Is it possible that the main-stream media's complicity in Benghazigate is only exceeded by it's attempts to dupe the American people that John F. Kennedy was shot by 3 shots in 6 seconds from a horribly inaccurate bolt action rifle, unable to cycle a round faster than 2.3 seconds under the best circumstances, 3 shots by Lee Harvey Oswald, a below average shot ar best, 3 shots with such incredible accuracy at a moving vehicle that today's best snipers would have difficulty making 2 out of 3 of those shots with far more accurate rifles, and this same media refuses to inform the American people what this president was up to and how he tried to cover up actions he sanctioned that would not only result in his not being re-elected, but could well result in criminal charges being brought against him and key players in his administration. The truth will emerge in spite of those who would hide their despicable acts in hopes that by the time we the people figure out what's happened it will be too late. Events have been set in motion in the Middle East that threaten the very existence freedom as we know it here in America. On Nov. 6 , 2012 we will find out if there is even a chance the precious freedoms brave Americans gave their lives for will survive beyond this generation. Pray to God it isn't too late already. Even now, frightening revelations are coming to light, as indicated in this article:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/arming-jihadists-backfires-in-benghazi/#.UI65TI9yrUs.twitter
Monday, October 29, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Will The Mainstream Media Make America More Liberal, Or Go Bankrupt Trying?
Maybe because my last couple of weeks have consisted of flying all night, thereby turning my circadian rhythm upside down, making sleeping during normal night time hours near impossible on my off days, I decided to fill my sleepless time with an exercise in armchair analysis of the viewership each of the cable news networks receives. I looked up the ratings on Zap2it.com and entered the data from October 11th to October 23rd into an Excel spreadsheet. Using the programs charting tools, which was suprisingly easy for a novice like myself, I created a chart comparing Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN. Take a look at what I saw:
Most people I know look at cable news networks in terms of two categories; Fox News, the conservative 'outsider' and the more liberal 'Mainstream Media' which would include CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN. Now looking at the chart it is blaringly obvious that Fox News enjoys a viewership consistently that is nearly twice as much as it's nearest competitor, MSNBC, and several times more than CNN. In my travels I get to meet and talk to a lot of people. As soon as someone tells me which cable news channel they watch, I can be quite certain which way their political views are going to lean. Conservitives watch the Fox News Channel, and liberals think Fox is right wing propoganda. On the other hand, liberals watch MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, or HLN. Most conservatives will tell you the mainstream media is heavily biased toward liberal viewpoints, to the degree that most conservatives will tell you they believe the mainstream media is doing all it can to make sure Barack Obama gets re-elected to a second term. I will say right here that I believe that as well, recognizing that it is my opinion. I do believe there are a number of sources where facts are presented and a good case can be made that there is proof of that, but I will leave the proof of evidence for another discussion and stick with declaring what I have to say here about media bias as my opinion, based on my personal observations.
The core of what I am asking here is this; in the broadcasting business, you make money by attracting advertisers who pay for time to run their ads. It seems logical that an advertiser would want their ads to run on the network where they would get the most exposure, where more people would be watching at any time their ads would run. The whole ratings thing is all about how many people are watching a given network at a certain time. If you look at the chart here, it is plain to see that Fox News has a lot more viewers than the mainstream media. Why? I think it has to do with the content presented by the different news organizations. More people watch Fox News because they believe what is presented there is more credible, less biased, and aligns with their political views. So why don't the mainstream media networks change their reporting to come from a more conservative viewpoint to attract more viewers? It doesn't make sense that they don't want more viewers. There must be a deeper motivator that keeps them so doggedly liberal. Certainly the anchors, contributors, and presenters are selected and promoted based in part on their willingness and ability to reflect the political views of those in power leading the network. So it must be the ones who hold the keys of power in these organizations that are keeping their organizations pointed in the political direction they themselves espouse, even if it means sacrificing viewership, advertizing revenue, and ratings. Do they really believe they are doing the world a great service journalistically by holding fast to, and promoting their political ideologies? If so, have they not considered that the leadership at Fox may have the same sense of duty, to make sure more conservative values are preserved and presented the style and content of their reporting? If we assume the motivation for holding fast to the political leanings of one direction or the other is based personal convictions of the leaders in these organizations, I have to wonder if they aren't puzzled by the glaring difference in the number of Americans who have similar leanings. The difference is huge! In a democracy that means something. Why the mainstream media refuses to cater to the majority in America puzzles me. Are their convictions that they are so right that deep, that they would sacrifice success in the broadcasting business? If they believe that promoting a liberal agenda on their networks is going to change the tide of opinion among Americans, what evidence do they have to go on that such is even a possibility? Maybe they are like Mitt Romney's sons, who when they were younger thought if they could keep telling dad the same thing over and over, even though it wasn't true, eventually he would believe if by virtue of shear repetition. The trends we are seeing would seem to indicate otherwise. The American people are becoming more and more suspicious of the reporting from the mainstream media; more skeptical as to the so-called objectivity of the reporting. Newsweek just announced they will no longer be printing their news magazine. Obviously because it is no longer profitable. I wonder if one day the mainstream media will wise up and begin reporting objectively and unbiased, or if they are determined to try to convince the American people their liberal values are right, even if it means losing market share to the point of going out of business. But then, the bigger question of their relevance and the value of their convictions to the American public will have solved itself.
Most people I know look at cable news networks in terms of two categories; Fox News, the conservative 'outsider' and the more liberal 'Mainstream Media' which would include CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN. Now looking at the chart it is blaringly obvious that Fox News enjoys a viewership consistently that is nearly twice as much as it's nearest competitor, MSNBC, and several times more than CNN. In my travels I get to meet and talk to a lot of people. As soon as someone tells me which cable news channel they watch, I can be quite certain which way their political views are going to lean. Conservitives watch the Fox News Channel, and liberals think Fox is right wing propoganda. On the other hand, liberals watch MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, or HLN. Most conservatives will tell you the mainstream media is heavily biased toward liberal viewpoints, to the degree that most conservatives will tell you they believe the mainstream media is doing all it can to make sure Barack Obama gets re-elected to a second term. I will say right here that I believe that as well, recognizing that it is my opinion. I do believe there are a number of sources where facts are presented and a good case can be made that there is proof of that, but I will leave the proof of evidence for another discussion and stick with declaring what I have to say here about media bias as my opinion, based on my personal observations.
The core of what I am asking here is this; in the broadcasting business, you make money by attracting advertisers who pay for time to run their ads. It seems logical that an advertiser would want their ads to run on the network where they would get the most exposure, where more people would be watching at any time their ads would run. The whole ratings thing is all about how many people are watching a given network at a certain time. If you look at the chart here, it is plain to see that Fox News has a lot more viewers than the mainstream media. Why? I think it has to do with the content presented by the different news organizations. More people watch Fox News because they believe what is presented there is more credible, less biased, and aligns with their political views. So why don't the mainstream media networks change their reporting to come from a more conservative viewpoint to attract more viewers? It doesn't make sense that they don't want more viewers. There must be a deeper motivator that keeps them so doggedly liberal. Certainly the anchors, contributors, and presenters are selected and promoted based in part on their willingness and ability to reflect the political views of those in power leading the network. So it must be the ones who hold the keys of power in these organizations that are keeping their organizations pointed in the political direction they themselves espouse, even if it means sacrificing viewership, advertizing revenue, and ratings. Do they really believe they are doing the world a great service journalistically by holding fast to, and promoting their political ideologies? If so, have they not considered that the leadership at Fox may have the same sense of duty, to make sure more conservative values are preserved and presented the style and content of their reporting? If we assume the motivation for holding fast to the political leanings of one direction or the other is based personal convictions of the leaders in these organizations, I have to wonder if they aren't puzzled by the glaring difference in the number of Americans who have similar leanings. The difference is huge! In a democracy that means something. Why the mainstream media refuses to cater to the majority in America puzzles me. Are their convictions that they are so right that deep, that they would sacrifice success in the broadcasting business? If they believe that promoting a liberal agenda on their networks is going to change the tide of opinion among Americans, what evidence do they have to go on that such is even a possibility? Maybe they are like Mitt Romney's sons, who when they were younger thought if they could keep telling dad the same thing over and over, even though it wasn't true, eventually he would believe if by virtue of shear repetition. The trends we are seeing would seem to indicate otherwise. The American people are becoming more and more suspicious of the reporting from the mainstream media; more skeptical as to the so-called objectivity of the reporting. Newsweek just announced they will no longer be printing their news magazine. Obviously because it is no longer profitable. I wonder if one day the mainstream media will wise up and begin reporting objectively and unbiased, or if they are determined to try to convince the American people their liberal values are right, even if it means losing market share to the point of going out of business. But then, the bigger question of their relevance and the value of their convictions to the American public will have solved itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)