Tucker

[dgies9156]

I have no problem with Tucker. Any more than I do with Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon or a host of other commentators on either side. Or even the View for that matter!

As long as what they're brandishing is labeled opinion, which it is, then OK. They're entitled. If Fox, MSNBC, CNN or any other network wants to pontificate, go for it and see if you can get an audience. That's the goal -- to get an audience to sell beer, soap and even My Pillows (gosh, I can't stand that guy LOL).

What scares me is that people take this stuff as Gospel truth. That it replaces news in an era where objectivity in news coverage is rare, if not impossible.

I truly believe in the concept ascribed by the Houston Chronicle: "Written and Edited to Merit Your Confidence."

Or the Daily Herald: "Fear God, Tell the Truth and Make Money" (Not necessarily in that order).

[ZiggysFryBoy]

That's cute, dos swine.

[Not A Serious Person]

I effectively gave up watching cable news years ago. I have watched less than one hour of all of them together since getting the 2020 election results.

Serious question ...

Does anyone here watch them? No wrong answers. Just curious.

A second serious question is, does any of this matter?  Do they still have any influence on the public narrative?

[tower912]

We agree on something.  My new year's resolution for 2021 was to not watch cable news anymore.   I have held to that with two exceptions.  January 6 and the recent Nashville shooting, as I had relatives at that school.  Other than that, I have spent more time on this post than I have spent watching cable news.
    Does it have influence?   Yes, some.   Eat lunch in a small town diner or a popular local restaurant that has older customers and listen to conversations around you.   

[Not A Serious Person]

We agree on something. My new year's resolution for 2021 was to not watch cable news anymore.   I have held to that with two exceptions. January 6 and the recent Nashville shooting, as I had relatives at that school. Other than that, I have spent more time on this post than I have spent watching cable news.
    Does it have influence?   Yes, some.   Eat lunch in a small town diner or a popular local restaurant that has older customers and listen to conversations around you.

I understand that Grandpa meets with his golfing buddies for lunch and complains about the world based on what he watched on Fox News or MSNBC. But, I ask again, does that matter? So what? Does it move the needle on anything?

My biggest complaint about Cable News is that it creates no news. It emotionally reacts news broken somewhere else (typically, it is still the dead tree newspapers). So, you watch what fits your political view, as they assemble a panel to be outraged at whatever is happening in politics based on their viewpoint. I found that exhausting and stopped watching. 

I think what moves the needle is social media. Twitter (the center of social media) matters as that is where things start; even if it is a dead tree newspaper breaking news, the story gets its narrative and acceleration there. Cable News is just the summary of that for the elderly. Again, no thank you for me.

I looked it up. Tucker's show was the highest-rated show, with around 4 million viewers. There are 258 million people over 18 in the US (2020 Census). So, what are 98.5% of the adult population doing on any given night? The answer is not watching Tucker, and even more are not watching all the other Cable News shows.

But how many social media posts from prominent influencers have more than 4 million impressions? Hundreds of them!

So, I understand this post and why people are talking about it. I'm just struggling to figure out why any of this matters.

[WarriorFan]

I blame Dan Rather.  When he started injecting opinion and bias into news reporting I stopped watching news on ALL us channels. 
Yes, that was some time ago...

Walter Cronkite was the last honest newsman.  Maybe Mcneil and Lehrer.

BTW, I think Tucker and Lemon deserve each other.  Their purgatory should be spent with only each other, and no outside information.  They could just spew lies and make up new facts for us for several more years. 

[tower912]

Heisie, I said 'some'.    It only has to influence enough voters to flip an election.  How many is that?   When the margins in some states are so razor thin, flipping the correct million votes in the correct places turns the course of the country.

Since 1988, the Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote one time.  2004.   But the margins are such that by winning the right combination of states by just enough, it results in an electoral college victory.

So, in answer to your question, it doesn't need to impact 100 million people.  It needs to impact the correct combination of 1-2 million people.

[Not A Serious Person]

According to The New York Times, this interview last week sealed Don Lemon's fate.

Wow!  Just wow!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/media/don-lemon-cnn.html

Here is the video

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1650563196795641871?s=20

[muwarrior69]

I blame Dan Rather.  When he started injecting opinion and bias into news reporting I stopped watching news on ALL us channels. 
Yes, that was some time ago...

Walter Cronkite was the last honest newsman.  Maybe Mcneil and Lehrer.

BTW, I think Tucker and Lemon deserve each other.  Their purgatory should be spent with only each other, and no outside information.  They could just spew lies and make up new facts for us for several more years.

I thought Bernard Shaw, John Holliman, and Peter Arnett were stellar reporters for CNN while in Baghdad during the Gulf War. Those days are obviously over.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Walter Cronkite was the last honest newsman. 

This line always makes me laugh. Did people even watch Cronkite?  He interjected his opinions ALL THE TIME into his broadcasts.

I really wish we would stop yearning for eras that actually never happened.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Heisie, I said 'some'.    It only has to influence enough voters to flip an election.  How many is that?   When the margins in some states are so razor thin, flipping the correct million votes in the correct places turns the course of the country.

Since 1988, the Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote one time.  2004.   But the margins are such that by winning the right combination of states by just enough, it results in an electoral college victory.

So, in answer to your question, it doesn't need to impact 100 million people.  It needs to impact the correct combination of 1-2 million people.

Eh, I actually think it doesn't influence that many. The people that watch it are by and large confirming their own biases.

[tower912]

I think it influences 1-2% of voters.  Which can be just enough.  I also think it can drive or suppress turnout, which amounts to the same thing.   


Cronkite is given credit for changing the American public's perception of the police action in Vietnam.

[muwarrior69]

I think it influences 1-2% of voters.  Which can be just enough.  I also think it can drive or suppress turnout, which amounts to the same thing.   


Cronkite is given credit for changing the American public's perception of the police action in Vietnam.

[/color]

Cronkite did not change the perception of the war he just confirmed it. I can remember the Marquette Tribune would print the obituary of no fewer than 3 MU grads every week lost in the war. It was personal for a lot of Americans even those who did not lose a family member or friend.

[MuggsyB]

Russert is the last news person I remember liking.  As far as the impact Fox/CNN or television news has on voters?  I would say minimal and nowhere near 1-2%.   

[MU82]

Eh, I actually think it doesn't influence that many. The people that watch it are by and large confirming their own biases.

Definitely agree with this when it comes to Fox News. You don't watch Fox News if you're not voting GOP up and down the ballot. The exception might be primary season -- depending on what Fox is airing, it could influence choices on the GOP primary ballot. But again, that's not moving the needle one iota once there is one GOP and one Dem candidate. (Having said that, I have checked out Fox on election day; their news department generally has done a good job reporting on elections as they happen, and it's even famously pissed off viewers by having the temerity to use actual facts.)

CNN is probably that way for the left, too ... though maybe more independents watch it when there is a big news story on a particular day. Tower's example of what network one would watch during the events of 1/6/21 rings true.

[Jay Bee]

Definitely agree with this when it comes to Fox News. You don't watch Fox News if you're not voting GOP up and down the ballot.

That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I effectively gave up watching cable news years ago. I have watched less than one hour of all of them together since getting the 2020 election results.

Serious question ...

Does anyone here watch them? No wrong answers. Just curious.

A second serious question is, does any of this matter?  Do they still have any influence on the public narrative?

Somewhat like you I gave up watching cable news altogether except Presidential Election years I will watch MSNBC or CNN Labor Day through the election.  I'll watch the same for about 2-3 days only around Election Day in 1/2 year elections.

Influence the narrative? - As Tower said, it may effect 1%-2% people and that's it which seems to be enough if in the right location/state.

Strangely, Fox News has an excellent polling outfit also.

[Not A Serious Person]

That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.

Worth noting that Gutfield is the highest-rated late-night comedy show. Higher than The Tonight Show, Colbert and Kimmel.

These are another set of shows I have not watched in over a decade.

Unwatchable.

[pbiflyer]

Worth noting that Gutfield is the highest-rated late-night comedy show. Higher than The Tonight Show, Colbert and Kimmel.

These are another set of shows I have not watched in over a decade.

Unwatchable.

If you haven't seen them in over a decade, how do you know they are unwatchable? Things change over time.
Imagine applying your logic to MUBB. 5,6,7 years ago almost unwatchable. Now, not so much. 

[jficke13]

Worth noting that Gutfield is the highest-rated late-night comedy show. Higher than The Tonight Show, Colbert and Kimmel.

These are another set of shows I have not watched in over a decade.

Unwatchable.

This is (sort of) off topic, but I wonder how much of an editorial decision to make media consumable in youtube-able bites for redistribution the day after broadcast to hunt virality has affected viewership on programming in general, and late night programing in particular. There's a 0% chance I will watch the Tonight Show, but a non-zero chance I might catch a clip of it the next day if what happened was noteworthy enough. I feel like in the past few years this has been my experience with SNL (though the sketch-length bits they did naturally lent themselves to this format) as well.

I do know that there is a whole cottage industry of outrage farming the cable news propogandists. Clip out whatever nonsensical take they have, cue up the derision, repackage it on twitter, presto chango you're the remora on the shark of Tucker (or whomever). And, conversely, who can forget one of my least favorite genres of repackaged content "Watch as [propagandists] OWNS/DESTROYS/DECIMATES [target]" (looking at Ben Shapiro's media ecosystem in particular for this one, but certainly the Resistance Twitter loves it way too freaking much). For that reason, when people are saying "oh the audience is only 2-3M (or whatever)" I do think that somewhat undersells the reach.

[MU82]

That’s not true. I watch Fox News (The Five and Gutfeld, regularly) and am not a Republican.

You're not "voting GOP up and down the ballot"? Great. Thanks!

[Golden Avalanche]

This line always makes me laugh. Did people even watch Cronkite?  He interjected his opinions ALL THE TIME into his broadcasts.

I really wish we would stop yearning for eras that actually never happened.

This shouldn't get lost in the cacophony of bullcrap about cable news.

Cronkite was an inveterate opinion-maker and people who claim he was only straight news "tell it like it is" are regurgitating what they've read or been told by others rather then experiencing him firsthand.

[MU82]

Cronkite's broadcasts were mostly "just the facts," but, from what I've read, there definitely were times he inserted his views or emotions. He famously fought off tears when reporting the JFK assassination, and he enthusiastically reported on the 1969 Apollo mission.

His biggest expressions of opinion involved the Vietnam War, which he despised and advocated against. After he visited Nam in 1968, he declared the war a "stalemate" and urged LBJ to get America out of it.

I'm too young to remember Nam (nice to say I'm too young to remember something!) but I did sometimes watch the Cronkite news as a teen and into my early 20s. Huntley and Brinkley on NBC were cut from the same cloth.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Somewhat like you I gave up watching cable news altogether except Presidential Election years I will watch MSNBC or CNN Labor Day through the election.  I'll watch the same for about 2-3 days only around Election Day in 1/2 year elections.

Influence the narrative? - As Tower said, it may effect 1%-2% people and that's it which seems to be enough if in the right location/state.

Strangely, Fox News has an excellent polling outfit also.

I think those who say this are looking at it from a far too short timeframe. At any given moment? Sure, maybe 1%-2% are influenced in the moment. It's the cumulative, long-term effect that is most powerful.

Few people are swayed by a single segment. It's the constant repetition that builds up perceptions over time, to the point that some become so terrified they shoot anyone on their doorstep that doesn't look like them...

...or go from vaccine proponent to posting memes about how the vaccine changes your DNA.

[lurch91]

Of course not. One Big Lie was spread by a TV pundit, the other Big Lie by a President. One lied to a TV audience the other lied to the voters. A Big Lie is a Big Lie is it not, but a Big Lie by a Democrat President is not the same thing I guess.

Not even close, one lied for profit and money knowing full well what they were doing, the other had to compromise with another political party dead-set against providing healthcare for anyone not sponsored by their employer to get legislation passed.