it does sway people, though. Fox News' existence in the last decade is basically a case study on the overton window.
Yes, it sways people in that it's part of how TV frames narrative, but I'm doubtful that it's as effective at deception as, say, CNN is. Now, it's effectiveness at shaping actual legislation is quite another matter, and quite frightening.
Okay, so then what's the story with CNBC?
CNBC is a financial news network with a 'all of our anchors are on fucking speed' format. I can't stand to watch or listen to more than 5 minutes of it at a time, partly because I disagree with the ideological position the network has (very pro laissez faire) and partly because Holy shit these guys are on speed.
Jim Kramer is an awful human being with a shitty ethos (but apparently his stock picks are pretty good. Except when he gave everyone bad advice which he personally profited from during the meltdown. Whoops). Melissa Lee is an insane New Zealand nationalist.
Aside from those two, the cast of the anchors seem okay-ish, given the overall format.
Honest question (I don't follow CNBC or New Zealand politics), might you be conflating two different MelissaLees?
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Lately I've been at a loss to find a good news outlet I can regularly go to. I usually just get my news from the Internet or word-of-mouth, but my dad (a hardcore conservative republican) always beats it over my head that he wants to hear where I get my news from. I think I need to get some clear answers for him just to get him off my back, but also because it be real nice to have an outlet that isn't tainted by the usual network BS.
Tell him you get your news from http://www.aljazeera.com/ . One, it is a really good news outlet, two, it actually has more in-depth coverage of happenings in the US than you'd expect (and what some readers outside the US would like, I'm sure), three, it's freaking al-jazeera which will make your conservative dad's worldview spin around so badly he's gonna be nauseous.
Lately I've been at a loss to find a good news outlet I can regularly go to. I usually just get my news from the Internet or word-of-mouth, but my dad (a hardcore conservative republican) always beats it over my head that he wants to hear where I get my news from. I think I need to get some clear answers for him just to get him off my back, but also because it be real nice to have an outlet that isn't tainted by the usual network BS.
Tell him you get your news from http://www.aljazeera.com/ . One, it is a really good news outlet, two, it actually has more in-depth coverage of happenings in the US than you'd expect (and what some readers outside the US would like, I'm sure), three, it's freaking al-jazeera which will make your conservative dad's worldview spin around so badly he's gonna be nauseous.
I would have said Fox news just to shut him up but this is a better idea.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Well, a quick and lazy check shows Bill-O with about three million viewers the other night while the NBC nightly news averaged about eight million viewers about a week ago.
In that case wikipedia lied to me!
Still though, three million... that's still kinda scary. How many of those were people watching ironically I wonder?
Well, a quick and lazy check shows Bill-O with about three million viewers the other night while the NBC nightly news averaged about eight million viewers about a week ago.
In that case wikipedia lied to me!
Still though, three million... that's still kinda scary. How many of those were people watching ironically I wonder?
Not many, probably a 5-digit number if I had to guess. Not a huge surprise that network news out-draws anything on cable, but 3M is more than NBC gets on some of their other prime-time programming.
Well, a quick and lazy check shows Bill-O with about three million viewers the other night while the NBC nightly news averaged about eight million viewers about a week ago.
In that case wikipedia lied to me!
Still though, three million... that's still kinda scary. How many of those were people watching ironically I wonder?
Keep in mind the general population though. The US has around 300 million people living here. That means, on average 1 out of 100 people is a Fox viewer.
Well, a quick and lazy check shows Bill-O with about three million viewers the other night while the NBC nightly news averaged about eight million viewers about a week ago.
In that case wikipedia lied to me!
Still though, three million... that's still kinda scary. How many of those were people watching ironically I wonder?
Keep in mind the general population though. The US has around 300 million people living here. That means, on average 1 out of 100 people is a Fox viewer.
This little fact always crack me up when fox viewers start crowing about how important and "big" their news network is.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Well, a quick and lazy check shows Bill-O with about three million viewers the other night while the NBC nightly news averaged about eight million viewers about a week ago.
In that case wikipedia lied to me!
Still though, three million... that's still kinda scary. How many of those were people watching ironically I wonder?
Keep in mind the general population though. The US has around 300 million people living here. That means, on average 1 out of 100 people is a Fox viewer.
By the same token, only about 3 in 100 people watch NBC nightly news. So in the context of news audiences, it is still a significant number.
Well if I understood Marathon correctly he was talking about average watcher statistics for both NBC and Fox, which isn't the same thing as "amount of people who regularly watch NBC/Fox News". Unless everyone following the news watches every single programme, then equating the first statistic to the second would give an underestimation. Just sayin'.
I'd call the "average viewing statistics" to being just about equal to the "amount of pople who regularly watch." If you watch something on a regular basis, then it's fair to say you're part of the crowd who is, on average, viewing a program. Now saying "Program Y on Channel X had Z viewers on date ABC. This means that on average, Channel X (or Program Y) has Z viewers" would be incorrect.
So yeah Marathon's comparison isn't really correct. The only thing that can be gotten from what he found is that the NBC news could be expected to have 5 million more viewers that Bill-O's show on the particular date he found the 3million viewer statistic for.
Posts
Honest question (I don't follow CNBC or New Zealand politics), might you be conflating two different Melissa Lees?
The company is splitting in two and he's still involved.
I read that as "a string of dictatorships"...
Tell him you get your news from http://www.aljazeera.com/ . One, it is a really good news outlet, two, it actually has more in-depth coverage of happenings in the US than you'd expect (and what some readers outside the US would like, I'm sure), three, it's freaking al-jazeera which will make your conservative dad's worldview spin around so badly he's gonna be nauseous.
I would have said Fox news just to shut him up but this is a better idea.
Still though, three million... that's still kinda scary. How many of those were people watching ironically I wonder?
Not many, probably a 5-digit number if I had to guess. Not a huge surprise that network news out-draws anything on cable, but 3M is more than NBC gets on some of their other prime-time programming.
Keep in mind the general population though. The US has around 300 million people living here. That means, on average 1 out of 100 people is a Fox viewer.
This little fact always crack me up when fox viewers start crowing about how important and "big" their news network is.
So yeah Marathon's comparison isn't really correct. The only thing that can be gotten from what he found is that the NBC news could be expected to have 5 million more viewers that Bill-O's show on the particular date he found the 3million viewer statistic for.