Those favorability ratings are about the same. Fox does not have an enormous audience. Less than one percent of the population is watching it at any given time, and that audience is already self selected to be the same minority of angry white people who love Dick Cheney.
I don’t hate him, and while I’m not offended by it, I really don’t want him doing this.
The world is not binary, Dio. It’s not a bunch of radical right wingers all listening to talk radio and all hating Obama. Most of my liberal friends listen to talk radio. I do, too. Talk radio encompasses more than Rush Limbaugh.
I do. It’s more complex than that.
Something is more complex than conservative talk radio?
Say it ain’t so!
First of all, Obama said “talk radio”. He didn’t say “conservative talk radio”. But even “conservative talk radio” doesn’t equate to Rush Limbaugh. He may the biggest (in more ways then one), but it’s still more complex than that.
No it isn’t. It’s less.
Is too!
And if you don’t agree, I’m gonna hold my breath.
turning blue…
You’re not following the happenstances here. The viewership of Fox is increasing. This means people are watching who didn’t watch before. The administration actions are pushing more people to the Right. Increasing the Fox viewership is Not a Good Thing™.
And the idea that making truthful statements can’t harm a politician is as naive as the idea that there is some kind of gain from attacking Fox. This is politics, not the courtroom. While the truth is an absolute defense against slander, the truth is by no means a defense against anything in politics.
Yes, everything the White House has said is true … but since saying it is driving some people to the right and hardening the opposition among those already on the right, the truth is hurting the Administration. When Helen Thomas thinks you are blowing it, the fact that you are telling the truth doesn’t help a bit.
Saying they were right wing? Where did that come from?
No, they’ll be like Helen Thomas, offended by the White House saying that Fox News is not a news organization, which is very, very different from saying they are right wing. She sees immediately what that means for freedom of the press. Hey, I’m a lefty, and I’m offended that the White House has declared itself the arbiter of what is news and what isn’t … as if someone stupid enough to attack a TV network would know the difference.
I read an analysis of the White House’s moves that actually sounds plausible. It’s this:
Obama’s approval ratings are now at the point where he’s lost all the moderate Republicans who crossed over and voted for him, as well as the right-of center independents. So at this point, his strategy is to make sure that he holds on to his Democratic base.
That’s going to be tough to do, because he’s likely to make a bunch of decisions soon that will anger them. Sending more troops to Afghanistan is a big one, and the smart money is that he’ll cave and give the generals what they want. Cap and Trade is probably going down, and the health care bill will be heavily compromised.
Therefore, the current strategy is red meat. Throw lots of it to the base by attacking their hated foes. Hence the attacks on Fox. Get the news cycle preoccupied with “Obama vs Fox”, a battle which gets the base jazzed up and less likely to throw a fit when they find out that Obama is doing things they don’t like.
To that end, the discussion of whether this helps or hurts FOX isn’t really the point. The point is whether this helps or hurts Obama in terms of keeping the base relatively happy.
Sam, I don’t understand this. If he’s lost all of the moderates, then who are the new folks who weren’t watching Glen Beck et al. before, but who are watching them now?
Also, how does attacking Fox help him with his base? I’m part of that base, I voted for Obama, I despise Beck et al., and I don’t like the attack on Fox. I think it shows weakness, desperation, and naiveté … how does that help him?
I understand that you’re not advancing the argument, you’re just reporting it, but any assistance would be welcome.
You’re probably on the moderate end of the spectrum, right? I notice you’re also very much in the minority on this issue among Obama fans here. Most of the people in this thread are loving this particular fight.
The new people watching Beck could simply be people who are on the right but who never watched him before. He’s got an audience of what, 3 or 4 million people? That leaves roughly 147 million people on the right side of the political divide he can draw from to build his audience without having to pick up anyone on the left.
Most of the people in this thread are shrugging over the recognition that Fox has abandoned news in favor of partisanship. There is a split over whether to be glad Obama is a straight shooter, or whether this it an inadviseable time or way to tell this particular truth.
That’s true, Sam, but where is the advantage in driving anyone towards Beck et al., Republican or Independent? Where is the upside in this? Most of the people who are “loving this fight” are going to approve of Obama no matter what he does. It won’t get him any extra support on the extreme left, it could lose him support from the moderate left, and it is likely to push people in the middle towards the right. Where is the gain in that?
There aren’t any new people watching Fox. If there’s been any rise in ratings at all (and have we seen any evidence of that in the last two days?), it’s just a temporary gawker bump from people curious to see how Fox reacts to being righteously called on its own bullshit. This will cause no political movement to the right. None. All it does is encourage his base, which has been waiting for him to call these cocksuckers out for the frauds they are for two years now.
Got a cite for that? Their viewership has been going up steadily. If you have info that it has leveled off, let’ see it. From wikipedia:
They don’t need a bump from this latest issue. Their ratings continue to rise, especially among younger viewers.
In and of itself, probably not. The thing is, it’s one more item to add to the right’s anti-Obama narrative. No need to give them that kind of ammunition.
They are not getting any more ratings FROM THIS STORY, and the other rise is statistically insignificant. It’s all the same teabagger retards. Obama will pay no political price for this, because he’s not saying anything that isn’t true.
Television news is tanking anyway:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/07/19/what-killed-broadcast-evening-news/23069
http://nickzanjani.com/2008/12/26/internet-news-gets-a-big-boost/
The number of people watching it at all is down, so at best Fox news represents the threat of a growing puddle in a drying reservoir. Whether Fox is the biggest puddle or not matters little, as most people know by now that the Internet is sane place to go to get your news.
At this point, I’m just going to say that it’s not worth the effort to debate with you. You never admit an error unless someone opens a multi-page Pit thread to call you out. I don’t do that.
Perhaps you just make up your claims, but some of us don’t …
From MSNBC (emphasis mine):
While Murdoch is a jerk, I doubt he would lie about something that is so easily checked. And I note that Axelrod didn’t deny Murdoch’s claim, he just said he wasn’t concerned about the rise in ratings.
So yes, indeed there are new people watching Fox.
The part that has been most curious to me in all of this is that the White House has not named one news story that Fox has done that contains a single error of any kind. Seems like if you’re going to say that somebody’s news is not news, you should give at least one example of why you are saying it. If somebody tried that here on the Dope, people would be screaming “Cite! Cite!”. Why are you giving the White House a pass on this elementary action?
Glenn Beck, of course, is playing this oddity for all it is worth. He has installed a red phone on his set, and has invited the White House to call any time he says something that isn’t true … like I said, you wrestle with a pig and you both get muddy, but the difference is, the pig likes it. And Glenn is loving this mud-wrestling fest.
Finally, in the real world your idea that telling the truth somehow means that you won’t pay a price for what you say is as naive as anything the White House is doing.
For example, if a big ugly guy is getting in your face about something, telling him that he has rotten teeth and his breath stinks might be 100% verifiably and absolutely true … but that doesn’t mean you won’t pay a large price for saying it.