So is the Press the Enemy of the people?

[Hoosier_Hack]

So you don’t agree that the purpose of the Press is to provide the American people with fair and accurate data? That seems strange to me. Doing the right thing would be to report accurately without bias! Are you suggesting that it I not?

I think this is interesting. If you go to the Federalist Papers from what I can find, when they discuss the Press, they wanted to make sure the Press could operate, write, criticize government without fear of reprisal. Where we saw a complete shot at that was The Rosen investigation by the Obama admin. I was surprised because what I read, this is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect (in my interpretation) and ensure couldn’t be changed.

This is an interesting essay..... https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press

Quote, “What exactly did the Framers mean by "freedom of speech, or of the press"? Surprisingly, there is little definitively known about the subject. The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant. The Framers cared a good deal about the freedom of the press, as the Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, written by the First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.”

Take a step back and think about that (the bold).

EDIT: I’d like to hear some opinions on this. Maybe the criticism of the Press is warranted but they are actually operating as originally thought they would.... further in the article that is linked it appears biases were taken into consideration then also but thought they would washout..... we may not like the vitriol that we see today but it probably isn’t a Constitutional crisis where the government needs to step in. That is exactly what the Founders didn’t want it appears.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So you don’t agree that the purpose of the Press is to provide the American people with fair and accurate data? That seems strange to me. Doing the right thing would be to report accurately without bias! Are you suggesting that it I not?

Huh? Can you not read? I didn't say anything like that.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I think this is interesting. If you go to the Federalist Papers from what I can find, when they discuss the Press, they wanted to make sure the Press could operate, write, criticize government without fear of reprisal. Where we saw a complete shot at that was The Rosen investigation by the Obama admin. I was surprised because what I read, this is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect (in my interpretation) and ensure couldn’t be changed.

This is an interesting essay..... https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press

Quote, “What exactly did the Framers mean by "freedom of speech, or of the press"? Surprisingly, there is little definitively known about the subject. The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant. The Framers cared a good deal about the freedom of the press, as the Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, written by the First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.”

Take a step back and think about that (the bold).

EDIT: I’d like to hear some opinions on this. Maybe the criticism of the Press is warranted but they are actually operating as originally thought they would.... further in the article that is linked it appears biases were taken into consideration then also but thought they would washout..... we may not like the vitriol that we see today but it probably isn’t a Constitutional crisis where the government needs to step in. That is exactly what the Founders didn’t want it appears.

what the framers didn't see, was a press that needed broadcasting spectrum to even exist. spectrum that was controlled and allocated by the very govt it was covering.

and after that, they didn't foresee a press that was financed not by the publisher himself, or the people, but by 3rd party manufacturers who sold addictive drugs and elixirs and new expensive transportation devices, all of whom were beholden to some degree or another to the very govt the press was reporting on.

and now a press that is outright owned and/or greatly financed by mega telecom companies whose very business model and earnings' potential is policed and governed on an ongoing never ending basis by the very govt said press is covering, in addition to receiving large sums of money from manufacturers, healthcare, and drug industries that have a huge financial stake in how trade, healthcare, and drug, policy is covered.

other than print, and not so much even that anymore, "the press" now gets virtually no direct compensation or funding from the consumers themselves who are consuming said news.

"the press" is now virtually 100% funded and distributed by entities whose business models are greatly dependent to the point their very existence in some cases, and share value in all cases, is greatly affected by every action or even word, of said govt the press is covering.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I think this is interesting. If you go to the Federalist Papers from what I can find, when they discuss the Press, they wanted to make sure the Press could operate, write, criticize government without fear of reprisal. Where we saw a complete shot at that was The Rosen investigation by the Obama admin. I was surprised because what I read, this is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect (in my interpretation) and ensure couldn’t be changed.

This is an interesting essay..... https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press

Quote, “What exactly did the Framers mean by "freedom of speech, or of the press"? Surprisingly, there is little definitively known about the subject. The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant. The Framers cared a good deal about the freedom of the press, as the Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, written by the First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.”

Take a step back and think about that (the bold).

EDIT: I’d like to hear some opinions on this. Maybe the criticism of the Press is warranted but they are actually operating as originally thought they would.... further in the article that is linked it appears biases were taken into consideration then also but thought they would washout..... we may not like the vitriol that we see today but it probably isn’t a Constitutional crisis where the government needs to step in. That is exactly what the Founders didn’t want it appears.

Cliff Notes version.

the press is no longer the watchdog over govt.

the govt is now watchdog over the press.

the press is no longer financed by the citizenry.

the press is now financed by inanimate entities with no national allegiance what so ever, who's only prime directive is maximizing share value.

a prime directive that is to a great extent beholden to the very govt the press was originally envisioned to be watchdog over, rather than it being the other way around.

the left-right thing is a diversion from the real threat to a free press.

 

[UncleMark]

whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.”
[...]
Maybe the criticism of the Press is warranted but they are actually operating as originally thought they would....

Insofar as being critical of "oppressive officers", yes. What I don't think they envisioned was the unwillingness of much of the populous to question what they were being fed, no matter how incredible. Distrust of government was the default, rather than unquestioning fealty.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Cliff Notes version.

the press is no longer the watchdog over govt.

the govt is now watchdog over the press.

the press is no longer financed by the citizenry.

the press is now financed by inanimate entities with no national allegiance what so ever, who's only prime directive is maximizing share value.

a prime directive that is to a great extent beholden to the very govt the press was originally envisioned to be watchdog over, rather than it being the other way around.

the left-right thing is a diversion from the real threat to a free press.

I think you bring up good points.....

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Insofar as being critical of "oppressive officers", yes. What I don't think they envisioned was the unwillingness of much of the populous to question what they were being fed, no matter how incredible. Distrust of government was the default, rather than unquestioning fealty.

I can agree but I also get hung up on the “unwillingness” of the populous to question what they were being fed. I think people question what is being said all the time by the press. I mean this board is full of people who question not only the press but the government. I think the disconnect is real-time ability to do anything about what is heard or said. We are suppose to turn to our elected officials in the House and Senate for serious questions of government to get answers. I have had one interaction with my Congressman in my lifetime and I can say he stepped up unbelievably and rectified my problem. But we always blame the other States Congressman that we have no control over for lack of support of issues important to us.....

I think the power of Fox, MSNBC, CNN is really kinda over blown. I don’t think they should be called News, journalists, or the Press. We can all point and say my station isn’t as bad as yours with their biases. But the fact is, we agree that THEY ALL ARE BIASED and the degree of bias doesn’t really matter. I think that is where some of our issues are exacerbated.

Remember Saturday morning cartoons and the education on legislation that was always taught on commercials? “I’m just a Bill, sitting on Capital Hill”? I think we do a disservice to our country by not continue that education. A discussion of the press would be great for kids today....

 

[i'vegotwinners]

a tutorial on how a bill gets written by lobbyists, amended by staffers and lobbyists at the last second in hopes no one has a chance to catch the amendments or even what the bill says prior to a vote, and passed in reality, as opposed to just the parliamentary procedure side, would be public service and should be taught, though probably not great children's programming.

 

[Stuffshot]

This is absolutely right. One must have a list of reputable sources. Unfortunately, the reality is that in the 21st century the average consumer is increasingly reliant on social media/internet for their news. Why? Because of speed and velocity. Traditional media is usually last to the punch on breaking news. People demand instantaneous feedback. This then leads to the exploitation by nefarious actors, which is a whole other can of worms.

You mentioned speed and velocity but omitted critical thinking and ability to read for comprehension. And you're wrong -- traditional media is usually first (not last) on breaking news. The fact that Fox hires commentators with neckties (or tight dresses with bare arms) does not mean commentators are reporters. PBS and the news segments of CNBC are the most reliable I think.

 

[Stuffshot]

what the framers didn't see, was a press that needed broadcasting spectrum to even exist. spectrum that was controlled and allocated by the very govt it was covering.

and after that, they didn't foresee a press that was financed not by the publisher himself, or the people, but by 3rd party manufacturers who sold addictive drugs and elixirs and new expensive transportation devices, all of whom were beholden to some degree or another to the very govt the press was reporting on.

and now a press that is outright owned and/or greatly financed by mega telecom companies whose very business model and earnings' potential is policed and governed on an ongoing never ending basis by the very govt said press is covering, in addition to receiving large sums of money from manufacturers, healthcare, and drug industries that have a huge financial stake in how trade, healthcare, and drug, policy is covered.

other than print, and not so much even that anymore, "the press" now gets virtually no direct compensation or funding from the consumers themselves who are consuming said news.

"the press" is now virtually 100% funded and distributed by entities whose business models are greatly dependent to the point their very existence in some cases, and share value in all cases, is greatly affected by every action or even word, of said govt the press is covering.

By posting this, you revealed that you are at least 60 years old: "a press that needed broadcasting spectrum to even exist."

That reference suggests you have never heard of the internet, and abuses of cable "news" outlets (which are not broadcasting). Plus, if you're really criticizing the bias of the remaining broadcast stations you're apparently unaware that the Fairness Doctrine is gone and the Hannity/Limbaugh clone shows are running rampant without any regulation whatsoever (certainly none from the Trump administration) and no discernable effort to be fair or truthful.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

By posting this, you revealed that you are at least 60 years old: "a press that needed broadcasting spectrum to even exist."

That reference suggests you have never heard of the internet, and abuses of cable "news" outlets (which are not broadcasting). Plus, if you're really criticizing the bias of the remaining broadcast stations you're apparently unaware that the Fairness Doctrine is gone and the Hannity/Limbaugh clone shows are running rampant without any regulation whatsoever (certainly none from the Trump administration) and no discernable effort to be fair or truthful.

you obviously didn't read or comprehend or both, what i said.

i went through the history of how news, (the press), became dependent on, thus easily controlled by, the very govt it was supposed to watchdog over, starting with broadcasting, then cable, and took it all the way through to the internet and today.

nice reading comprehension there.

 

[toastedbread]

You mentioned speed and velocity but omitted critical thinking and ability to read for comprehension. And you're wrong -- traditional media is usually first (not last) on breaking news. The fact that Fox hires commentators with neckties (or tight dresses with bare arms) does not mean commentators are reporters. PBS and the news segments of CNBC are the most reliable I think.

Im sorry, but what the heck are you even talking about? I'm referring to platforms like Twitter. News breaks on platforms like Twitter and it's usually not done through traditional media who want their ducks all in a row before reporting a story. Traditional media does not have reporters on the ground all over the globe, whereas Twitter users can be found in the most remote of locations.

 

[hoot1]

All administrations attempt to influence news coverage. Trump has gone straight to the body politic by saying don't believe anything they tell you. Get the facts only from me.

 

[VanPastorMan]

WTF are you talking about? That story was very widely reported, including by CNN. In fact, the latest development in the story is currently on the cnn.com front page that you link (but apparently don't bother to read). You know where you won't find that story right now? The foxnews.com front page. Go figure.

So, are you just badly misinformed, or are you lying?

I disagree with your use of the word, "widely". Are you talking about Stormy Daniels type widely?

 

[Bruce1]

I have been very surprised at the responses here in two ways. First, I am shocked how many people don’t see that the people that need fair and accurate reporting are the citizens. The American people are the ones who need fair and accurate reporting. The media is there toSERVE them. That is the reason that I feel the use of the word enemy is correct. The American people know they are being lied to and they don’t like it. The other surprise to me is that people on this board feel the the majority of citizens are incapable of understanding fair and accurate information. That is patently wrong IMO. It is a indication that liberal elitism is alive and thriving on this board.

 

[Stuffshot]

Im sorry, but what the heck are you even talking about? I'm referring to platforms like Twitter. News breaks on platforms like Twitter and it's usually not done through traditional media who want their ducks all in a row before reporting a story. Traditional media does not have reporters on the ground all over the globe, whereas Twitter users can be found in the most remote of locations.

You are still off track. Your reference to "broadcasting spectrum" can be nothing but a reference to radio and TV. Twitter doesn't break news, because Twitter doesn't claim to have "reporters on the ground all over the globe" like traditional news outlets. Twitter is not a news outlet. Twitter is more like the electric company than a news outlet. Twitter's countless recipes or cat videos don't support your claims that Twitter breaks "news." To say Twitter breaks "news" is to say that everything Tritter reproduces is "news" without considering the source. That is unsupportable (and inherently defeats the premise in your original post).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have been very surprised at the responses here in two ways. First, I am shocked how many people don’t see that the people that need fair and accurate reporting are the citizens. The American people are the ones who need fair and accurate reporting. The media is there toSERVE them. That is the reason that I feel the use of the word enemy is correct. The American people know they are being lied to and they don’t like it. The other surprise to me is that people on this board feel the the majority of citizens are incapable of understanding fair and accurate information. That is patently wrong IMO. It is a indication that liberal elitism is alive and thriving on this board.

So all along, this thread was just another excuse to whine about the liberal boogeyman. Yawn.

 

[UncleMark]

The American people are the ones who need fair and accurate reporting. The media is there toSERVE them. That is the reason that I feel the use of the word enemy is correct.

No, you think the term is correct because it's the term Trump uses.

 

[Rockfish1]

So all along, this thread was just another excuse to whine about the liberal boogeyman. Yawn.

Wow. Who'd have seen that coming?

 

[Bruce1]

No, you think the term is correct because it's the term Trump uses.

Obviously you didn’t read the post. I said that this is not a partisan issue. Neither side of the political spectrum give Americans fair and honest reporting.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I have been very surprised at the responses here in two ways. First, I am shocked how many people don’t see that the people that need fair and accurate reporting are the citizens. The American people are the ones who need fair and accurate reporting. The media is there toSERVE them. That is the reason that I feel the use of the word enemy is correct. The American people know they are being lied to and they don’t like it. The other surprise to me is that people on this board feel the the majority of citizens are incapable of understanding fair and accurate information. That is patently wrong IMO. It is a indication that liberal elitism is alive and thriving on this board.

I think it’s more that people have chosen a form of media that does NOT give them fair and accurate information. I’m not taking the time to look for it now, but read a study that showed that the majority of people that watch Fox, that’s the main or only source of news information. People that watched other stations, CNN or MSNBC were more likely to use a variety of sources. That’s the key. No one should rely on one source.

 

[bawlmer]

I have been very surprised at the responses here in two ways. First, I am shocked how many people don’t see that the people that need fair and accurate reporting are the citizens. The American people are the ones who need fair and accurate reporting. The media is there toSERVE them. That is the reason that I feel the use of the word enemy is correct. The American people know they are being lied to and they don’t like it. The other surprise to me is that people on this board feel the the majority of citizens are incapable of understanding fair and accurate information. That is patently wrong IMO. It is a indication that liberal elitism is alive and thriving on this board.

The American media is a free market enterprise. It is up to the citizens to consume the news they want. Some want Fox. Some want CNN. Some spend the time to read real reporting. But if you are correct about the ability of the average citizen to sift through the news and understand it, then what is wrong with different organizations having different points of view.

Are the willing subscribers of the WaPo and NYT also enemies of the people?

 

[Cortez88]

The simple fact that we Americans are even debating this issue shows how far off the rails we are.

 

[Bruce1]

The American media is a free market enterprise. It is up to the citizens to consume the news they want. Some want Fox. Some want CNN. Some spend the time to read real reporting. But if you are correct about the ability of the average citizen to sift through the news and understand it, then what is wrong with different organizations having different points of view.

Are the willing subscribers of the WaPo and NYT also enemies of the people?

The news media, by their own standards, have documented methods/ethics that are designed so that their customers receive accurate and unbiased news. The American people, the customers, have a need and a right to be able to insure that their government is doing its job. The measurement how good the media is doing is seen to be very poor.

 

[UncleMark]

Obviously you didn’t read the post. I said that this is not a partisan issue. Neither side of the political spectrum give Americans fair and honest reporting.

I did. Your bloviating notwithstanding, you're making the argument that the press is the "enemy" of the people. Because Trump said it and you want back him up any way you can.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I did. Your bloviating notwithstanding, you're making the argument that the press is the "enemy" of the people. Because Trump said it and you want back him up any way you can.

I heard a term used last week that I thought came from the administration but I’m not quite sure that it did. It was suggested the media should be labeled the “opposition” vs the enemy. I can see how that may be softer and a bit more accurate for the administration.

I do believe the American people can filter the biases to a point. The birth of cable news can be debated as to what led to it. The media along with the democrats are opposed to the platforms/direction Trump is choosing to go. So I don’t have a problem with calling them the opposition. In sports the opponent is called the enemy. I get how that term started being used. But to be more accurate I think the admin ought to start calling them part of the opposition.....

 

[Stuffshot]

I heard a term used last week that I thought came from the administration but I’m not quite sure that it did. It was suggested the media should be labeled the “opposition” vs the enemy. I can see how that may be softer and a bit more accurate for the administration.

I do believe the American people can filter the biases to a point. The birth of cable news can be debated as to what led to it. The media along with the democrats are opposed to the platforms/direction Trump is choosing to go. So I don’t have a problem with calling them the opposition. In sports the opponent is called the enemy. I get how that term started being used. But to be more accurate I think the admin ought to start calling them part of the opposition.....

LOL. So you think Fox (definitely part of the "media") is also part of the enemy/opposition of the people? Good to hear you including Fox in the category, because Trump apparently forgets that Fox is part of the media.

 

[Bruce1]

I did. Your bloviating notwithstanding, you're making the argument that the press is the "enemy" of the people. Because Trump said it and you want back him up any way you can.

Sorry you can't get my point that I don't think this is a partisan issue. I consider it an American issue that is affecting our county in a very negative way.

 

[DrHoops]

I stopped watching cable news around 2003. There is nothing worse than watching a screaming match between two people and a host who wraps up the screaming match to cut to a commercial.

Where FNC differs from MSNBC is not partisanship, but quality. Maddow is just as partisan has Hannity, but her show holds itself to much higher journalistic standards. As you allude to, that could be a consequence of Trump. I.e., it's easy for Maddow to present reality, because reality matches her political biases, whereas Hannity has no choice but to make stuff up, because the facts simply don't fit into his slant. If we had a complete jackass in the White House who just happened to be a liberal Democrat, it's very possible that we'd see Maddow start pushing the envelope, and Hannity start reaching for the ethical stars. Hopefully, we'll never find out, and Trump will end up being the only President we have who is like...well, him.

CNN has become absolutely worthless. Watching Don Lemon gradually lose all the shits he has left to give is entertaining, but it's not news.

There are so many good journalists reporting on politics in essentially real time for WaPo, WSJ, NYT, LAT, NY Mag, Bloomberg, Vanity Fair, The Guardian, etc., that I really see no reason to turn to cable news for information, anymore. The only reason I tune in is just to see what the cable talking heads are saying. In other words, if I watch, I'm watching to learn about the state of cable news, not to learn about what they are actually reporting on.

 

[mohoosier]

America desperately needs a fair and honest press. Why? George Bush put it straight: to keep people like him (when he was in office) honest and accountable to the American People. He later broadened his statement to include that we needed a "fair and honest" press.

OK, so I would hope that everyone on both sides of the aisle would agree with that statement. The next question is how to insure that the Press provides us citizens with fair and honest reporting?

Answer: Journalistic associations, and there are several, all have a Code of Ethics for their members that give them guidelines for collecting information, methods for handling confidentiality, and other aspects reporting

Here are just a few:

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/

https://nppa.org/code-ethics

So how is the Press doing in meeting the needs of our citizens? The answer is, in my opinion, to ask the people how they feel the Press is fulfilling their responsibilities. There are also many polls that are run periodically that show what Americans think about the Press' performance. Virtually all them say the same thing: the Press is doing a lousy job of giving us fair and objective information.

Here are just a few;

https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/americans-fake-news-study-339184

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/06/27/trust-news-media-continues-sink

There is one very obvious factor that comes across in virtually all of the polls and that is that there is a very significant difference in the attitudes of respondents based on party affiliation. That said, the highest rated group of respondents are Democrats at around 50% negative in their views.
For people on this board I have the following question: If only one half of the people in our country think that the Press is giving them fair and honest job are they the friends of the American People? If any of us worked for companies that only satisfied 50 % of our customers we would be unemployed in an instant. I think we should be able to agree that the Press is NOT the friend of the American people.

So if the Press is not our friend then what to we call them? I say the enemy even though that word is inflammatory, I think it is the best descriptor because by not doing its job the Press is actually adding to the dissension within our counry.

Final comment: it is no surprise to most on this board that I am Conservative. That said, I consider Fox to be the worst of all of the news sources closely followed by MSNBC and CNN. For me, I consider NPR to do the best job at presenting info accurately while presenting both sides of the story.

I liked the overall gist of your post, but have to take serious issue with your opinion of NPR. Not only would I shoot myself if I listened to the depressing monotone voices of the hosts for more than an hour, but their content and slant is way too obvious. NPR could easily be a tool of the Illuminati. J/k

 

[DrHoops]

I loved when Colbert was in O’Reilly and he said “I want to be you but I want to reach a younger demographic. People in their 60s, people in their 50s.”

Look at FNC demographics... 94% White and probably about that high old. Everything else is split between all the other stations.

 

[Bruce1]

I liked the overall gist of your post, but have to take serious issue with your opinion of NPR. Not only would I shoot myself if I listened to the depressing monotone voices of the hosts for more than an hour, but their content and slant is way too obvious. NPR could easily be a tool of the Illuminati. J/k

Good point, in fact I rarely listen to any of the media as I prefer to read, not watch live or even watch videos.

 

[twenty02]

MSNBC topping FNC this past week.

FNC last of the big 3 in the key demo.

For a third night in a row, Maddow’s MSNBC program was highest rated across all of cable TV Thursday night. Her program averaged 3.674M viewers, 758K of them in the 25-54 year age bracket that news programs target.

Maddow’s third consecutive nightly win accompanied headlines that Trump’s longtime pal National Enquirer chief David Pecker had been given immunity in the investigation of Trump’s former personal lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen.

And, for a third consecutive night, MSNBC topped primetime cable news in both total viewers (2.869M) and in the news demographic (560K), besting FNC (2.576M, 490K), and CNN (1.514M, 547K).

​

https://deadline.com/2018/08/rachel...-cohen-campaign-finance-violation-1202451961/

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

MSNBC topping FNC this past week.

FNC last of the big 3 in the key demo.

For a third night in a row, Maddow’s MSNBC program was highest rated across all of cable TV Thursday night. Her program averaged 3.674M viewers, 758K of them in the 25-54 year age bracket that news programs target.

Maddow’s third consecutive nightly win accompanied headlines that Trump’s longtime pal National Enquirer chief David Pecker had been given immunity in the investigation of Trump’s former personal lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen.

And, for a third consecutive night, MSNBC topped primetime cable news in both total viewers (2.869M) and in the news demographic (560K), besting FNC (2.576M, 490K), and CNN (1.514M, 547K).

​

https://deadline.com/2018/08/rachel...-cohen-campaign-finance-violation-1202451961/

For some reason, Tucker continues to buck the trend. Tops the hour in total viewers and hangs with Cooper in the demo, all while Hannity and Ingraham both fall far behind MSNBC in total and MSNBC/CNN both in the demo.

What is it about Tucker? Is it just the fact that he's on at 8 PM while Fox viewers are lying in bed, but normal people are still finishing dinner?

Example:
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-aug-23/374939

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

For some reason, Tucker continues to buck the trend. Tops the hour in total viewers and hangs with Cooper in the demo, all while Hannity and Ingraham both fall far behind MSNBC in total and MSNBC/CNN both in the demo.

What is it about Tucker? Is it just the fact that he's on at 8 PM while Fox viewers are lying in bed, but normal people are still finishing dinner?

Example:
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-aug-23/374939

You pay too much attention to cable news.

 

[twenty02]

For some reason, Tucker continues to buck the trend. Tops the hour in total viewers and hangs with Cooper in the demo, all while Hannity and Ingraham both fall far behind MSNBC in total and MSNBC/CNN both in the demo.

What is it about Tucker? Is it just the fact that he's on at 8 PM while Fox viewers are lying in bed, but normal people are still finishing dinner?

Example:
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-aug-23/374939

Tucker is good at tv. Always has been....his shtick has changed in the age of Trump and taking over Bill O's time slot full time.....but he's still gobs more intellectual in his discussions than Hannity or some or the Fox and Friends bobble heads.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Tucker is good at tv. Always has been....his shtick has changed in the age of Trump and taking over Bill O's time slot full time.....but he's still gobs more intellectual in his discussions than Hannity or some or the Fox and Friends bobble heads.

I'll admit, I always enjoyed Crossfire. Part of that was probably because I was younger and stupider, but part of it was also that Tucker and Paul Begala were genuinely entertaining.

 

[sglowrider]

For some reason, Tucker continues to buck the trend. Tops the hour in total viewers and hangs with Cooper in the demo, all while Hannity and Ingraham both fall far behind MSNBC in total and MSNBC/CNN both in the demo.

What is it about Tucker? Is it just the fact that he's on at 8 PM while Fox viewers are lying in bed, but normal people are still finishing dinner?

Example:
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-thursday-aug-23/374939

Cronkite has the look of authority -- what is say is the truth. Tucker looks/is dumb as a result, it makes his viewers feel smart relative to him. So they leave watching Tucker feeling confused but yet smug.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Cronkite has the look of authority -- what is say is the truth. Tucker looks/is dumb as a result, it makes his viewers feel smart relative to him. So they leave watching Tucker feeling confused but yet smug.

You do not have a higher IQ than Tucker Carlson, and I don't even believe Tucker is very smart.

 

[sglowrider]

You do not have a higher IQ than Tucker Carlson, and I don't even believe Tucker is very smart.

Such clever a retort. I couldn't have come up with that one. You must feel good about yourself by now.