I Hate Rush

[Horse with no Name]

vehemently.
But I was in an office the other day that had him playing and I had to agree with him--I almost needed cardiac massage for that one.
He said and I am paraphrasing "that no media is mainstream anymore and that is what is happening to the networks. They either lean left or right and in so doing alienate core audiences which is turning them to other news sources. He said something to the effect that when people watch Faux they expect their news to be tailored to their liking--etc" and that is what they are seeking out and thats why their ratings are so high."
Finally at least one of the pigs realizes that MSM doesn't exist.

This brings me to my conclusion that Faux's numbers are so big because these people are sheep--or lemmings if you will and all flock there.

Most of us left leaners tend to seek out different news sources to broaden our scope and view, thus we don't have "ONE" news source so it really skews the numbers and assures that there cannot be a correct accountability of viewership based on political leanings.

[Darkhawk32]

1. Let me hand you a Q-Tip... Rush couldn't have said that...

Nah, don't believe it. :P

[mattclearing]

4. I believe it. Drudge is the same way...

They still think they are the outsiders in the media, remember?

Totally delusional, but they do.

Constantly whining about the liberal media years after its demise is likely to prevent one from noticing the actual lack thereof.

[NationalEnquirer]

2. LOL! Hey broken clock and all..

Maybe its all that Oxycontin...

[brainshrub]

3. I don't think mainstream media is Liberal or Conservative: It's corporate

And the values of a corporation do not sync with anyones values, or the left or the right.

ON EDIT: Am I actually agreeing with something Rush said? *sigh* I'll be signing off now to join Free Republic.

[tex-wyo-dem]

5. Have to agree with him...

but what he probably failed to say is that the same sheep that are flocking to Faux are the same sheep that have been listening to him and his copy-catters for years decrying the "liberal media." So, in other words, he helped create this polaristic view the sheep have.

[Q3JR4]

6. .....

He's a Nazi! (He's a nazi!) That's right he really is!
Cause he's a Nazi! (He's a nazi!) That's right you're being scammed.

He's a fear mongering scum bag, with the face of a horses ass....



Oldie but a goodie.....http://www.bushflash.com/nazi.html

[libertypirate]

7. Fair has reported on this.... take a look...

http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/fox-ratings.html


But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.

How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers.

CNN regularly claims a cume about 20 percent higher than Fox's (Deseret Morning News, 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, CNN's cume was significantly higher than Fox's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox (Cablefax, 4/30/03). But in the same period, the ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN's 2.2 million.

[CFO6]

8. I have heard several experts say that the Media in the US

is heading down the same path that the Europeans have. No unbiased media at all, just conservative press and liberal press and they make no bones about declaring themselves as such. I suppose it was inevitable. A shame though that no longer are there the media "untouchables" like Edward R Murrow and Ernie Pyle