• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Fox News Channel Question

B

Bill_W

What is interesting is that people like the product that FNC is putting out. The ratings speak for themselves. I guess that's why people lash out against FNC. I'm watching Shep right now.

My question is if Roger Ailes stayed at NBC to run CNBC and MSNBC, which replaced America's Talking, (he ran America's Talking and CNBC) would MSNBC be the highest rated cable news outlet and would have Rupert Murdock even have hired Roger Ailes to start FNC if NBC hadn't fired him?

Will the new Fox Business Channel that Murdock wants to start in 2006 take out CNBC as well?
 
> What is interesting is that people like the product that FNC
> is putting out. The ratings speak for themselves. I guess
> that's why people lash out against FNC. I'm watching Shep
> right now.
>
> My question is if Roger Ailes stayed at NBC to run CNBC and
> MSNBC, which replaced America's Talking, (he ran America's
> Talking and CNBC) would MSNBC be the highest rated cable
> news outlet and would have Rupert Murdock even have hired
> Roger Ailes to start FNC if NBC hadn't fired him?

That's a great "what if" question, which is why I asked Bill to start a new thread rather than leave this as a reply to my moderator post. A related question would be: Would MSNBC have taken the direction Fox News has, under Ailes, and if so, what would Fox News have turned out like? (And who might Murdock have hired if Ailes hadn't been available?)

My feeling is that NBC wouldn't have allowed Ailes to take the news channel in what they might see as an "unsafe" direction. So I'd think Ailes would have been available to jump ship to Fox anyway, when that time came.

> Will the new Fox Business Channel that Murdock wants to
> start in 2006 take out CNBC as well?

CNBC is due some competition. Since they swallowed up FNN more than a decade ago, they have only had to compete with the now-defunct CNNfn and the relatively unknown (except within the financial community) and lesser carried Bloomberg for market coverage and business news. The question there would be: What direction will Fox take for programming outside of the market hours? If they take the same political slant as Fox News, will it play to their target audience for Fox Business?

I think it may be necessary to play it safer (read as "non-political"). But then they would run the risk of being as bland as CNBC.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
>
> CNBC is due some competition. Since they swallowed up FNN
> more than a decade ago, they have only had to compete with
> the now-defunct CNNfn and the relatively unknown (except
> within the financial community) and lesser carried Bloomberg
> for market coverage and business news. The question there
> would be: What direction will Fox take for programming
> outside of the market hours? If they take the same
> political slant as Fox News, will it play to their target
> audience for Fox Business?
>
> I think it may be necessary to play it safer (read as
> "non-political"). But then they would run the risk of being
> as bland as CNBC.
>
Neil Cavuto's show and the 2 hour Business block on Saturday could be an indication of what Fox Business could show. Maybe they could show more of entertainment news when there is no business news to show or sports programming or even delay FNC by 3hours for a west coast feed when they are showing the prime time lineup.
Just don't do infomercials like CNBC does.
 
> What is interesting is that people like the product that FNC
> is putting out. The ratings speak for themselves. I guess
> that's why people lash out against FNC. I'm watching Shep
> right now.
>
> My question is if Roger Ailes stayed at NBC to run CNBC and
> MSNBC, which replaced America's Talking, (he ran America's
> Talking and CNBC) would MSNBC be the highest rated cable
> news outlet and would have Rupert Murdock even have hired
> Roger Ailes to start FNC if NBC hadn't fired him?
>
> Will the new Fox Business Channel that Murdock wants to
> start in 2006 take out CNBC as well?
>
I didn't even start to get into the fray (below) about FNC, their new fee, etc. However, to me, FNC simply addresses a demand that has been out there for news that is approached differently than the major nets have done in the past. Those outlets have had a (perhaps unconscious) leftward slant for more than 30 years. I really think it just has to do with being out of touch with middle America and many journalists being too aloof to recognize that those criticisms have merit.

FNC was brilliant in finding that group of alienated news junkies and speaking to them. They do lean a bit rightward, but no moreso than MSNBC leans leftward. In the case of FNC, it is a simple case of catering to a large (and affluent) group of disaffected viewers - and they are now loyal and greatful.

Not all of FNC's coverage is conservative, either (just as not all of the major nets' coverage is leftist). It's not the TV version of Rush Limbaugh, as some posters make it out to be. Coming to mind are rants that Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera made during live shots in New Orleans. They were openly critical of how the administration was handling the issue. Personally, i thought that CNN did a better job of covering Katrina - but that's a different issue. I also think that CNN is more centrist than MSNBC or the Big 3 evening newscasts. Yet no one dares accuse CBS of being an arm of the Democratic Party (which would be every bit as fair as accusing FNC of being a division of the Republicans).

Look, FNC covers stories in a manner that caters to "red state" America. They don't lie or distort the news, they just cover it in a different manner. And, FNC has been incredibly successful at it. You need to give credit where it's due - they should be applauded (and rewarded) for finding a niche and exploiting it. Hey, ESPN did the same thing with sports in the early 1980s. If you don't care for the coverage, vote with your remote; there are other options available.

That wasn't always the case...
 
> What is interesting is that people like the product that FNC
> is putting out. The ratings speak for themselves. I guess
> that's why people lash out against FNC. I'm watching Shep
> right now.

I don't mind that Fox News exists as a network, but it's not really a news channel for a large part of the day. The reason its ratings are high -is- because of the conservative chat and crime shows it runs during prime time. When a big story breaks, people are still going to CNN.

I think the campaign against Fox comes in response to their claims that they are "fair and balanced" which they are, in fact, not. Do I care there is a right wing news channel for the right wing? Not at all. I'm not thrilled that a dollar a month of my cable bill has to go to what has to be the cheapest news operation on the cable dial, but I'm not against it existing in whatever form it chooses to.

> My question is if Roger Ailes stayed at NBC to run CNBC and
> MSNBC, which replaced America's Talking, (he ran America's
> Talking and CNBC) would MSNBC be the highest rated cable
> news outlet and would have Rupert Murdock even have hired
> Roger Ailes to start FNC if NBC hadn't fired him?

If MSNBC had strong talk show hosts (Tucker Carlson, Rita Cosby... need I keep going?) they would have better ratings. News channel ratings rise and fall based on news events. Chat shows give some consistency when there isn't a big news event.

> Will the new Fox Business Channel that Murdock wants to
> start in 2006 take out CNBC as well?

Unlikely. Fox Sports channels haven't set the world on fire either, nor has f/x.
 
>
> FNC was brilliant in finding that group of alienated news
> junkies and speaking to them. They do lean a bit rightward,
> but no moreso than MSNBC leans leftward.

What? How does MSNBC (with the exception of Olbermann) lean leftward? If anything, they're trying to outflank FNC on the right, but don't have the dedication to pull it off. They were very left-leaning once, but that programming strategy didn't succeed either. There simply isn't room for 3 24/7 cable news channels. FNC grabbed the #2 (and later #1) spots by establishing a coherent identity and giving people a reason to watch even when there wasn't a major story going on.
 
> >
> > FNC was brilliant in finding that group of alienated news
> > junkies and speaking to them. They do lean a bit
> rightward,
> > but no moreso than MSNBC leans leftward.
>
> What? How does MSNBC (with the exception of Olbermann) lean
> leftward? If anything, they're trying to outflank FNC on
> the right, but don't have the dedication to pull it off.
> They were very left-leaning once, but that programming
> strategy didn't succeed either. There simply isn't room for
> 3 24/7 cable news channels. FNC grabbed the #2 (and later
> #1) spots by establishing a coherent identity and giving
> people a reason to watch even when there wasn't a major
> story going on.
>
Have you ever actually watched Keith Olberman? How about Hardball? Both are shows hosted by guys who are personally left of center. And it bleeds into the content. Not to mention that the reporting visibly slants more leftward than CNN - never mind FNC.

MSNBC to the RIGHT of FNC?? Yeah right - so is the New York Times!

Look, FNC resonates well with a certain broad-based audience. MSNBC does things the old-fashioned way. Because FNC is different, it grabs ratings. MSNBC does not. It's as simple as that.
 
> I don't mind that Fox News exists as a network, but it's not
> really a news channel for a large part of the day. The
> reason its ratings are high -is- because of the conservative
> chat and crime shows it runs during prime time. When a big
> story breaks, people are still going to CNN.
>
> I think the campaign against Fox comes in response to their
> claims that they are "fair and balanced" which they are, in
> fact, not. Do I care there is a right wing news channel for
> the right wing? Not at all. I'm not thrilled that a dollar
> a month of my cable bill has to go to what has to be the
> cheapest news operation on the cable dial, but I'm not
> against it existing in whatever form it chooses to.

The "Fair and Balanced" slogan speaks to the millions out there who have long felt that the mainstream news sources are dominated by liberals. Certain information has come out in recent years to validate that opinion - to an extent.

FNC's slogan basically tells those folks that they do things differently. It's a positioner - like a pop station saying they play "the most music". Do they? Impossible to prove. But, if it attracts listeners - it works. Same applies here. Marketing, pure and simple. A lot of people see it as true.

Frankly, I do not see that their news coverage (in itself) is slanted. Many of the talk programs definitely lean to the right - though other opinions are offered, to be fair.

The political part of this debate about the slogan could get nasty because it is debatable whether ANY of the major news providers are truly "fair and balanced". It all depends upon which side of the political river you stand on. I have a liberal friend who thinks that Newsweek is a conservative publication and that only Air America is fair. Seriously, he thinks this. Likewise, there are those who even think FNC is liberal. So, it's all based on perception.

Nonetheless, "fair and balanced" works really well for Fox News Channel. It isn't going anywhere.
 
> What is interesting is that people like the product that FNC
> is putting out. The ratings speak for themselves. I guess
> that's why people lash out against FNC. I'm watching Shep
> right now.
>
> My question is if Roger Ailes stayed at NBC to run CNBC and
> MSNBC, which replaced America's Talking, (he ran America's
> Talking and CNBC) would MSNBC be the highest rated cable
> news outlet and would have Rupert Murdock even have hired
> Roger Ailes to start FNC if NBC hadn't fired him?

While it's easy to point to the person in charge of the network, they deserve the credit--or lack thereof--for being able to execute on the vision of the company that hired them.

I don't intend this to be an argument over the liberal vs. conservative bias issue, but MSNBC was conceived, as I read the history, of more of a pure-news operation than Fox was in its beginning. In essence, Fox was always intended to showcase the opinions that have really put them on the map.



>
> Will the new Fox Business Channel that Murdock wants to
> start in 2006 take out CNBC as well?
>
That one seems unlikely. Not that there *may* not be room for a second business channel (though CNN FN should at least be a cautionary tale), but I've not read anything that says some portion of the audience is ready to revolt over CNBC for being too biased. If it offers something different, yet still credible, it might survive...but take out CNBC? Doubtful.
 
> I didn't even start to get into the fray (below) about FNC,
> their new fee, etc. However, to me, FNC simply addresses a
> demand that has been out there for news that is approached
> differently than the major nets have done in the past.
> Those outlets have had a (perhaps unconscious) leftward
> slant for more than 30 years. I really think it just has to
> do with being out of touch with middle America and many
> journalists being too aloof to recognize that those
> criticisms have merit.

If you look at where the big numbers are, it's not during the actual news segments of Fox, it's their conservative chat shows. That's talk radio on TV. During Katrina, a lot of viewers traveled to CNN faster than the wind could carry them. Fox does not begin to have the resources that CNN has in covering breaking news. Their only real "investigation" triumph was doing the oil-for-food scandal coverage, which was red meat for their anti-UN viewer base.

> Not all of FNC's coverage is conservative, either (just as
> not all of the major nets' coverage is leftist). It's not
> the TV version of Rush Limbaugh, as some posters make it out
> to be. Coming to mind are rants that Shepard Smith and
> Geraldo Rivera made during live shots in New Orleans.

The reporters on the ground outside of the studio and the talking points tend to say things differently from the suits back in Washington or NY who coincidentally repeat precisely the same turn of phrases hour after hour ("the politics of personal destruction," "cut and run," "the criminalization of politics," etc.) The contrast was remarkable that night when you saw Smith get visibly angry with Sean Hannity who tried to inject the Fox talking point about FEMA under the label he always uses - "perspective." Smith is more of a reporter than a talk show host that plays newsman.

> Look, FNC covers stories in a manner that caters to "red
> state" America. They don't lie or distort the news, they
> just cover it in a different manner.

The BBC probably said it best when they called Fox News Channel the next best thing to State Television in America, all for the incumbent administration, where never is heard a discouraging word, at least until the other party is in charge.

There are literally dozens and dozens of specific examples of Fox going well beyond "covering stories in a different manner," but this isn't the forum for it.

> And, FNC has been
> incredibly successful at it.

"It" being their chat shows and crime coverage. Viewers still head elsewhere for coverage of big stories, and Fox News Channel's best ratings still come nowhere close to even the lowest rated network newscast.
 
> What? How does MSNBC (with the exception of Olbermann) lean
> leftward? If anything, they're trying to outflank FNC on
> the right, but don't have the dedication to pull it off.

MSRNC starts the day with Chris Matthews who consistently has more right wing guests than left on his show. They take a break for an hour for the definitely left-leaning (but more comedically) Keith Olberman, then its Rita Cosby, the Motel 6 version of Greta for your daily Aruba news update, and then it's Tucker Carlson.

> They were very left-leaning once, but that programming
> strategy didn't succeed either. There simply isn't room for
> 3 24/7 cable news channels. FNC grabbed the #2 (and later
> #1) spots by establishing a coherent identity and giving
> people a reason to watch even when there wasn't a major
> story going on.

There probably is room for three news channels if they better defined themselves. MSNBC likes to focus relentlessly on one major story each day to the exclusion of other stories. That could work for them if they spent time out in the field and spent less time with the Clairol anchors in the studios who can barely read the teleprompter. If you want "cute" you also need talent. Where is Ashley Banfield these days?

CNN -is- news. They have the resources and the investment and the talent (although it wouldn't hurt if they'd stop trying to get rid of the 'older' folks to bring in younger cookie cutter on-air talent). Anderson Cooper and The Situation Room is working for them.

Fox -is- talk. They should give up the pretense of the "fair and balanced" silliness and just admit they are the home of conservative TV talk. That works for them. If there is a car chase in Los Angeles, I'll be on Fox because I know they'll cover it. They love the crime/copter stories. Sometimes those are fun to follow. If Fox wants to have news, they need to hire news people. Neil Cavuto? John Gibson? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity/Alan Colmes? DaySide with whomever? C'mon. Murdoch can run a news operation - Sky has shown that. Brit Hume, although I don't agree with the politics he wears on his sleeve post-ABC, -is- a journalist.
 
> Have you ever actually watched Keith Olberman? How about
> Hardball? Both are shows hosted by guys who are personally
> left of center. And it bleeds into the content. Not to
> mention that the reporting visibly slants more leftward than
> CNN - never mind FNC.

Olberman is on the left side, although not boasting as much. He's the closest thing liberals have to an admitted liberal host on a news channel's talk lineup. Matthews is -not- a left winger. He trashed Clinton for years and just a few weeks ago was ranting about some Democratic plot to attack Alito for being of Italian descent.

> Look, FNC resonates well with a certain broad-based
> audience. MSNBC does things the old-fashioned way. Because
> FNC is different, it grabs ratings. MSNBC does not. It's
> as simple as that.

MSNBC has an identity crisis. They also run Imus in the morning - a RADIO show on a TV news channel. They can't make up their minds what to do in the evening, so we get "me too" style copycat shows and the dregs (Cosby and Carlson in particular.) I expected more from something associated with NBC, but it just looks like they are not spending the money to produce a good product. They basically shut down over the weekend running stale repurposed Dateline documentaries (which repeat endlessly).
 
> That's a great "what if" question, which is why I asked Bill
> to start a new thread rather than leave this as a reply to
> my moderator post. A related question would be: Would
> MSNBC have taken the direction Fox News has, under Ailes,
> and if so, what would Fox News have turned out like? (And
> who might Murdock have hired if Ailes hadn't been
> available?)

There is no way NBC would want to be labeled with the identity of being a conservative talk outfit like FNC has evolved. I doubt Microsoft would want to see that happen either. Ailes has GOP ties, Murdoch supports the GOP, and a lot of the FNC people came over from Rising Tide when it launched (remember that show from the RNC which ran on a paid basis on public access and even a superstation for a time?) Murdoch's newspapers also helped. If Ailes wasn't available, we'd see Murdoch hiring someone who thought "outside of the box," but I'd also bet he or she would have political ties as well.

> My feeling is that NBC wouldn't have allowed Ailes to take
> the news channel in what they might see as an "unsafe"
> direction. So I'd think Ailes would have been available to
> jump ship to Fox anyway, when that time came.

I agree.

> CNBC is due some competition. Since they swallowed up FNN
> more than a decade ago, they have only had to compete with
> the now-defunct CNNfn and the relatively unknown (except
> within the financial community) and lesser carried Bloomberg
> for market coverage and business news. The question there
> would be: What direction will Fox take for programming
> outside of the market hours? If they take the same
> political slant as Fox News, will it play to their target
> audience for Fox Business?

CNBC is hardly commielib in its own business programming. I have a feeling any new entry from Fox in the business arena will end up a diginet on most cable systems. You'll find it on channel 387 right next to Bloomberg's OCD channel. :) Ratings for business channels dropped when the Internet boom and stock craze fell apart and the average amateur investor lost interest.

I also have a feeling cable operators are going to be hostile to Fox's programming ventures because of the rate hike for FNC.

> I think it may be necessary to play it safer (read as
> "non-political"). But then they would run the risk of being
> as bland as CNBC.

Fox has never played anything safe, though. Their TV network pushes the envelope all of the time (much to the consternation of commentators on FNC who decry sleazy TV ((and rarely mention Fox as being a part of it))) so I'd expect to see a Fox business channel to be fast-paced, busy, and filled with controversial head-to-head talk.
 
> Olberman is on the left side, although not boasting as much.
> He's the closest thing liberals have to an admitted liberal
> host on a news channel's talk lineup. Matthews is -not- a
> left winger. He trashed Clinton for years and just a few
> weeks ago was ranting about some Democratic plot to attack
> Alito for being of Italian descent.
>
Matthews is no right winger, that's for sure. He pounds the Hell out of any right wing guest that shows up. That's one reason why there are more of them. Not to mention that, when he has panels, most are liberals and the rest are moderates. And, that's fine - but it's also why a lot of FNC viewers feel alienated by it.

> > Look, FNC resonates well with a certain broad-based
> > audience. MSNBC does things the old-fashioned way.
> Because
> > FNC is different, it grabs ratings. MSNBC does not. It's
>
> > as simple as that.
>
> MSNBC has an identity crisis. They also run Imus in the
> morning - a RADIO show on a TV news channel. They can't
> make up their minds what to do in the evening, so we get "me
> too" style copycat shows and the dregs (Cosby and Carlson in
> particular.) I expected more from something associated with
> NBC, but it just looks like they are not spending the money
> to produce a good product. They basically shut down over
> the weekend running stale repurposed Dateline documentaries
> (which repeat endlessly).
>
I absolutely agree with you! Here they are, an all news channel supposedly run by one of the big 3 (now owned by no less than Universal), and they can't even stay all news on weekends! And no morning show to speak of. Imus on MSNBC is extremely lame. Rita Cosby is impossible to listen to and (as said elsewhere) a low-rent version of Greta. Which is low praise indeed.

If they want to be taken seriously, they need to at least APPEAR to be live 24/7. And, at least have live cut-ins at all hours as FNC does. At the moment, MSNBC is a pretty poor third stringer.

Speaking of poor, how about CNBC on weekends? All programming brought to you by Ronco, Time/Life Music and the Magic Bullet! Just like a local UHF infomercial channel! Meanwhile, Bulls and Bears kicks its butt all over lower Manhattan.

Between the news channel mess and the high fees that are being extorted from cable companies for USA Network (for what? all L&O?), NBC/Universal really needs to get it's act together.
 
> > >
> > > FNC was brilliant in finding that group of alienated
> news
> > > junkies and speaking to them. They do lean a bit
> > rightward,
> > > but no moreso than MSNBC leans leftward.
> >
> > What? How does MSNBC (with the exception of Olbermann)
> lean
> > leftward? If anything, they're trying to outflank FNC on
> > the right, but don't have the dedication to pull it off.
> > They were very left-leaning once, but that programming
> > strategy didn't succeed either. There simply isn't room
> for
> > 3 24/7 cable news channels. FNC grabbed the #2 (and later
>
> > #1) spots by establishing a coherent identity and giving
> > people a reason to watch even when there wasn't a major
> > story going on.
> >
> Have you ever actually watched Keith Olberman?

Yes, every night. He's great. Notice I specifically excepted his show from the statement.


How about
> Hardball? Both are shows hosted by guys who are personally
> left of center.

Matthews is a status quo centrist. He was liberal when the Dems were in power and he's conservative now. In 2008, he'll probably flop back over.

Carlson and Scarborough are further right than even Hannity. While neither Rita are Greta are that political, their shows still manage to slant right.

Imus is just a cranky old guy. His thoughts don't always fit into the standard dichotomy. Fox and Friends, OTOH, is probably the most blatantly slanted program on FNC. "The French: Should we boycott them or nuke them?".

And it bleeds into the content. Not to
> mention that the reporting visibly slants more leftward than
> CNN - never mind FNC.
>
> MSNBC to the RIGHT of FNC?? Yeah right - so is the New York
> Times!

OK, that really was a bit of hyperbole on my part. But still, they're not a particularly liberal network anymore. Countering FNC didn't work, so they resorted to copying it.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom