Could it be? YES IT BE!Analysis of ratings data from respected Pew Research and Neilson
shows that more Democrats watch Fox News than either CNN or MSNBC.
Fox News has come up on this Blog several times. The data in this posting sheds more light on the situation.
THE PIE CHARTS ARE NOT TOO SURPRISING
The first pie chart shows the distribution of the MSNBC audience. As one would expect, 45% are self-declared Democrats and only 18% are Republicans. The remainder are Independents (27%) and "Don't know" (10%).
The second pie does the same for CNN, with the only surprise being that a higher proportion of Democrats (51%) watch CNN than MSNBC. 18% of Republicans watch CNN.
The third pie does the same for Fox News. 39% of their viewers claim to be Republicans and 33% Democrats.
It might be surprising to see the Fox News "balance" between Republicans and Democrats. 39/33 = 1.18. MSNBC has a balance between Democrats and Republicans of 45/18 = 2.5. The balance at CNN is 51/18 = 2.83.
THE REAL SURPRISEFox News has a considerably higher viewership than either CNN or MSNBC. I combined that (from the 2009 Neilson data) with the data from the most recent (2008) Pew Research report, to generate the graphic.
The bars show the number of viewers using Total Audience (all ages) and averaging over the Entire Day. The Blue bars are MSNBC, the Red Fox News, and the Yellow CNN. The surprise is that more Democrats choose Fox News than either MSNBC or CNN. Indeed, if you combine the Democrats who watch MSNBC and CNN, they total only a bit more than Democrats who watch Fox News. If you consider Independents, more of them watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined!
BUT, WHO IS "FAIR AND BALANCED"
Of course, what appears "fair" or "balanced" to one person on MSNBC may appear biased to another person, and vice-versa on Fox News. This is a subjective issue that each person needs to resolve for him or herself. My personal opinion is that MSNBC leans way to the left and Fox News a bit to the right. CNN appears to me to go right down the middle, or a bit to the left of middle.
The above data indicates that, given a free choice, people who seek out cable TV news and talk tend to choose Fox News over the competition. If you add the presumably "fair and balanced"-minded Independents to the presumably left-leaning Democrats, you find that more of that cohort watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined. And that is true despite the fact that Fox News is available to fewer households.
BUT READ THE "FINE PRINT" BELOW
In the above analysis, I used Total Audience averaged over the Entire Day. I did that because the Pew Research data was for all ages and did not ask people when they watched cable TV. Fox News tends to have a slightly older audience, so had I used the 25-54 year old demographic, the results would have been a bit less surprising. However, they would still have shown that more Democrats and Independents watch Fox News than CNN or MSNBC.
The statistics for Prime Time are also a bit different from averages over the whole day. However, Fox News is also ahead on that measure. For example, for the 25-54 demographic, Fox News leads with 446,000 to MSNBCs 250,000 and CNNs 143,000. For the Total Audience including us old folks, Fox News leads with 2,036,000 to MSNBCs 753,000 and CNNs 621,000.
Ira Glickstein
15 comments:
Your report is interesting. I have been a staunch listener to Fox during my “prime time”, 4pm to 7pm and half the time 8pm to 9pm. I have been concerned lately that “fair and balanced” means they are telling me what I want to hear. After discussing this with friends, who are left of center, I am making an effort to watch CNN. The difficulty, I find, is comparing apples and apples. Wolf Blitzer is on for three hours, 4pm to 7pm. Then Lou Dobbs for an hour, followed by Campbell Brown until 9 pm, who, it seems to me, prefers “light news”. Wolf is not bad, however three hours is too much. Lou Dobbs is good and as far as I can see both he and Wolf are near the middle. I would compare Wolf with Shepard Smith while I would compare Lou Dobbs with Bret Baier and Neil Cavuto.
For prime time drama and entertainment, how can you beat Bill O’Reilly and Glen Beck? What surprises me is I often find I am agreeing with Glen even though his showmanship tends to turn me off.
One thing that might contribute to Fox’s appeal is during prime time they have five newscasters whose shows are different and appeal to different audiences while CNN has three. Also, Fox has many cute personalities on their show – that doesn’t hurt.
I don’t know why Ira is so obsessed with popularity. We all agree that appealing to sex, fear, and other emotional hot button issues (this is the definition of demagoguery) has always been more popular than rational analysis.
In any case, the Pew Trust Report I read does not agree with Ira’s analysis. There is an enormous amount of data in This Report. At one point it states: “More than three times as many Republicans (34%) as Democrats (10%) say they get most of their national and international news from Fox. By comparison, Democrats are more than twice as likely than Republicans to cite CNN (29% vs. 13%).”
Thanks Howard and John for your perceptive comments.
I agree with John that Wolf Blitzer (CNN) is right down the middle and that he compares favorably with Shepard Smith (Fox News). However, I find Lou Dobbs (CNN) to be xenophobic and somewhat irrational at times. Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck on Fox News are opinion leaders like Dobbs, but I find them much more dramatic and entertaining. I do not agree with their opinions at times, but they often have guests with opposing views with whom I agree.
Yes, Fox News does have the best looking female news and opinion leaders (virtually all blond :^). However, I would match their knowledge against any males on any news and talk programs anywhere.
The statistics Howard quotes do show that 29% of Democrats say they get most of their news from CNN (vs 13% from Fox News) but the ratings data I cite proves they must be getting most of their talk and opinion from Fox News!
It is a tribute to Fox News that they attract so many people with diverse opinions to watch their talk and opinion shows. Their shows are more exciting to watch. They provide some real debate with liberals like Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams and other outspoken personalities who stand in opposition to Fox News' general rightward slant.
As for your comment that I am "obsessed with popularity" and that Fox News' (alleged) appeal to "sex, fear and other emotional hot button issues ... is the definition of demagoguery...", it would appear you do not trust the people's judgement, and, if so, how can you believe in democracy?
The very basis of a democratic system is trust that popular choice will, on average and over the long run, be better than rule by some political elite.
Ira Glickstein
Ira says, “Yes, Fox News does have the best looking female news and opinion leaders (virtually all blond :^). However, I would match their knowledge against any males on any news and talk programs anywhere.” I agree, I wonder where they find them, impressive. I am not a proponent of political correctness as it is practiced today; however, it is gratifying to see the networks employing women and blacks in serious capacities rather than in fluff programming.
In addition to Fox, I watch and tape discussion programs on CSPAN2 on weekends. I find them interesting, they are usually talks given by authors who have written nonfiction books. I hope the following doesn’t sound raciest because it is meant just the opposite. I’m surprised how often I say, as I listen to a black man or lady, hey, that guy or gal is really smart. It’s not that I haven’t known there were there all of the time – I worked with many – rather, it seems to me that our country is growing, growing away from the concept of white male dominance in intellectual matters. It is wonderful to see. I just wish Al Sharpton et al would recognize how far we have come. Yes, I know we have a ways to go yet but in my generation we have come from the age of separate drinking fountains and where there were only two professions open to women, teaching and nursing to where we are today. It’s a big step in only 50 60 years.
Ira says, “Of course, what appears "fair" or "balanced" to one person on MSNBC may appear biased to another person, and vice-versa on Fox News. This is a subjective issue that each person needs to resolve for him or herself.”
It is certainly not a subjective issue when Rupert Murdoch has publicly (grudgingly) admitted that he is promoting his own political and financial agenda on all of his vast mass media holdings.
Of course I agree with Ira that, “The very basis of a democratic system is trust that popular choice will, on average and over the long run, be better than rule by some political elite.”
Who does Ira think is politically elite? Murdoch is a major influence on the political elite. He IS the political elite! There is no question that his mass media are trying to control popular choice; they are not trying to express popular choice which is the basis of democracy.
Columbia Journalism Review: “Murdoch uses his diverse holdings ... to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real news gathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.”
I certainly agreee with Howard that Murdoch's right-leaning views have affected the direction of his media empire. However, he makes considerable profits from his media ventures. They are honest, direct money-making investments.
Contrast this with other members of the "political elite" such as Soros and other left-leaning rich activists. Soros made his original fortune by "breaking the bank of England" shorting Sterling in 1992 and getting over $1 Billion when it was devalued. In 2002 he was convicted of insider trading, upheld by the highest court in France in 2006. Soros directly supports anti-Republican leftist organizations. He predicted financial disaster in a May 2008 book and profitted greatly from the recent worldwide financial meltdown to which he seems to have contributed and from which his candidate benefitted. To his credit, he has also supported reform efforts in Eastern Europe.
There is nothing wrong with this political use of money lawfully acquired (except for the French insider trading).
Both Murdoch and Soros have a right to "political speech" in the form of monitary donations. The main difference is that Soros' political spending is a loss leader supported by his earnings in finance and money-manipulation, while Murdoch's political spending conists of overt, profit-making investments in news media businesses. In that respect, Murdoch is satisfying his readers and viewers market-based appetite for news they see as fair and balanced, while Soros is subsidizing political propaganda activists to push his views on an often resistant populace.
As I have said before, people who are attracted to the journalism business tend not to be representative of the general population. Journalists split around 80/20 on preference for candidates where the voting poplation splits closer to 50/50. This is not a conspiracy of any sort. It is a fact of life that students whose interests tend towards writing and politics and welfare and so on are attracted to journalism. The result is that news organizations tend to lean to the left unless top management biases them closer to the middle.
The same is true of show business folks who lend their fame to political causes. Again, nothing wrong with that either. If their voice is strengthened by their acting or singing ability, let them use it as they wish.
Despite the results of recent elections, I trust the people to make the right choices. Given the free choice between MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, more Democrats and Independents and Republicans choose Fox News. Nothing wrong with that either.
Ira Glickstein
Ira says, “The main difference is that Soros' political spending is a loss leader supported by his earnings in finance and money-manipulation, while Murdoch's political spending consists of overt, profit-making investments in news media businesses.”
Ira’s conservative philosophy that wealth is the measure of morality, success, and fitness explains his criticism of Soros’s humanitarian philanthropy as if it were ethically suspect because it isn’t profitable.
However, Ira’s simplistic characterizations of Soros and Murdoch are so unjustly one-sided that they sound like a Fox News commentary. I want to add a few facts that I think more fairly represent their characters:
Soros has been active as a philanthropist for over 30 years (since the 1970s) when he began providing funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa, and began funding dissident movements behind the iron curtain. Soros' philanthropic funding includes efforts to promote non-violent democratization in the post-Soviet states. According to Neil Clark in the New Statesman, Soros's role was crucial in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Clark states that from 1979, Soros distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union; in 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media.
I can find no humanitarian or philanthropic activities by Murdoch. He is well-known for evading taxes worldwide, for threatening any critics with lawsuits, and for supporting repressive governments wherever he makes money. For example, he "startled even China's supporters with his zealous defense of that government's harsh crackdown on Falun Gong and criticism of Hong Kong democracy supporters." Murdoch also "said Hong Kong democracy advocates should accept the reality of life under a strong-willed 'absolutist' government." It "appeared to some to be a blatant effort to curry favor" with the China's repressive government. [LA Times, 3/23/01] In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Time Magazine, 10/25/99]
Contrary to Ira’s conservative view, I tend toward the liberal view that the love of wealth without humanitarian compassion is the root of most evils. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is any point in further argument about our entirely different value systems.
Howard, in my previous comment I wrote (of Soros): "To his credit, he has also supported reform efforts in Eastern Europe."
You still have not made clear why you object to the fact that people (plurality of Democrats, majority of Independents) freely choose to watch a news/talk channel that you claim is unfair and unbalanced with respect to their social and political views and interests.
Could it be that the quality of the programming makes up for what you perceive as lack of fairness and balance? Could it be that Fox News really is more fair and balanced than the other news/talk channels?
Or do you agree with Bill Maher that the American people are stupid?
Ira
PS: I think it is the snarky comments by people like Bill Maher and most of the elite "talking heads" on most news/talk channels that turns off the working men and women who make up the majority of the US population. The elite value intellectual achievement over good hard honest manual labor. Both are important IMHO - it is the manual labor by the working folks that gives us intellectuals the time and resources to think. Fox News has plenty of brainy talkers, but they refrain from being snarky. Perhaps that is their path to success?
Ira, you have not responded to my objection to your view that rating popularity is correlated with quality of programming. For example, just today the BBC reported the highest ever ratings for its political show Question Time with an appearance by the racist extremist Nick Griffin (British National Party leader). More than eight million people tuned in to watch Mr. Griffin, most of them objecting that the BBC would stoop to giving him so much exposure.
Also it is not just my opinion of Fox News (which also applies to most of the other news channels). I agree with the great majority who have a low opinion of most current news reporting. The Pew polls confirm that “public views of the accuracy of news stories have fallen to their lowest level in more than two decades,” with Fox News the most unfavorable “Total” (of both Republican and Democrats).
This confirms that the quality of news analysis has gone steadily downhill since the 70s and 80s when CBS 60 Minutes had the highest ratings, not of just news, but of all TV shows! By contrast, today the most popular TV show is Fox’s American Idol which has about as much redeeming social value as pro wrestling. I also note that on the Internet pornography is more popular than Bill O’Reilly. So what does that say about your “quality of programming”?
But the polls do not tell the important story of how media culture has replaced enlightenment with entertainment as the goal of TV, including newscasting. The ethical ideal of objectivity has been degraded to the amoral imperative of high ratings. The journalists on CBS 60 Minutes included distinguished names such as Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley, Charles Kuralt, and Walter Kronkite. CBS continues to keep this high standard in spite of losing first-place poll ratings to Fox News.
As I concluded in my last post, I doubt that there is any point in further argument about our entirely different value system if you equate the quality of these reporters with ranters like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and O’Reilly.
Jacques Barzun (From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life) is one of the greatest cultural historians of the last century. He is a strong classical conservative both politically and socially. He says “the root idea of a parliament is fundamentally distorted by the practice of polling.” A congressman who works to satisfy the popular polls and the lobbyist’s money is a lackey, not a leader. The same holds for news commentators.
Barzun also points out the absurdity of “crying for Excellence in education, but at the same time, pouncing on any implication of superiority as elitism.” Conservatives believe the competition of free-market capitalism is supposed to lead to a populist meritocracy, but you and other conservatives repeatedly denigrate academics and elitists on whom the nation depends for its competitive survival. It is common to hear conservatives like Beck and Limbaugh claim that liberals, intellectuals, and elites are conspirators whose arguments conceal hidden agendas (like socialism, communism, euthanasia, sexual deviants, and all that).
For examples of Fox News lack of ethics here are just three examples of editing dialog
, altering photographs , and their interview style.
.
Thanks, Howard, for your comments.
I watched all your linked Fox News bad ethics examples. They are terribly wrong for having edited the Wexler comedy video the way they did or altering the photos to make the reporters look ugly. As your third link says, the street producers for O'Reilly always disclose their affilliation immediately and that should be the case for all Fox News video reporters.
Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the major TV news organizations (CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN) that are members of the White House TV Pool. Two days ago, the White House made TARP corporate pay czar Feinberg available to the TV pool on the condition Fox News, a member of the pool since 1997, be excluded. To their credit, the other pool members refused to do the interviews until Fox was included.
This was a highly unethical move by the White House. It was also stupid because it was bound to backfire! The White House was forced to back down and include Fox News. Similarly, recent comments by White House advisors that Fox News is not a valid news organization are out of place and will also backfire. Even ultra-liberal reporters have banded together with their Fox journalist brothers in defense of freedom of the press, including the parts of the press that do not walk lock-step with a given administration. (Can you say "Nixon's enemies list"?)
Yes, I too am appalled by the low quality of journalism on all the cable news networks. You seem to think that CBS is better than the others, but have you forgotten the Dan Rather 60 Minutes report in 2004 that eventually cost CBS's Rather his job? Just weeks before the close election, he used obviously phony documents to smear Bush. The documents were supposedly typed by a manual IBM selectric typewriter many years ago, but they included a superscript "th" that proved they were composed using a modern word processor!
All news networks edit videos to make them more dramatic and, often, to make people they like look smarter and those they do not like look ugly. I do not think Fox News is any worse - they just do it to different people than the others!
I agree with you that rating popularity is not a measure of the quality of news programs (and not even for entertainment programs). I watch lots of stuff on low-rated CSPAN and NPR TV and use my XM Satellite radio to listen to BBC and leftist Air America Radio. I do not watch most of the highest rated entertainment programs or movies. You and I, as highly literate PhDs, are members of the elite. We are much, much, much better informed about scientific and political issues than "Joe Sixpack" and "Jane Hairspray". Nevertheless, we disagree on some scientific and political issues!
Would you agree that those of us with advanced degrees should get two or three votes to every one granted a non-college graduate? Would you agree to a literacy test for voting that included the ability to read a simple political statement and write an interpretation of it? How about a simple test of basic understanding of the constitutional process and major issues of the day? I assume you would not. WHY NOT? (I do not favor such voting tests even though I believe they would eliminate more Democratic voters than Republicans.)
The only point of my initial Topic posting was that people who vote Democratic, and therefore have views closer to yours than to mine or Fox News's, freely choose to watch Fox News more than CNN or MSNBC. More open-minded people (Independents) watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED.
I do not claim these statistics say anything about relative quality or truthfulness. As you note, all cable news channels deal in exciting controversy and human interest stories and often neglect the more complex issues that you and I think are more important.
Yet, yet, ... these are the same people who we encourage to vote for our leaders. If you trust popular election of leaders why are you so down on popular selection of TV news programs?
Ira Glickstein
Ira, I agree with almost everything you say, but you are either avoiding or misstating my position. You ask: “If you trust popular election of leaders why are you so down on popular selection of TV news programs?”
I have never said or implied that I am down on popular selection of news. I agreed with you ― I said: “Of course I agree with Ira that, “The very basis of a democratic system is trust that popular choice will, on average and over the long run, be better than rule by some political elite.”
I agree that the danger is just the politically elite, by which I mean those with enormous power not derived from popular choice. I go on to ask Ira, “Who does Ira think is politically elite? I claim that Murdoch IS the political elite! There is no question that his mass media are trying to control popular choice; they are not trying to express popular choice which is the basis of democracy.” I quoted the Columbia Journalism Review in support of my point:
“Murdoch uses his diverse holdings ... to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real news gathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.”
Murdoch’s self-serving, non-philanthropic power is acceptable to Ira because, “They are honest, direct money-making investments” (a questionable assertion). He goes on to criticize Soros’ philanthropy because it is a loss leader which I am sure is not a fair view of Soros’ philanthropic motive. This amoral personal profit motive is the value system that I do not agree with.
My point is that the danger to democracy is not with the common sense of the man in the street, but with the elite individuals like Murdoch whose power has influenced government leaders and whose values place personal wealth and power above all other values such as fairness and truthfulness.
OK Howard, I think I am finally starting to see your point. Rupert Murdoch has strong personal political views. He also has business interests that are dependent upon government regulatory approval. He controls the News Corporation which owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Fox TV, and many other news, sports, and entertainment organizations worldwide. He uses these diverse holdings to push his views. It did not work in the most recent presidential and congressional elections, but this sometimes helps elect candidates who are likely to support his ideas and pass laws that favor his financial interests. Yes, he is a leading member of the politically elite.
How is this different from the powerful liberal elite political families who have controlled the NY Times, Washington Post and many other highly influential newspapers for decades? How is this different from Jeffery Immelt of GE who controls NBC and MSNBC? How is this different from the liberal journalistic elite who control the journalism and most other departments of virtually all universities as well as major network TV news organizations?
Other than their political orientation, there is no difference between Murdoch and the other members of the elite, except for his relatively recent disruption of the liberal elite monopoly on the media. The problem the liberal elite have with Murdoch is the fact he disagrees with them and that he has been successful in the marketplace of ideas.
OK, we have ONE right-leaning news/talk channel (Fox News on cable) vs how many left-leaning (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, ... on both broadcast and cable)? We have the WSJ and NY Post vs how many left-leaning newspapers?
I think it is a greater danger to democracy that professional journalists split around 80/20 on important political issues where the general population splits closer to 50/50. Given a choice between the same old liberal pablum and some new conservative fare, people have freely voted with their remote controls to choose the latter. Murdoch is providing a product people want and is packaging it in a form that appeals to Independents and Democrats more than the other choices. He is also making money at it and pushing his personal political views. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.
Ira Glickstein
PS: I think the news programs on Fox News are as fair and truthful as those on CNN. The hosts of Fox News talk programs tend to the right but often have left-oriented guests and contributors.
Ira wants to know, "How is [Murdoch] different from the powerful liberal elite political families who have controlled the NY Times, Washington Post and many other highly influential newspapers for decades?"
Murdoch is different from the “elites” Ira mentions because Murdoch’s power is greater by one or two orders of magnitude. No person or group comes even close. Murdoch is not called the “Owner of the news” without cause. That was the whole point of the Columbia Journalism editorial: “If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.”
Murdoch’s empire influences over a billion people worldwide. It includes 9 movie studios, 16 TV nets, 20 cable nets, 5 satellite nets, 23 Internet sites, 4 book publishers, and 100s of newspapers. In all these categories he owns the biggest and most influential members.
The biographers I have read or reviewed agree that Murdoch is a ruthless opportunist, not a benevolent philanthropist.
Ira, is this a safe or healthy way to run the media?
OK Howard, Murdoch is orders of magnitude more powerful in the media business than any other single individual.
I agree that concentration of power, partifularly that approaching a monopoly, is unhealthy for democracy. We already have anti-trust laws, but it does not appear to me that Murdoch's enterprise has any characteristics of a monopoly.
We also have laws protecting freedom of the press.
What new laws do you suggest to dilute Murdoch's mass of power?
Ira Glickstein
If you know anything of Murdoch’s history you will understand why laws will not contain him. He is a very clever man and can outwit most politicians. By multiple citizenship and international diversification he has evaded laws and taxes in many countries.
His many meetings with heads of state are usually secret, but they all know how powerful he is. His dealings with China are well known. Opening up China is not a bad policy.
Our best hope is that in his old age with his younger Chinese wife (by 40 years), he will mellow out and begin to spend his huge fortune on more liberal philanthropic ventures. His new biographer, Michael Wolff, claims Murdoch is already fed up with the low-class reporting of O’Reilly and Beck.
Post a Comment