?

[nathanbedford]

I'm glad you're satisfied with your polemic, but it sounds more like an argument against Lincon's famous trope about how many legs are on a horse.

You are entitled to your opinion, you are fully entitled to express it here, but those who are partial to forming opinions based on evidence might ask, of what value is the opinion you just expressed?

The transcript is available but that is of no value apparently in forming those opinions.

[grey_whiskers]

Hillary favorite President:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-arranges-softball-question-for-clinton-at-town-hall/article/2581444

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/01/26/iowa-democratic-town-hall-hillary-clinton-favorite-president-15.cnn

Hillary Favorite Ice Cream:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/06/hillary-clinton-cant-even-be-honest-about-ice-cream/

Recall -- my complaint was not "Fox is not conservative" it was -- "media plays "gotcha" with GOP and/or Trump, but "softball" to libs.

Verdict: still Plausible.

Over to you, sir (friendly wave)

[DoughtyOne]

You can believe anything you like.

You are the first person on this forum that I know of to defend Kelly.

I’m not buying it. Nobody else did either.

You look at what she had planned for the debate he refused to attend, and you find out you didn’t have a journalist there after all.

You had a political operative, and here you are defending her professionalism and trying to lay it off as me not accepting reality.

[nathanbedford]

It is not I but you who incessantly resorts to the ad hominem

[papertyger]

The transcript is available but that is of no value apparently in forming those opinions.

Oh, transcripts have value, but the way you contrive to delegitimize and dismiss dissent from your "obvious" pronouncements does not.