Democrat Control; Free Markets; MSM Ratings

[Deborah K]

A thought just occured to me and maybe someone in this wise, intelligent, and innovative think-tank can help me out here:

I am seeing a disconnect between our so-called freely elected Congress and White House Administration, and the ratings of liberal media as opposed to conservative media. Stay with me -

In a free market, the people decide what paper they will read, what radio station they will listen to, and what TV station they will watch. Why is it then, that liberal Newspapers like the NYT are struggling to keep readership, to the point where they may fold? Why is it that liberal radio shows always fail, and the one that's left is barely hanging on? Why is it that Fox News has higher ratings than any other news channel? This doesn't reflect the presidential election OR the congressional election. And it's not like this is a new phenomenon. This has been the case for a few years.

Anyone?

[acptulsa]

Interesting question. Too many on the 'left' and not enough on the 'right', giving Faux a monopoly? Too many 'liberals' that want to remain willfully ignorant about what they have wrought? No, it wouldn't be the latter--you're right that this isn't new since November...

[Agent CSL]

FOX is a conglomerate. It has highly popular shows like Simpsons, American Idol, Family Guy, 24, Bones and Fringe. Fox News is an angry, no holds barred type of infotainment. They regularly report "news" that is panic-inducing in some, and frankly, entertaining to watch. It's no secret that Fox News is a Right-Side propaganda machine. I tend to think that republicans watch more news and TV than Left-Leaning liberals.

Whereas liberal talk shows tend to droll on about issues that aren't really anger-inducing. Since the Democrats are winning hand after hand, they don't really need to get their daily dose of information because they think things are sunny for them. Ratings fall.

You get more traffic, more ratings when everything is falling down because people want to see what's going on. If I faked a crisis on a website, I'd naturally get more curious or concerned users.

And newspapers are a dying breed, anyway.

This is how I see it, anyway.

[Paulitician]

The whole thing is freakin corrupt. Congress has what, a 20% approval rating (maybe that's being too generous?), yet 98% of congress people were re-electing. Things don't translate out perfectly in the real world. Fact is, the Republicans were discredited, so they were voted out. The dems are probably next, but given that we have two very horrible choices, the "will of the people" so to speak will just keep getting ignored.

[MsDoodahs]

JMO...

Newspapers are dying because of the internet. News is faster and cleaner via the net.

Networks have been losing viewership for a long time as well - again, because of the internet's abililty to provide news faster and cleaner. Think about that silly CNN twit reporter bitch - she gave SLANTED NEWS to those who do not use the internet - and who don't realize that they were just hoodwinked by the slimes at CNN.

Who does not use the internet? The OLDER SET - I'm guessing the 60 plus crowd, maybe as low as the 50 plus crowd.

The internet IS the enemy of the state - it is the Guttenburg press on steriods. The internet is also the enemy of the newspapers, and of the mainstream network sleaze press.

The state WILL attempt to stop the free flow of information because the free flow of information is the biggest reason we are able to do what we do: oppose them.

No "reporter" is going to challenge Obama. Think about it. Let's say that you're a reporter. And you go to a White House Press conference. And you ask a REAL challenging question to BO. Do you think you will EVER - EVER - get into ANOTHER press conference? Not likely. It's a method of control.

I would sincerely like to see "news" stories be exposed online somewhere. You know - take a Time piece, sold to the masses as "news" and take it apart and reveal where the opinions are being spoonfed to the masses.

Sentences like "The planet is at its warmest in over 650,000 years, scientists say."

So 650,001 years ago it was warmer than now? Who was driving the SUVs back then?

That kind of thing would be GREAT. Expose them even more.

Okay, I'm rambling...sorry....

lol...