Gawker
Eric Boehlert predicts that Fox News is basically fucked. While the liberal Media Matters senior fellow's job is to criticize and decry Fox News, that network's continued relevence will ensure that he keeps that job. So it is presumably with both glee and secret dismay that Boehlert presents a portrait of an epochal force in news presentation on its sad decline.
In 2004, Fox' coverage of the New Hampshire primary—a purely Democratic affair, as no one dared challenge the president for his nomination—beat CNN's by 200,000 viewers. In the last New Hampshire primary, heavily contested by both parties, CNN prevailed over Fox by nearly 250,000 viewers. That's one anecdotal story (and Fox's coverage of the GOP South Carolina primary slightly beat CNN's), but maybe it's part of a trend? Boehlert has a damning list of reasons for Roger Ailes to be worried!
Some of them are astute (Fox staked a lot on Rudy Giuliani's campaign, the Dem candidates are largely boycotting the network, the Fox Business Network is a hilarious failure), and some of them are not (Ron Paul? Seriously?).
But is any of this seriously any reason at all to celebrate anything? The resurgence of CNN? On the backs of Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck? With Larry King still unexpectedly appearing to comfort the elderly and terrify children each and every night?
Or hey, maybe MSNBC—with Russert and Matthews, the blowhardiest of all pundits, at their disposal—will finally find its voice. Regardless of how it all turns out, we'll continue receiving precisely the quality of political coverage that we deserve.
Republicans make Fox News sick [Salon]
Comments
I hate to be a stickler.. but it's relevAnce.
Will go back to reading the post now..
Meh, doubt it. The only thing Fox News has to fear is the entry of a reliably-conservative rival into the cable news market.
I prefer to get my news from the squirrels in my front yard.
It's about time...I never could figure out how they got away with using the word "NEWS" in their title. In the best of all worlds, they will take Rush Limbaugh to their loudmouthed, anti-intellectual, obnoxious grave with them.
@Bentpost: Really. The people who watch FOX prefer to cook the squirrels in popcorn makers.
Those two the "blowhardiest?" I mean, yeah, close runners-up, but last I checked O'Reilly still draws breath.
This election cycle is going to be interesting since they, and most conservative pundits, obviously do not support McCain in a race to the White House, will they actually lose their effect on Republicans this time around?
@Bentpost: I get my news from the voices that make through my tinfoil hat.
@lionel-mandrake: "make IT through." Apologies.
As long as there are attractive young white chicks to go missing, Fox News will have an audience.
I have always dipped into Fox News (although never thank God to watch O'Reilly) but these last few months I've gravitated to MSNBC. Firstly, Morning Joe is so lame it actually works for me in the morning. Mikka has enough snark in her to fill a few pages of Gawker. Plus you get regular appearances from Blowhard Matthew contradicting all the crap he spouted the previous night. It's bliss.
Ailes jowls, however, abide.
"Russert and Matthews" ?
You mean Olbermann and Olbermann. And Contessa "I Can Has Teleprompt?" Brewer to make everyone else at the Star Destroyer feel smarter.
Oh, I thought this post was going to be something about Matthew Fox.
i love mika bryzinski.... berzinski.... brezhinski.
i love natalie morales.
@larrydarrell: Do you really think that she loathes Joe Scarborough or is it just an act. Her facial expressions are priceless - I even shave watching her - with resultant bleeding.
How about a bit of contrarian, here? What's the worst thing that's happened to Fox News? A Republican administration. An unsuccessful Republican administration. The best thing that could happen? Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and then the right-wing network can trot out all its best storylines from the 1990s. It's way too early to celebrate Fox News' demise.
i always have the same reaction to people who rail against fox news: now you know how 80 percent of america has felt about cbs news, the new york times, time/newsweek, etc. for the past 50 years.
I think the stiffest competition for TV financial journalism will not be an American channel. I predict it will come from Asia and have most of its assets in UAE or in Malaysia or India. The unipolar world not being what it used to be, most financial news will have to be global, not U.S.-centric. I think we're going to start seeing a decline for American TV journalism the way we've been seeing American newspaper journalism fall in recent years.
A IPTV-like hybrid of Internet and TV journalism, based in Asia, spoken in English is a real threat to our way of processing the ticker here.
hey, this thread reminds me.
is that red eye show still on?
Eric Boehlert would rather get a curbjob than a blowjob.
@Nick Denton: To give FNC credit where credit is due - it's responsible for creating a new news category. They became market leaders and innovated. MSNBC ape them show for show and CNN scamper behind.
@Nick Denton: Honestly, I think they really want it to happen. Until then, they are just picking on their own and mocking Obama's middle name.
If the networks are powered by pundilebrities, if this is the competitive business model that's been decided on, shoot me now. I'll just keep watching CNBC then changing to that channel with the fireplace when Cramer's shrieking at me.
@Nick Denton: Agreed. Same thing with talk radio, and Fox is just talk radio on the big screen. Limbaugh came to prominence through railing against the Clintons. He and his ilk at Fox only succesfully reach their audience by channeling the rage of the angry middle class white man, and suckering him into thinking it's the libs/gays who are his worst enemy. And what President is gonna make that guy more pissed, a black man or a woman? It's win win.
@pre555soul: Small screen, I meant. Tv is small.
You all miss the point, ie Faux News is entertainment. Not many viewers take it seriously, but of course that doesn't mean they're not still 'tards. Unlike liberals, they've acknowledged the power elite doesn't care about them and that they're pretty much phucked in 21st century America.
A chunk of Faux' ratings also come from ironic liberals who secretly groove on their dark vibe when no one is around to see them, and who won't even admit it to themselves, ie "I'm fascinated by their horribility" and "I have to see what the opposition is watching" when they really want to see John Gibson get away with something they can't get away with themselves.
(AND if you think you're alone with this, the chat rooms at Redstate are FULL of people who obviously watch Moyers or Olbermeinkampf by flashlight after wifey has gone to bed. )
Spleen vented. Restart? (Y/N/Cancel)
@larrydarrell: Really? 80%? Fifty years? Where'd you get those numbers from, FOX News?
Gr:
Yes, after all, the big three networks have always been charitable organizatoins supported by spare fatrthings from pale orphans.
This is about 200% premature. Fox News caters to the same category of viewer that chuckles over "wish I knew how to quit you" jokes on conservative radio, and those people haven't simply evaporated.
You might call this a cyclical end to five years of mission accomplished stories and Natalee Holloway recaps, but sure enough they'll find another way to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I mean, the constant in this equation is half the American public.
If you want to celebrate something, there is Murdoch's failure in China.
Oh come on, people have been predicting the demise of the Ku Klux Klan since it came into being and its devotees still slither into the daylight for the occasional rally. Given its demographic, I think the only thing Fox News really has to fear is a sudden uptick in the popularity of Quietus.
And it's always fun to watch the knuckle draggers pull out the tortured comparison to the hated Main Stream Media. No, sorry, you're comparing two very disparate things about as alike as gerbils to steam engines.
Yo, Stark_Pigeon> American Newspaper Journalism hasn't fallen, but rather reformulated itself. Just b/c circ and revenue of the majors have declined doesn't mean there's not tons of e-clowns tooling around the web o'sphere digging the well written word.
@dankfu: I think we agree with each other. Newspaper has declined. There's better writing on the web.
Perhaps I could have said it better, but what you are saying is what has happened.
Speaking internationally, there is more to be gained through value and information if localized "international" journalism becomes global, or if global journalism becomes localized.
I don't know if you get my drift, but that's kind of how I see it.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?