Why we watch what we do? (Paper Research)

ANTVGM64

Howdy, I have to write a paper for my politics class, and my group is doing politics in the media.

My portion is about why shows such as O'Reilly Factor, Glenn Beck, these far right shows get so many viewers, and the belief that a good chunk of the people watching, hate them.

I recall a quote from Howard Stern's Private Parts where they say that even the people who hate him, listen to him, just to see what he'd say next.

so essentially I'm looking for any information I can find on ratings/popularity/demographics watching Cable News.

Is there a website with studies on effects of cable news organizations, ratings compared to other programming?

Mike Danger

The Nielsen Ratings are probably a good place to start.

Wezoin

Although I don't have evidence for it my guess would be that we find them entertaining - sometimes its fun to listen to arguments that you think are stupid and/or don't match up with your ideology or beliefs. If you'd like some good books on politics in the media check out some of Dr. Paul Nesbitt-Larking's stuff. He's written a few textbooks on the subject like this one. You can probably find it in a library somewhere.

MagicToaster

Neilsen Ratings only say "x amount of people ages 25 - 35 watched this show from 10:00 pm to 11:00pm, they were 25% male, 75% female, 10% hispanic, 5% asian... and so on...." They won't measure opinions.

In order to measure people's approval you'd need to set up a focus group. I work in advertising and I think it's a fallacy to say that people would watch a show they hate, or endorse a product they don't agree with. At least, that's what our focus group studies show.

Think about a show you hate. Why aren't you watching it?

ANTVGM64

I guess I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly I want to say with the paper. I just think that the whole cable new thing thrives on the fact that it's bias, because we as a society hate forming our own opinions. I think I also want to point out that the Daily Show is as bias/dangerous as they say fox news it.

On another note, I'd like to point out that the ratings for cable news opinion programming is substantially larger than regular news reports, and that more people would rather get their information through a lens

Wezoin

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

I guess I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly I want to say with the paper. I just think that the whole cable new thing thrives on the fact that it's bias, because we as a society hate forming our own opinions. I think I also want to point out that the Daily Show is as bias/dangerous as they say fox news it.

On another note, I'd like to point out that the ratings for cable news opinion programming is substantially larger than regular news reports, and that more people would rather get their information through a lens

The field of political psychology might have something worthwhile to say in this debate. You're almost describing the party identification model, where people filter out information they don't agree with, or negative information about their favoured party/candidate, and give greater value to information that agrees with their political beliefs.

An issue I can see with your argument though is that it lacks provability. You can't prove bias, because your own bias plays into what you consider biased.

Example: If I say universal public healthcare is a necessity, someone from a left leaning political ideology may agree with me and see that as indisputable fact, whereas someone from a right leaning ideology would likely see it as biased.

Another issue is proving the daily show is dangerous is impossible, as well. Even if you could find examples of daily show fans committing serial murders you still wouldn't know if it was because of the daily show or because of some other external force or simply due to a natural predisposition towards aggression or murder.

ANTVGM64

Political psychology is where I'm going to look right now.

As far as The Daily Show, I'm more attempting to say it's just as bias/cheap/etc as Fox News, but it (Unfairly) gets away with it because it's a comedy show, so it's given carte blanche to get facts wrong, etc etc.

EggyToast

You will likely have to make some inferences unless you're doing your own polling. These will have to be rather logically sound, but you should also point out that these are assumptions rather than hard statistics of your own. But there is polling data that shows the number of people who identify as Democrats who watch Fox News, and you can assume that people who identify as (D) are likely to disagree with the Fox News viewpoint, and watch it for entertainment or to keep abreast of the opposition.

But polls or surveys that identify how people feel about a particular show, or why they watch what they watch, is harder to find. Most people watch TV for entertainment, after all.

matt has a problem

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

Political psychology is where I'm going to look right now.

As far as The Daily Show, I'm more attempting to say it's just as bias/cheap/etc as Fox News, but it (Unfairly) gets away with it because it's a comedy show, so it's given carte blanche to get facts wrong, etc etc.

The difference here is that the Daily Show doesn't purport to be a legitimate news source that only reports the facts, while Fox "Fair and Balanced" News does. The Daily Show "gets away with" its bias because its bias is how it creates its comedy. You're comparing apples to oranges here, a show that openly admits it's satirizing legitimate cable news shows vs. a channel that positions itself as a legitimate cable news show. If you really are wanting to write something on how one channel/show "gets away" with spin more often than another does, you're going to have to pick two channels/shows that make the same claims about the veracity of their reporting.

ANTVGM64

matthasaproblem wrote: »

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

Political psychology is where I'm going to look right now.

As far as The Daily Show, I'm more attempting to say it's just as bias/cheap/etc as Fox News, but it (Unfairly) gets away with it because it's a comedy show, so it's given carte blanche to get facts wrong, etc etc.

The difference here is that the Daily Show doesn't purport to be a legitimate news source that only reports the facts, while Fox "Fair and Balanced" News does. The Daily Show "gets away with" its bias because its bias is how it creates its comedy. You're comparing apples to oranges here, a show that openly admits it's satirizing legitimate cable news shows vs. a channel that positions itself as a legitimate cable news show. If you really are wanting to write something on how one channel/show "gets away" with spin more often than another does, you're going to have to pick two channels/shows that make the same claims about the veracity of their reporting.

This is what I'm agruing against, and here's why. The Daily show routinely harps on fox news and various other ridiculous oddities from the day. Taking say, Fox news, for example, it'll highlight all the dumb things said over the course of a few days/weeks/whatever distorting facts, as to what the conversation was, or taking quotes out of context.

if you get say, Jim Cramer on the show and he tells Jon Stewart "Well hold on, you got these clips out of context here" and Jon comes back with "Well I don't have to be right, or fair, I'm the guy with the fake news show" it strikes me as something of a cop out.

matt has a problem

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

Political psychology is where I'm going to look right now.

As far as The Daily Show, I'm more attempting to say it's just as bias/cheap/etc as Fox News, but it (Unfairly) gets away with it because it's a comedy show, so it's given carte blanche to get facts wrong, etc etc.

The difference here is that the Daily Show doesn't purport to be a legitimate news source that only reports the facts, while Fox "Fair and Balanced" News does. The Daily Show "gets away with" its bias because its bias is how it creates its comedy. You're comparing apples to oranges here, a show that openly admits it's satirizing legitimate cable news shows vs. a channel that positions itself as a legitimate cable news show. If you really are wanting to write something on how one channel/show "gets away" with spin more often than another does, you're going to have to pick two channels/shows that make the same claims about the veracity of their reporting.

This is what I'm agruing against, and here's why. The Daily show routinely harps on fox news and various other ridiculous oddities from the day. Taking say, Fox news, for example, it'll highlight all the dumb things said over the course of a few days/weeks/whatever distorting facts, as to what the conversation was, or taking quotes out of context.

if you get say, Jim Cramer on the show and he tells Jon Stewart "Well hold on, you got these clips out of context here" and Jon comes back with "Well I don't have to be right, or fair, I'm the guy with the fake news show" it strikes me as something of a cop out.

You need to watch this, because it explains the complaint you have, straight from the mouth of Jon Stewart. It's also an epic, epic takedown of Tucker Carlson, and the main reason Crossfire went off the air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

ANTVGM64

He appears to be doing the same thing the cross fire guys do. Insult, and talk over them, then claim that he has civilized Discourse, then he was called on it and said he was the comedy show, don't blame him.

He essentially went on that show and was an asshole. Then looks like a fool going out.

ED!

matthasaproblem wrote: »

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

Political psychology is where I'm going to look right now.

As far as The Daily Show, I'm more attempting to say it's just as bias/cheap/etc as Fox News, but it (Unfairly) gets away with it because it's a comedy show, so it's given carte blanche to get facts wrong, etc etc.

The difference here is that the Daily Show doesn't purport to be a legitimate news source that only reports the facts, while Fox "Fair and Balanced" News does. The Daily Show "gets away with" its bias because its bias is how it creates its comedy. You're comparing apples to oranges here, a show that openly admits it's satirizing legitimate cable news shows vs. a channel that positions itself as a legitimate cable news show. If you really are wanting to write something on how one channel/show "gets away" with spin more often than another does, you're going to have to pick two channels/shows that make the same claims about the veracity of their reporting.

Bill Oreilly, Glenn Beck & Sean Hannity are not "news reporters". So you too are comparing apples and oranges.

To the OP, a topic like this is likely to be rife with logical fallacies and bias in and of itself. Be careful that you are not entering into this assignment with a preset idea of where you want your "support" to end up.

zeeny

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

This is what I'm agruing against, and here's why. The Daily show routinely harps on fox news and various other ridiculous oddities from the day. Taking say, Fox news, for example, it'll highlight all the dumb things said over the course of a few days/weeks/whatever distorting facts, as to what the conversation was, or taking quotes out of context.

if you get say, Jim Cramer on the show and he tells Jon Stewart "Well hold on, you got these clips out of context here" and Jon comes back with "Well I don't have to be right, or fair, I'm the guy with the fake news show" it strikes me as something of a cop out.

You're going to argue against what? Entertainment programming getting quotes out of context for comedy purposes? I have a real hard time imagining your position and I'm very interested if you could formulate it on here.

RUNN1NGMAN

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

Political psychology is where I'm going to look right now.

As far as The Daily Show, I'm more attempting to say it's just as bias/cheap/etc as Fox News, but it (Unfairly) gets away with it because it's a comedy show, so it's given carte blanche to get facts wrong, etc etc.

The difference here is that the Daily Show doesn't purport to be a legitimate news source that only reports the facts, while Fox "Fair and Balanced" News does. The Daily Show "gets away with" its bias because its bias is how it creates its comedy. You're comparing apples to oranges here, a show that openly admits it's satirizing legitimate cable news shows vs. a channel that positions itself as a legitimate cable news show. If you really are wanting to write something on how one channel/show "gets away" with spin more often than another does, you're going to have to pick two channels/shows that make the same claims about the veracity of their reporting.

This is what I'm agruing against, and here's why. The Daily show routinely harps on fox news and various other ridiculous oddities from the day. Taking say, Fox news, for example, it'll highlight all the dumb things said over the course of a few days/weeks/whatever distorting facts, as to what the conversation was, or taking quotes out of context.

if you get say, Jim Cramer on the show and he tells Jon Stewart "Well hold on, you got these clips out of context here" and Jon comes back with "Well I don't have to be right, or fair, I'm the guy with the fake news show" it strikes me as something of a cop out.

This is on the level of CNN fact-checking SNL. The Daily Show is COMEDY. Yes, it uses current events and television news as a basis for that comedy, but that doesn't change the fact that The Daily Show has no responsibility to be objective or factual. It has a staff of comedy writers that write the "news" stories. Not only is The Daily Show not a objective source of news, it's a SCRIPTED comedy show. They make up pretend news stories and they have actors who play reporters. The Daily Show is fake. It is not real. So it's not a cop-out to say they don't have to be objective--any more than SNL has to be objective.

EggyToast

In general the only time the Daily Show is being straight is for the interviews, and for people who Stewart generally disagrees with, you can tell that he's doing his research and getting his facts straight.

In addition, for the most part the Daily Show does not issue "corrections" or updates on news stories, and they will happily offer assumptions and conclusions for comedy. For example, if they do a bit where they call Dick Cheney Emperor Palpatine, and use a quote of his out of context in order to make him seem particularly sinister, the quote will be right but of course the context is wrong because they're trying to be entertaining.

Of course, the show is satire so it could just be a guy up on stage talking about these same things. By presenting these things in the guise of a news program, it makes the delivery much more powerful -- and when they're focused on something, it can be particularly scathing.

But what you appear to be arguing doesn't really work because the presentation matters significantly. If someone claims to be news, and factual, and then isn't, that's really a violation of the viewer's trust. If someone claims to be comedy and bends facts in order to be humorous, that's expected. If something piques your interest, the comedy show will encourage you to seek out more information. The news show, you expect to be factual from the get-go.

Sentry

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

He appears to be doing the same thing the cross fire guys do. Insult, and talk over them, then claim that he has civilized Discourse, then he was called on it and said he was the comedy show, don't blame him.

He essentially went on that show and was an asshole. Then looks like a fool going out.

Yeah, he single handedly got cross-fire cancelled and led to Tucker Carlson's dismissal from CNN, and you think he looks like a fool?

Anyway, it sounds like you have a lot of really strong opinions with absolutely nothing to support them. Perhaps the research that showed that people who watch the Daily Show as their only source of news were better informed on current events then those who watched any of the cable news networks?

matt has a problem

ANTVGM64 wrote: »

He appears to be doing the same thing the cross fire guys do. Insult, and talk over them, then claim that he has civilized Discourse, then he was called on it and said he was the comedy show, don't blame him.

He essentially went on that show and was an asshole. Then looks like a fool going out.

He wasn't an asshole. He called out Crossfire for what it was, partisan hackery spewing talking points that went nowhere, while it positioned itself as a legitimate, in-depth news show to be taken seriously. They continued trying to get him to be the cymbal monkey, and once they realized how badly he was Godzillaing them tried to call him out for not asking tough questions on his show. A comedy show. That lampoons, mocks and satirizes things for laughs, and makes no claims otherwise.

They compared their show, a major cable news network point/counterpoint show, to as Stewart put it, a show that follows one where puppets make crank phone calls.

I don't know if you're simply missing the point of the differences between a show like the Daily Show and a show like Crossfire or what, but I gurantee you won't get a good grade on a paper that attempts to chastise an openly satirical comedy show for not being more serious and completely honest.

Considering the last time someone tried to do it it resulted in the cancellation of Crossfire and the sacking of Tucker Carlson, it would seem your prospects of success are grim.

RUNN1NGMAN

Maybe a better strategy would be to write about why many people use the Daily Show as their primary news source, or trust it more than real news shows, even though it is obviously a comedy. That's certainly a valid topic to explore--and more compelling than arguing that The Daily Show should be more objective.