If Jon Stewart is right, and the media only cares about ratings, then...

[Dawgs]

why do stations like CNN and MSNBC try to be Fox News lite?

Don't they realize that Republicans and Bush supporters are watching Fox News ONLY?
Don't they realize that there are millions of people dying for a news network that will tell us the truth about what's really important in this world?
Don't they realize that the poor ratings are a result of Republicans watching Fox News, and the rest of us tuning out because of the right-wing bias?

My guess is that they don't realize shit. They probably see a boost in ratings when they show 'runaway bride' stories, and that's good enough for them. But, aren't there many more of us that would watch all of the time if we could just get an alternative dose of truth?

I say yes. I fear we will never win any battles, until we can turn this around.

[Wright Patman]

1. The type of viewer

who watches 24-hour cable news is already largely an older and more conservative demographic. So I would guess they realize there is a limited universe of viewers and they will have to steal market share from Faux rather than be able to attract non-viewers of 24/7 news to a news channel.

[Johonny]

8. So go get them

There's Jon Stewart out on comedy channel beating you in the ratings. He's bringing the news in a hip and funny way. You aren't going to bring in liberals and young people with the same stiff, phoney canned programs Faux news is famous for. Go get smart, hip, funny people and bring them to your station.

[stewert]

2. And..........

As long as the corporation buy the advertising that pays for the news it will never be what the people want. Face it, we have a corporate owned and controlled media that is looking out for the bottom line, money. And they do not want to upset their corporate money cow who are almost all Republicans.

If they do a story the advertisers dont like they threaten to pull their ads from that show. It's basically censorship, so they do fluff stories and stuff that dont upset the Corporate sponsors or the Republicans.

What we need is a peoples media channel that has no corporate advertising. Unless we get that kind of news channel we will never have the kind of media we need.

[EST]

7. We have that-

It's called Free Speech TV and is available on Dish, Direct, and many cable services. An infusion of money would increase their stature.

[Kansas Wyatt]

3. Afraid of being victims of a mass "suicide?"

[blm]

4. Stewart is dead wrong about this. He's thinking by the old media news

standard, but, today, the corporations that OWN the news channels make MORE money off government defense dollars than they do regular consumer dollars, so they push the militaristic, fascist agenda using the news channels as their inhouse Public Relations Dept.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. I think you got it there.

The mission is not to dispense information, but to propagandize for their corporate masters. Good ratings don't help if in getting them they undercut the corporate profits coming from government contracts.

[Stirk]

5. Because he's wrong.

I've no doubt that cable stations pick stories with ratings in mind, but the stories also have to be acceptable to their corporate owners. That's the first cut- and the deeper one.

[gollygee]

6. I think it's a case of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"

they right-wingers squeak more, ie they call and write to news programs more often, so the news programs naturally move right in response to that. If they're constantly hearing how liberal they are, if people call the media "the liberal media" all the time, etc., they will compensate for that perceived bias, even if there isn't really a liberal bias to the media. The feedback they get suggests there is, and so the perception becomes the reality to them.

[SoCalDem]

9. What they think is THIS...

1. Rightwingers PAY ATTENTION and they watch a lot if TV (great for advertisers)

2. Left wingers are fickle with their news sources and media actually believes that there is "enough" liberal coverage.

3. The media KNOWS that marginal viewers WILL tune in for sensational stories like OJ,MJ,Martha,Runaway brides..

4. There are FEWER and fewer "real" newspeople, and Ken & Barbie work cheap.

5. Investigational resources have been gutted over the decades, and the real nuts& bolts reporter/researcher types left long ago..

6. Access to the government in charge is more valuable than truth-telling.

7. They know most people have few choices and they are complacent.

8. They are lazy.

9. Liberals fuss and fume, but they do not organize like rightwingers, and when Rightwingers get pissed off, they have a bigger impact, because they have the megaphone effect of all their well-placed "other" media-pals..

10. It's always about the money..

[librechik]

11. audiences--viewers--are just a means to an end

the real goal is Corporate Money, in the form of commercial buys.

Networks bet on the kinds of audiences they can build to attract ads, but they come in anyway, corporations bet on placing ads, content is almost irrelevant.

News has always been a writeoff, becasue basically no one watches news. There is frankly NO commercial audience for news. They used to keep news divisions as a prestige item, and never expect to make money off it. Now news is expected to make money when it obviously can't.

News dividions are in denial about this and desperately trying to pretend that audience is still key, when in fact they need to convince their corporate meisters all over again that profit is not important to the news, it is in essence a philanthropic, public service they keep so that people admire their integrity.

These guys are not interested in integrity. I think the news is a dying form.

[tinrobot]

12. It's not about ratings

It's about money.

GE, Time Warner, and the other owners of large news outlets make much more money keeping the GOP in office. Good ratings are nice, but they won't affect the bottom line as much as changes that favor big corprations on taxes, bankruptcy laws, environmental laws, etc...

Don't forget, NBC is owned by this nations largest defense contractor. You think they're going to criticize a war that earns their parent tens of billions when the news division makes only millions, if that?

[Cleita]

13. It's whom they are owned by determines what they

program for you. I get the impression they don't give a shiet about what we want. It's only what they want to tell us to make us believe what they say. I don't think the counted on us being such a tough audience. I have turned off CNN until it's under new ownership, preferrably an ownership of real journalists.

[BrendaStarr]

14. Did you see that average age of Sunday morning news watchers?

It's about 58 years old.

I'm thinking it's about the same for most 24 hour news type and we are never going to change the local daily news that the rest of the nation watches at the most.

They will go for the biggest stories (though thing unfavorable to Republicans have to be mega big).

The rest of the US is on the web, with their families or friends or watching entertainment.

The only thing the most of us can affect is the web in forums and the only way we are going to change things is by hitting truly mixed boards and fighting the war of ideas with the right wingers. Please don't get discouraged that you can't change their minds (though you might have more impact than you think with honest ones--change often comes later). Most are paid and would have to leave a paying job if they agreed with you.

Plus you are helping teach the third eyes, the undecideds that wander into a message board or chat room tied to a news source because they are concerned about what is going on, but often don't post. And if we aren't there then they will be taught solely by right wingers.

Message boards and chats are increasingly important with young people. That's our next generation.