Rise of Fox puts CNN in strange No. 2 role

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 4/7/02 | Matt Kempner

[Nick Danger]

Just about the entire management and staff of CNN is politically liberal so they, no doubt, believe that what they're putting out is 100% mainstream reporting... CNN deserves to lose it's audience as they do not serve them well.

They serve some of them. They serve their liberal viewers very well. And you're right... they are sufficently far to the left themselves that they have no clue that this is what they are doing. Like most people, they imagine that "everyone is about like us."

Well, it turns out that everyone is not just like them. What I like about this ratings struggle is that it is the most accurate poll ever taken on the subject of where the center of gravity is in American politics. If after a year of having the Hollywood types from AOL spiff things up and add "sizzle" to CNN, Fox is still growing more rapidly, then the obvious conclusion is that Fox's so-called "conservative bias" is closer to the political mainstream than CNN's liberal bias is.

We say here on FR that CNN is horribly liberally biased. A lot of people are saying that about most of the media. It is a lot more difficult to dismiss this criticism when a so-called "fringe network" comes out of nowhere and in five years topples a 22-year-old franchise.

I think the conclusion is that the liberals in the media are kidding themselves when they say that their news judgement is in line with "mainstream America." Given a choice, "mainstream America" is going somewhere else.

[Ahban]

CNN's U.S. operations pull in $400 million a year in advertising -- four times what Fox News makes, Turell said. And CNN combined with Headline News gets three times as much per subscriber from cable systems than what Fox News gets, according to Kagan World Media.

This was the only part of the article I did not like. Any marketing types out there have an explanation as to why this would be so?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

both Kellner and Isaacson said there are some things they simply won't do: CNN . . . will not focus on opinion instead of news. And it won't broadcast the news with an ideological bent.

Both men contend that Fox News doesn't abide by the same principles.

Hogwash, said Brit Hume, who . . . said. CNN is still dull, . . .+ and . . . unwittingly carries a liberal bias that turns off a lot of viewers.

Hume is half right. CNN is dull because of its predictable, unconscious liberal perspective. What he doesn't say is that Fox avoids that trap in the only possible way--by not putting news first, last, and always. Because the rules of commercially successful journalism are inherently anticonservative. Instead, Fox majors on balanced, if not actually conservative, commentary. Compared to straight news, balanced commentary seems right-wing.

"The criteria for good journalism and the criteria for audience approval in many ways are at complete odds with each other," Thompson said. Fox News has "a lot of programming that is really not great journalism. It's really better entertainment."

If balanced commentary is better entertainment that is rich irony, since the perspective which makes journalism liberal is exactly driven by the need to entertain. Starting with the need for novelty, "breaking news." But what if nothing that happened in the past 24 hours is actually important to know? Usually, indeed, that is exactly the case . . . and the presumption to the contrary is a perspective--protected by the First Amendment. The further presumption that that perspective is "objective" is a bias.

[alrea]

Having that silly "Friends" inspired threesome as the morning show.

they are pretty bad. but as unwatchable as they, it's still better than the obvious slant from CNN.

[Loc123]

Wolf Blitzer: "We're fighting back. We're not giving up, by any means."

Does anyone else realize that this quote need only one word to be a socialist, anti-American Malcolm X quote.

"We're fighting back...by any means necessary!"

[Defender2]

I watch FOX and Friends too. sometimes they slip up but generally they're pretty good. I'd rather watch them in the morning than anything the other networks have to offer.

[thrcanbonly1]

They hired geraldo didn't they? Fox has no credibility either. FOX=Full of Excretment

[Psycho_Runner]

Fox News have the foxiest babes except for that Greta dog. She is one butt ugly woman. Its very interesting here on the west coast as now when she is on Fox that means I forgot to turn the chanel to watch Alan Keyes.

[flair2000]

Yeah, I guess that is one of the fringe benifits of being on the east coast. Greta is on too late for me to have to worry about her breaking my TV screen.

[rdb3]

I think we traditional-values folks are settling by singing FOXes praises simply because they are a bit better than the rest.

Why do you call it "settling?"

Look it. We conservatives most of the time deserve our "stuffy" label, cause that's exactly what we are!

I concur that the FOX broadcast network has some crazy programming. But I'm talking about Fox News Channel, not the Bart Simpson version.

But I reject your contention that FNC is "a bit better than the rest." Their motto is "We Report, You Decide." They honestly give conservative voices a fair shake, unlike every other news network out there. Brit Hume is worth my DirecTV bill every month alone. Tony Snow is valuable. But since the country is not 100% conservative, it's smart business to cater to all sides. Yes, even those we disagree with.

As far as Bill O'Reilly is concerned, he should be able to promote his books. I don't particularly care for his populist views, but his self-promotion doesn't bother me one bit because, in essence, it is capitalism.

Their morning show doesn't mean anything to me personally since I don't turn on my television until 1700hrs. I'm a talk-radio man in the morning and afternoon.

[rdb3]

They hire one liberal voice and that invalidates them as a network?

Beam me up, Scottie!

It's no wonder why RATS whip us. We are just never, EVER satisfied with anything.

Where did FNC say that they were a "conservative" news network? What makes you think that they should be one? They give conservative voices a fair shake and that's all one can really ask for in a news network.

But, as I said, we are all or nothing.

My God, that's so friggin' frustrating!

[uncbob]

Fox News have the foxiest babes except for that Greta dog.

Sorry but I find it obscene that some sexy looking info babe that looks like she just stepped out of a beauty parlor reads to me off some teleprompter about the latest news of being being blown up etc etc

[thrcanbonly1]

I never thought they where a "conservative" network. I thought they might be "fair" and "balanced", but they spout the same statist propaganda as the rest.

Herr Geobbels must be proud.

[rdb3]

the same statist propaganda. . .

Ah, there we go! I'm speaking to a libertarian. Nevermind. I'll move along.

[GailA]

Why in the H are they catering to YOUNGER viewers. Most are to busy working and playing to watch the news, much less a commercial. Besides the YOUNGER view doesn't have the MONEY power Middle aged and older Americans have. I see this crap in the stores as I shop. Nearly everything from shoes to clothes to hip appliances are sold with the 16-25 year olds in mind. Which leaves fewer items out there for us OLD middle aged geezers to purchase. A mini skirt and a midriff top, with tire tread shoes are a BIG turn off, unless you are 16 years old and want to look like a tramp.

[Bug]

Why in the H are they catering to YOUNGER viewers

Networks try to woo younger viewers because they'll be paid more by their real customers, the advertisers. Advertisers believe that the young are more subject to persuasion because they haven't yet formed solid attachments to branded merchandise. So advertisers, hoping to persuade viewers to buy their brand, want to reach these viewers and are willing to pay more to reach them. Even though older viewers have more money to spend, advertisers believe that they've already made up their minds about particular brands and cannot be persuaded to change. To a certain degree, that's true. In my case, there are automobile manufacturers who are wasting their money trying to persuade me to buy their brand. My mind's made up based on my previous experiences.

[thrcanbonly1]

I'm not a Libertarian. Just a student of history. I haven't used TV for info for a long time, and very rarely for entertainment.200 channels and nothing worth watching.(Well maybe Discovery Wings Channel if its not a repeat.)

P.S. Enjoyed your profile page