CORRECTED, UPDATED -- Cable News Irony Alert: CNN, Fox and The Disappearing General Audience
CORRECTION: Ahh, the pitfalls of technology. In the post below, I wrote about an ad that kept running Sunday morning on CNN, which I watched in the background as I scribbled away at my office. Several times, I heard an ad for Anderson Cooper's show that included a woman's voice talking about being a "lifelong Democrat" and watching Cooper because he called out the "right wing." But that's not the whole story. I was told Monday by CNN that I only heard half the ad, which was dubbed in stereo. (Apparently my television is mono.) The other half of the ad had a male voice saying he was a Republican who turns to Anderson Cooper because he holds accountable "left wing politicians." The two voices are recorded to be talking over each other, reaffirming CNN's place in the center of the cable news spectrum. This makes my subsequent analysis largely wrong. Cooper was not signaling a shift to cater to a left-wing audience. He was signaling that he wanted both a left-wing and a right-wing audiences at the same time. The CNN dream of post-partisanship, in other words, is still alive. This still speaks to the degree to which cable news viewers are polarized--potential viewers are either left wing or right wing--but not in the way I initially described. After the jump, I have posted the transcript of the two versions of the ad, which CNN sent me. My apologies for the mistake.
The original blog post with transcript after the jump.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn appeared Sunday morning on Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources to discuss her comments in my TIME magazine story this week. She continued her criticism of Fox News:
But let's be realistic here, Howie. You know, they are widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their opposition research, put them on the air and that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is.
The ironic part came later, during the commercial break. All morning, CNN has been intermittently running a promo for Anderson Cooper 360, a show that has long billed itself as a classic straight news program with an investigative front man who digs "beyond the headlines" with "many points of view, so you can make up your own mind." The new promo, by contrast, consists of a woman's voice, pitching Cooper's show as, essentially, a liberal alternative to Fox News: "I'm a lifelong Democrat," she says, "and that's why I watch Anderson Cooper." Hmmm. The voice goes on to say that Cooper is the person she can turn to hold "right wing" conservatives accountable. Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here.
But then who is? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are committed liberals, increasingly focused on the dual project of holding President Obama to a liberal line and attacking his detractors. Fox News, on the other hand, is, well, Fox News. Dunn, on Kurtz's show, made a point of criticizing Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace for "fact checking" an Obama administration official but not its other Republican guests. So it goes.
If anything, the Anderson Cooper promo is just the latest evidence of what Fox News president Roger Ailes seems to have known long ago: Cable news viewers seem to want an ideological slant to their information. The cable audience has fractured beyond general news programming.
The ratings tell the story: In September, according to Nielson, the top thirteen cable news shows were on Fox, led by the network's conservative pundits: The O'Reilly Factor (2.6 million households), Sean Hannity (2.1 million), Glenn Beck (2.2 million), and the less political Greta Van Susteren (1.8 million). The top non-Fox shows are CNN's Larry King (921,000), Countdown with Keith Olbermann (881,000) and Rachel Maddow (827,000). Only then, in the 17th spot, does Anderson Cooper make a showing, with 746,000 households in the 10 p.m. hour.
UPDATE: As promised, here is the ad script that CNN released to me Monday:
AC360 Left Right Promo
Length: :302 Simultaneous Monologues, in sync, on 2 separate stereo channels
WOMAN: I'm a lifelong Democrat.
MAN: I'm a lifelong Republican.WOMAN: The issue that matters most to me is the economy.
MAN: The issue that matters most to me is national security.WOMAN: Unfortunately, a lot of the politicians running the government are extremely difficult to trust sometimes.
MAN: Unfortunately, many of the politicians running the government are almost impossible to trust sometimes.WOMAN: That's why I watch Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.
MAN: That's why I watch Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.ANNCR: Every Weeknight at 10, AC360 brings you the news from different perspectives.
WOMAN: I really like “Keeping Them Honest” –
because whenever one of those Right Wing politicians
plays with the facts… they're held accountable.MAN: I especially like “Keeping Them Honest” – because whenever one of those Left Wing politicians
plays with the facts… they're held accountable.ANNCR: AC360 Weeknights at 10, only on CNN.
AC360 Left Right Promo
Length: :15
2 Simultaneous Monologues, in sync, on 2 separate stereo channelsWOMAN: I'm a lifelong Democrat.
MAN: I'm a lifelong Republican.WOMAN: That's why I watch Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.
MAN: That's why I watch Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.WOMAN: I really like “Keeping Them Honest” –
because whenever one of those Right Wing politicians
plays with the facts… they're held accountable.MAN: I especially like “Keeping Them Honest” – because whenever one of those Left Wing politicians
plays with the facts… they're held accountable.ANNCR: AC360 Weeknights at 10, only on CNN.
-
1
If sawing 8 foot logs, into 4 foot lengths, is journalism then I suppose CNN is less ideological than Fox. Cooper has multiple opinions, and no opinions. His only goal is to spot the mid point, and bounce around there, without ever landing. Just because Fox and CNBC have opinions doesn't automatically make them wrong.
-
1.1
On the contrary, BOTH news organizations are wrong. News is supposed to be delivered 'slant free'. In the business, it's called objectivity. In today's world, that seems to be a disappearing trait. The ironic thing is that it SHOULD be easier to deliver objective news rather than going in the opposite direction. News is entertainment these days, but there is an underlying journalistic duty to deliver a fair and balanced news report.
I'm not opposed to slant. After all, these people have to draw in crowds for their advertisers. But with so many different media outlets (blogs, webcasts, websites, TV, radio, etc.) one would think they'd manage to figure out ways of delivering 'news' in the proper context.
An example would be clearly and prominently labeling FOX News, 'op-ed' for those segments which hint at or outright express opinions rather than facts. That way, the rumor mongers who thrive on propaganda can watch people telling them the things they should be thinking as part of their news rather than just delivering the facts and letting them make up their own minds. The same goes for CNN, though based on what the article says, it seems that segment is pretty plainly op-ed already.
A mindless drone can, if they choose, spot op-ed pieces by the use of adjectives. News, straight, unvarnished, untainted by opinion, just delivers the facts.
__________________________________________
Op-Ed: A raging inferno caused by suspected arsonists raced through the valley incinerating homes and lives while the local authorities did nothing. With no place in the area left to go, people are fleeing the valley to find relief elsewhere.The President, turning a blind eye of indifference to the plight of the people, had no comment on the callouse actions of his political-insider cohorts.
*******************************************************************
News: A twelve acre brush fire of undetermined origins in a steep ravine was allowed to burn itself out after one firefighter was injured attempting to reach the flames. He was treated at the scene and did not require hospitalization.It was determined that the single structure destroyed - an outhouse - was not worth endangering lives to save. Firefighters prevented the flames from spreading. Firefighters estimated the value of lost property at $1000.00. No other injuries were reported.
___________________________________________
One is far more entertaining to read, but lacks facts while the other tells you what happened and you can make up your own mind. The sad fact is that people, in general, are willing to believe everything their told whether it's true or not. Chalk it up to laziness, indifference or stupidity, the end result is the same - a large number of people believing fiction when all they should need is fact.
-
-
2
While all reporters and institutions have their unexamined beliefs and prejudices, PBS and NPR don't have a noticeable ax to grind or constituency to appeal to, the way MSNBC and Fox do. That's why the audience for public broadcasting is mainly liberals (though far from exclusively so): we want first to be informed, not to have our buttons pushed.
-
2.1
Thank you for that hilarious comment.
.
On a related note, here's Howard Kurtz lying. Understanding how he was lying shouldn't be that difficult for most people, but admitting that he was lying about that topic is exceedingly difficult for many. (Note that a later announcement partially backing his claim doesn't count: he lied *before* that announcement). -
2.2
NPR no axe to grind? Are you serious? Please tell me this is a joke. Otherwise this person is serisously unable to think objectively.
-
2.3
All you need to do is listen to the second hour of Weekend Edition Saturday from yesterday to hear the bias rather than news. NPR has fallen into the trap of believing that they must have a liberal bias (as opposed to having been objective) and therefore to counter it, they must faithfully report all right wing talking points.
.
Another example was the 20 minutes of derision on Morning Edition when the Nobel Peace Prize was announced. Supposedly the news part of the program, it was totally editorial. -
2.4
If you really think NewsHour and All Things Considered are liberal, then Fox News is indeed probably best for you.
-
-
3
Michael -
Do you actually not understand the difference between CNN and Fox?
-
4
Interesting catch, Michael. Obviously CNN got out of the journalism business years ago, but that promo still does kind of creep me out. I guess we like our stupid fake news, read by know-nothings like Wolf Blitzer, to have an ideological slant... but what about straight news?
-
5
I don't remember anyone in the Bush administration consistently whining about being hammered by ABCCBSNBCCNNPBSMSNBCFOX yes Fox was critical of Bush, This is the biggest bunch of crybabies to ever occupy the White House. Maybe if the weren't so concerned about pleasing everyone they would have time to govern.
-
5.1
You need to do a tad more research. The Bush administration openly praised Fox.
-
-
6
I wonder how these numbers (total viewers not ratings share) compare to two years ago.
2008 was a presidential election year so the numbers likely were higher, but what about two years ago?
I haven't watched more than 30 minutes total of cable "news" over the last 6 months.
-
7
Michael Scherer:
The ironic part came later...
Part of the problem with the "objectivity" conventions of modern US reportage is the disproportionately heavy weighting of the importance of "irony" in coverage.
.
Of course, the knee-jerk flagging of "irony" by the perpetual Holden Caulfields of the political press corps seems to originate in the dysfunctional confusion of scientific, empirical objectivity with the reporters' (and editors') need for advertisement of "objectivity".
.
Very few of these rituals or conventions now help the press corps with its true function, which is to reliably connect with and communicate necessary information to a democratic electorate.
.
You parrot that the problem between journalists and their newly empowered audience is that "Cable news viewers seem to want an ideological slant to their information.", when we want mountains more than the display of truthy biases. It turns out that we "seem to want" a whole lot more in the way of usable information, connection and trustworthiness from our press corps, but if all we can get is ideological slant, then we'll take that while we set about establishing better, more reliably transparent sources than you and your colleagues, Michael Scherer.
.
If the press as a whole can't even distinguish between reporting methods that fulfill the requirements of their consumers, and those that assuage their own feelings, or satisfy commercial objectives, and can only facilely bemoan the fact that their loathed, condescended-to user-base "fractured beyond the general news programming", then it's no wonder that they're subject to their current downward spiral of failure.
.
Don't you see that the problem is so much greater than your audience not understanding any more just how wonderful your "objectivity" conventions are for them, Michael Scherer?
.
Don't you see that the problem is one of transparency, which contradicts the whole premise of how/why "access journalism" is practiced by the political press corps?
.
Don't you know yet that transparency is the new "objectivity"?
.
Honestly? -
8
Hang on here... "I'm a life long Democrat so I watch Anderson Cooper 360" doesn't lead necessarily to "because Cooper is a Democrat" or "because the show is overtly supportive of Democrats" or anything like that. It could just mean, "Because Fox and CNBC yell at me, so I'll be watching something else" or it could mean, "Because Fox and CNBC are so overtly partisan, I'm choosing less partisan programming."
Anderson Cooper 360 is not a liberal-minded news program any more than one could call Time a liberal publication. You once worked for Mother Jones so I know you know the difference!
-
8.1
i am not a media critic and was not trying to judge anderson's, which i rarely watch, as a liberal show. but there is no doubt that the spot that CNN is running is pitching Cooper as a liberal antidote to the "right wing." It's a sales strategy that positions anderson as democrat friendly.
my post was attempting to explain the business reasons behind that sort of pitch.
-
8.2
Cable is in the business of getting advertising dollars. The news/commentary/bogus talking heads with predictable talking points/Villagers who breathlessly tell you who is doing what to upset whom is the window dressing.
CNN realises this so they tell you that the next issue will be raised in 6 minutes and counting or something similar.
It takes some guts to say the same thing over and over. So hats off to our Villagers who breathlessly report a McCain "exclusive" interview for the umpteenth time this year. Last week it was ABC, today CNN's State of the Nation. This guy gives us an exclusive each week.
-
8.3
@michaelscherer: Very cool of you to answer me, thank you. No reason for you to feel compelled to say "I'm not a media critic," though. Everyone is qualified to be a media critic since we're all consumers of the product and you're especially qualified because it's your career!
I think we might be saying the same thing but from a business standpoint remember that Fox started as a supposed alternative to a media biased towards the left. Isn't CNN just saying that in the age of Fox and CNBC that the pendulum has swung the other way?
-
8.4
Hmmm, something tells me if the commercial said, "I am a lifelong Republican, so I listen to Fox News". The above poster would be much more willing to read something into it.
-
8.5
The ad is one of three running- the Democrat one, an identical one except for the fact the man identifies himself as a Republican, and then one that meshes the two of them speaking simultaneously.
That is the purpose of the ads- to claim the middle ground, not the left side of the road with MSNBC.
-
8.6
hmmmmm... something tells me xxception has no idea what it's talking about.
-
8.7
Thanks so much for responding to commentary, Michael Scherer.
-
-
9
If the news isn't screamed at you and if nobody cries, it couldn't possibly be true. I gave up on watching news programs after the elections.
-
10
MS, could you name someone with their own show on Fox who is as liberal as Lou Dobbs and Joe Scarborough are conservative?
-
10.1
Rose: Scarborough is a conservative; but Dobbs??? Help me here.
-
10.2
Dobbs has been more conservative than many conservatives on immigration, for example. If you listen to him casually he might seem centrist on other topics, but when you listen closely he is far from liberal or even centrist.
.
I always found it telling that if you go to his web page to leave a comment you have to indicate if it is positive or negative. (At least that's the way it was.) I thought that indicated that any opposition comment would not even be read. -
10.3
That's a leap Ivy. I know of talk show hosts that I listen to that instanty send people that disagree or have a negative view of them to the front of the line.
-
10.4
Dobbs has a populist side, but he's also very right-wing. After all, he is a quasi-birther.
.
Dobbs hasn't made it any easier by using his radio show to fight back at critics, who he called "limp-minded, lily-livered lefty lemmings." He considered going on CNN tormentor Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show to thank him (O'Reilly says the birthers are wrong, but he defended Dobbs' right to talk about it).
.
http://news.aol.com/article/lou-dobbs-birther-coverage-is-challenge/599964 -
10.5
As I said, I somehow didn't believe I would be sent to the front of the line using this form.
.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9
.
Other programs may not read your comments, but they don't ask you to self-sort. -
10.6
Ivy_B, I love the positive/negative binary. No need to accommodate nuance...
-
10.7
Don't forget his doubling down on birtherism and his quick reaction to jump on the bandwagon on the whole 'right-wing terrorism' report as well as sympathies with sovereign citizen movements and 'tenthers'.
-
-
11
There also is another number that is important to realize. Fox audience is very old, CNN is in the middle, MSNBC is younger.
I would like t point out that MSNBC has Joe Scarborough on 3 hours every morning. Can you picture FOX doing that with a liberal all morning? So even there, you can't really compare what FOX's schedule is like with MSNBC as a balance.
.
It makes great he said/she said copy to pretend that MSNBC is consistently as liberal as FOX is conservative, but it isn't accurate. You also want to compare Rachel Maddow and Hannity/O"reilly/Beck in terms of seriousness of discussion?
.
And finally, you all made your bed when you (as journalists) decided that you were going to include FOX in the big umbrella. When they run around chasing ACORN all day as the most important thing in the world, by the rest of the media pretending it isn't a joke, you get lumped in with FOX when people think about the state of journalism. If you all had courage Michael, you could dismiss FOX for what it is, and still run stories all day that show that both sides are equally guilty, and both sides have valid opinions as is your want. -
12
"Fox News, on the other hand, is well, Fox News."
Fox News, on the other hand, is well, The Jesus Channel/ GOP TV/ The Glorious Official Republican Government News Network.
There, fixed it for you.
-
13
One more thing... have anyone else notice that when "The Wall Street Journal", "The Weekly Standard" people are on Fox News there's never disclosure that ALL these people are Rupert Murdock employees?
Imagine if MSNBC or CNN did this... I don't know how Fox News gets way with constantly recycling Rupert Murdock's employees (sockpuppets) from his various media properties.
Palin, who is a favorite among the Faux News/ Right-wing crowd is getting Rupert Murdock's wingnut welfare.
Palin's (Rupert Murdock's ghostwriter) book publisher is HarperCollins... a wholly owned Rupert Murdock subsidiary, you 'betcha.
-
13.1
I don't think it matters who the publisher is. Palin's book is a good investment for any publishing company to make, because you know the book is going to sell. HarperCollins is a legitimate publisher. They've published books by Shel Silverstein and Martin Luther King as well.
Rupert Murdoch is a businessman, first and foremost. Who knows what his political beliefs are? I personally doubt he has any strong ones. He just does what's been working for him.
-
-
14
I think the ironic thing is that a guy who writes for a magazine that has been losing readers for years thinks he knows what news viewers want.
-
14.1
Nearly all print media, left, right, and in-between, have been losing readers due to the free content on the World Wide Web. It's quite unreasonable to single out Time as though they alone had been affected. What people want, mainly, is not to have to pay for things.
-
14.2
What people want, mainly, is not to have to pay for things.
.
If that were the case, then broadcast news' numbers would be trending better than cable news', but the reverse is true. -
14.3
Stuart: But most people get their cable news stations as part of a package. I wonder what would happen if cable stations were "ala carte"?
.
Comcast recently "upgraded" my service by removing most of my channels, including CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, and I haven't missed them for a second.
-
-
15
HAs anyone yet figured out why, if FOX news deserves to be 'dismissed', they consistently rate highest in watched programs? Doesn't that tell us that a wide majority of the cable news watching public leans in a certain direction. People act as this is some sort of aberration, a fly in the ointment during the polling process. It's not, and major liberal media outlets simply cannot understand why so many people are 'still' conservatives because in their pious erudition, believe there is not place for that type of belief. They look so hard at FOX news but fail to understand the people who put FOX news on top. This is part of the arrogance of major media, that somehow the network is generating the viewers, while in fact it is the viewers who keep the networks going.
I hope to wake up one day when there is no cable news anymore (and no I don;t watch it now [nor TV] but it's influence is far and wide). The 24-hour news cycle has made a complete joke of journalism. With so much time to fill, networks have to fill it with 'something' and that something is largely pith. Also, one that same day, I hope that newspapers and journalists will realize their true job is not to take any side other that the truth, as best they can find it.And as far as Anderson Cooper, when he sinks to the level of a moron by stating that 'it's hard to talk while you are teabagging', he has just tainted every word he says after that. What the hell ever happened to the 'high-road' and civil discourse? Seems our news coverage is governed by the concept of mutual exclusivity and that's a shame.
-
15.1
Fox News average viewer is 67 years old. The demographic is not a long term winner. Racism, homophobia, jingoism sell well with that generation better than most. FOX will have to change in order to get the people who turn 67 in 10 years to keep at it.
.
I am not dismissing them like advertisers do, but FOX can only attract senior citizens for so long with the same message. -
15.2
'HAs anyone yet figured out why, if FOX news deserves to be 'dismissed', they consistently rate highest in watched programs?'
.
Professional wrestling also gets good Nielsen ratings. Does that mean we have to take it seriously? -
15.3
HAs anyone yet figured out why, if FOX news deserves to be 'dismissed', they consistently rate highest in watched programs?
That show about the people with the eight kids consistently got three times the viewers of O'Reilly, which I believe is Murdoch's highest rated show. And Katie Couric was in danger of losing her job for better numbers than that.
There is a tempest in a teapot aspect to all of this. The back up quarterback of you local sports franchise probably has higher name ID in your city than Olbermann or O'Reilly.
-
-
16
Michael,
First off, I think you meant to say CNN (not MSNBC) in your reply above.
.
Just because CNN claims that a 'lifelong Democrat' likes to watch Anderson Cooper doesn't mean that the CNN broadcast is somehow tainted. Do you really want to imply that any show that appeals to Democrats is necessarily partisan and/or liberal?
.
As a Democrat myself, I consider that absurd. Maybe you should get to know a few more of us. You may find that many of us like our news with depth and accuracy -- not just partisan pandering, false equivalences, ideological fiction, or political horse race reporting, Many of us prefer to form our own opinions, rather than just accept and parrot what others tell us to think (a reason why efforts to lead Democrats are often compared to 'herding cats'). We need and appreciate accurate reporting to form our opinions -- not just partisan screeds. Also, if events don't match our opinions, we're willing to change our opinions rather than deny the facts.
.
There's nothing wrong (or partisan) with CNN suggesting that a Democrat would be pleased with their show. When you state 'Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here' you're right in the sense that in that particular commercial they're inviting Democrats and liberals to watch their show, but you're wrong to suggest that therefore the show must be slanted and that others are being excluded from it.
.
Are you really dismissing the possibility that 'democrat friendly' (your term) programming could include straight forward, honest and thorough reporting? If CNN were to broadcast a commercial tomorrow that asserts that a 'lifelong Republican' likes Cooper's show, that commercial and this one would not be in conflict at all. Nor would it mean that just because a Republican might like the show it is no longer acceptable for Democrats.
.
BTW - my comments aren't intended to be taken as an endorsement of Cooper's show -- merely a reaction to the implications of Michael's post. -
17
Edwaters, Fox News does have the highest ratings, it's also the same group of people that make up just 20% of America's electorate... the far right-wing of the GOP.
There will always be an audience for the far right and that's Rupert Murdock's Fox News demographic.
They keep them frothing at the mouth with manufactured fear and GOP talking-points, phony outrage.
Btw, what do you think about Rupert Murdock constantly recycling his employees from his various media properties, "The Wall Street Journal", "The Weekly Standard" etc. on Fox News without disclosing they are all Murdock's Newscorp properties?
Is that fair and balanced?
-
17.1
Describe the far right wing to me davemartin, I'm one of 'em I think. Give me a checklist.
-
-
18
When I see Alex Castellanos and Bill Bennett on CNN I don't see Democrats in action. Who are their Democratic equivalents on Fox? Bob Beckel?
-
19
Sevenoaks07, Please note that Bob Beckel and other faux, Fox approved liberals Juan Williams (and a couple of others) are of course, employed by Rupert Murdock.
-
20
davemartin,
So if FOX can capture a large portion of a 20% market, why can't the other networks capture an equal share (viewer-wise) of a 4x size market?
Any network is aiming for a very small minority of people overall, the inability of networks other than FOX to connect is interesting in my book as it shows an inability to turn ideologic commons into viewers.
-
21
edwaters, because young people are out riding their bikes, playing on the computer, walking their dogs.
If a young person or liberal (probably better with computers) wants news, there's a thousand sources on the internet... TV news is slow, and not user selective.
Fox News plays to the far right-wing of the GOP with (manufactured) fear and Republicans talking points phony outrage.
Really, there should be an award given to the guy that writes the ominous, scary music for Fox News... he's obviously a full-time employee.
-
22
No seriously... whenever there's a special where Rupert Murdock wants to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein has WMD, or that Iran/North Korea is going to attack America tomorrow, or a Hannity or Beck segment where they want to scare their right-wing audience (even more) there's always that ominous music to go along with the story.
It's like a scary GOP music video.
-
22.1
You act as if CNN doesn't use ridiculous music to intro some of their reports as well.
-
-
23
MS & KT often throw this meme out there, that cable is more ideological as well as a greater freak show than print; in fact, they're largely equivalent.
However, call me elitist, but as a news consumer, I can think of no greater slang than to say he/she gets their information exclusively from cable. Mind you, I'm blessed to have access to none of the above. Lost in the he said/she said b-s that MS is peddling is that the greatest failing of both networks (as well as his own flagship pub.) is their utter/constitutional & borderline treasonous inability to call b-s, b/c calling b-s would threaten their corporate puppeteer-patrons.
SZ mentions the media's functions as connection and communication with their consumers, but I think it transcends this. It's also about conveying lethally truthful information, it's about holding even the most powerful accountable, and perhaps most of all, IMO, it's about where their sympathies lie. At present, they lie with the elite institutions that own them, while the rabble is to be merely disdained or cariciatured.
Examples of reality-based journalism that is nearly unrecognizable in the light of these MSM corp. institutions?
-
24
I don't think young people are in touch with the news as much as you might think. (first off you have to define young, I say 18-28). Most of the ones I know and run in to (many during my day job) are clueless automatons looking for the next place to spend their money, cell-phone stuck to their ear. YEs, they are idealistic, but God help them for their naivety and lack of ability to critically think.
And what is the bent with Rupert Murdock... that just sounds like a right-wing conspiracy...
-
25
Fox may attract the older viewers...but even supposing that younger people trend away from Fox at this point doesn't take into account the possibility of their political views changing as they grow older. It wouldn't be the first time.
-
25.1
I was VERY libeal when in college. Then, I got out in the real world and got a job. When I saw how big a chunk the governmnent took out of my first check, I started asking questions and doing a little research. Now, I identify myself as Libertarian.
-
- michaelscherer Ah.... Richard Wolffe. - 4 hours ago
- michaelscherer AP Fact Checks Obama's speech: http://bit.ly/5OR9ph - 4 hours ago
- michaelscherer RT @AlexKoppelman: "I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again." Obama joining 9/12 Project! - 4 hours ago
Most Popular »
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Dreaded X
- FX's Former Lawman Gets Justified
- Jay Leno a Failure; Also, Jay Leno a Success
- Jane Austen and Zombies and TV (and Twitter)
- Cheney: 'No Aspirations' for Further Office
- It's a Deal: 25 Days of Free MP3 Holiday Song Downloads
- The Kick-Ass Trailer
- Looking for Reasons to Care About Tiger Woods
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Tiger Woods Car Crash Bad Publicity for Rich Isleworth
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Dubai's Woes a Blow to Ambitious Ruler Sheik Mohammed
- The Muppets Perform 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- The Women of Islam
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
Quotes of the Day »
RSS