How does Fox News compare to blank DVD information??
Today I received this gem in email, and feel compelled to share it, as well as respond here in the forum. It reminds me of the sad state of information for which our society currently exists, where "popularity" is a measure of something, and science and fact is so easily overlooked. And of course, that's how we end up with so many myths being perpetuated online -- something this forum (and much of the site) was created to fight off.
Quote:
and this specific quote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that Fox News has a crappy "scare tactics" reporting style is related to politics how, exactly? I have no admiration or respect for a so-called "news" outlet that acts more like the marketing wing of its own corporate body than the field I chose to get into 15 years ago. They seek ratings and monetary gain, and the dissemination of news (if you can even call it that) takes a backseat to those ulterior motives. That goes not just for the cable version, but all the local market Fox outlets, too. Yes, those are all "Fox News" by their own branding. In Dallas, it's "Fox 4 News". In Nashville, it's "Your Local Fox News". Many of their stories are questions. For example, "Do you wear contacts? Learn what common mistakes almost made this woman go blind! Learn what you should know at 10." That's an actual story that ran in the Nashville market a few months ago. I wear contacts. Oh my God, could I be doing something that might make me go blind? I was expecting them to say something about sleeping in contacts, using a solution that might not be good for your eyes, etc. As it turns out, the woman was doing anything but common. To put it bluntly, she was a total idiot. - She bought contacts without a prescription, to change her eye color. - She bought them from some shady "convenience store" in the bad part of town. - The box has no writing, and was obviously some sort of fake. - She "cleaned" them in water instead of solution. - She knew nothing of contacts, have read no documentation and having consulted with no doctor. Just how was that a "common" mistake? It wasn't. And it reminded me why I need to never watch Fox News. I want a refund on my time. They do the same things with politics, yes. The "death panels" baloney, for example. What a croc. But still, that was just terrible reporting at its core, not politics. Had anybody actually read the legislation, they would have seen no such "death panel" was ever mentioned directly, or via euphemism. Quote:
When it comes to local markets, I would suggest this is not true in many areas -- CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliates can and do draw more watchers. Some markets don't even have Fox affiliates. And I'm not sure other cable news networks are much better. It's like comparing a dog turd to a cat turds -- both are turds. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Oh goody! More fan mail from another blind follower of Fox News:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Compared to all other available networks (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, PBS, etc etc), Fox is just a minority of the overall consumption of news (or rather, part of the cable network infotainment industry). CNN, MSNBC, et al, may have lower ratings, but their combined viewership still exceeds Fox. Even if you want to argue that MSNBC is left-wing propaganda and should be excluded (and sometimes I'm inclined to allow for that, as I don't like propaganda of any kind), the pie chart changes very little -- Fox is still one of many, and not a majority in any way. Beyond that, the very nature of ratings gathering is irrationally inaccurate. I don't even have time to go into that can of worms. The sample sizes that are used to calculate ratings these days are so unscientific that they are almost a joke. Yes, sadly, it's still how many decisions on canceling shows or ad prices are set. You can read more about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen...atings_systems Those who actually work in media are well aware of this mess, and is why the whole "highest rated, most watched" rhetoric being espoused by Fox is nothing more than more of their own half-truth propaganda. The online equivalent is Alexa, which is biased and insufficiently small in its own ways, although it is at least many times larger than the Neilsen system. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again... ... the original phrase in the longevity article was a statement to the scare tactics implemented by Fox News, and those boogeyman articles about CDs/DVDs "dying" (one of which was written just a week ago). Popularity, especially when ascertained/counted by problematic means, is not a condition that matters -- it's still just a bunch of scare tactics. Tactics that we find to be highly unethical, as well as a disservice to the public. That's not the pillar of journalism. At least it's not supposed to be. |
I have enjoyed your dissections. Hopefully there are more to come.
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.