Keep nurturing those happy dreams, Reliapundit. The Wall Street Journal's down 2% on weekdays, 6% on the weekend, and the last time I checked, the rightwing broadsheet Bible is also in "the HEART of" the leftwing Big Apple. (A city which, 3 years after the 9/11 attacks, gave George W. Bush a whopping 19% of the vote.) Even if the Post has an extra 35,000 readers, good luck extrapolating that into a secret disconnect in the national polls.
For years, the New York Post has routinely reported inflated circulation numbers, given away free copies, and thrown away a huge amount of bundles of their own paper (a practice sometimes called "ghost readership"). The Post's 5% bump is about as believable as their "It's Gephardt" front-page scoop.
The NY Daily News has also had many of its own bogus circulation scandals, and it's not hard to find free or half-price copies around town. A third New York paper, Newsday, had to pay out over $100 million after pleading guilty to falsifying its circulation.
The Post is a rightwing rag, Newsday is a fading lefty tabloid, and the News leans right. The phony circulation wars are a NY market thing, they're all about ad rates, and they have exactly zero to do with political viewpoints and which one is "winning."
But if you want to go down that road: if the rightwing Post had such an undeniably popular product, they wouldn't need to charge half the cover price of any other paper in town.
If you want to swing on over to TV ratings, Relia, Fox/MSNBC/CNN at their peak have something like 1.5% of the viewing audience... combined. With a sample size that small, margins and gaps appear more dramatic than they are, and can be overemphasized.
And incidentally, CNN has more total viewers than Fox (or "cume"). It's just that the average Fox viewer watches for a longer period of time, thus giving that network higher ratings.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=6 (et al)
This is not to diminish the fact that Fox News beats CNN in the Nielsens. But in TV terms, it's two midgets fighting over a cupcake.
And while your rooting interest is admirable, to extrapolate a national groundswell based on a handful of NY tabloid readers -- or a bigger handful of cable news viewers -- would be an error.
my point is that cnn and msnbc are not middle of the road mainstream and that fox is and that their numbers prove this.
if they were mainstream then they would get more viewers. ditto the nytimes versus the post.
no one forces people to watch fox or read the post. they choose to. this choice reflects a political leaning. one which si more popular than that espoused by the nytimes/cnn leftist slant.
sure: there are leftists and dupes in the usa...PLENY of them. like you.
but most are not. hence the numbers.
btw: the wh and congress is more conservative than left. right now. this reflects the daem fact. the usa is more conservative than it is leftist.
and reent polling shows that REAGAN WON: plls show more people look less to government for panaceas.
"Hence the numbers"? You're not getting it. The numbers are small. Fox News and CNN both lose, usually badly, to Spongebob Squarepants and Danny Phantom. And any network show that had the combined audience of O'Reilly, Hannity, Cooper, King, and all the rest of the cable news gang would be cancelled after 2 weeks.
"ditto the nytimes versus the post"? From Monday to Saturday, the NY Times outsells the NY Post by about 400,000, and at four times the cover price. On the weekend, it's a circulation bloodbath; the Times sells four times as many $3.50 Sunday papers as the Post is able to move for a seventh of the price.
"Hence the numbers"??? Your Times/Post theory wouldn't hold water even if the numbers supported you... and they don't. And if Fox News really were "middle of the road mainstream," it'd be that skinny little line down the median. You seem unable to accept that the other 99%+ of television viewers are watching something else. That's not an exaggeration. Fox literally attracts between 0.7% and 1.0% of the viewing audience. Your "mainstream" seems to have a little drought.
So you like conservative media. Bully for you. In your home, the consumer demographics are overwhelming, I'm sure.
the nfl and buffy reruns are nt lkeft or right or moderate. they are entertainment.
but cnn and the nytimes are letfist - and more to the left than most americans.
so, people who choose to wathc newschannels choose the least biased one over the most biased. the middle is defined by a bell curve and most people fall in the bulge, and that's foxnews baby.
Man! How wrong can you be in such a short space? You seem incapable of understanding that the NY Times is vastly more popular than the NY Post. To put it into terms you might comprehend, in the NY marketplace, the Times is Barack Obama and the Post is Alan Keyes.
That doesn't even take into account the Post's circulation mirages, its failure to challenge the Times even at a 75-85% discount, an advertising gap that's even greater than that, or the fact that the Post is a money pit that costs Rupert Murdoch more than $30 million a year to keep open. There isn't a single statistic or standard that supports your wishful thinking.
And, extrapolating a liberal mainstream from the Times' success would be an error. So just imagine how wrong your foolhardy "Post = mainstream" theory is.
"the middle is defined by a bell curve and most people fall in the bulge, and that's foxnews baby."
I'm afraid that somebody's put Baby in a corner.
Are you finishing off Rush's old hillbilly heroin prescription or something? The middle is the middle. It's not the rightwing. It's the middle, you goofus. Technically, it's the middle 99%. The way an NFL 99-yard return would be "a run across the middle." I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but the middle-- and that's 99 U.S. citizens out of a hundred-- doesn't give the smallest crap what Sean Hannity has to say.
Even if you limit your weird analysis to the bell curve among news channels, Fox/CNN's combined audience is a blip. A bulge, baby? It's a "bulge" the same way a grape in a snake's stomach is a bulge. The boogeyman Dan Rather ate Fox News' ratings for lunch. So does the beleaguered Katie Couric. Her current ratings failure would be the greatest day in Fox News history.
Your premise is wrong. And your ability to absorb information is befuddled. You can't clap loudly enough to make your Tinkerbell come to life. Make like an Ohio Republican, and give up.
9 comments:
gee... all the major dt/msm's are doing badly EXCEPT a right-wing one in the HEART of one of the most Left-wing cities: the big apple... MY HOME.
and yet all the polls show the left/dems leading.
i smell a disconnect.
if the left was energized then the dt/msm's promoting theiur wiews would be doing better, i think. as would couric.
this bodes well for the gop.
Keep nurturing those happy dreams, Reliapundit. The Wall Street Journal's down 2% on weekdays, 6% on the weekend, and the last time I checked, the rightwing broadsheet Bible is also in "the HEART of" the leftwing Big Apple. (A city which, 3 years after the 9/11 attacks, gave George W. Bush a whopping 19% of the vote.) Even if the Post has an extra 35,000 readers, good luck extrapolating that into a secret disconnect in the national polls.
For years, the New York Post has routinely reported inflated circulation numbers, given away free copies, and thrown away a huge amount of bundles of their own paper (a practice sometimes called "ghost readership"). The Post's 5% bump is about as believable as their "It's Gephardt" front-page scoop.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706041post1.html)
The NY Daily News has also had many of its own bogus circulation scandals, and it's not hard to find free or half-price copies around town. A third New York paper, Newsday, had to pay out over $100 million after pleading guilty to falsifying its circulation.
The Post is a rightwing rag, Newsday is a fading lefty tabloid, and the News leans right. The phony circulation wars are a NY market thing, they're all about ad rates, and they have exactly zero to do with political viewpoints and which one is "winning."
But if you want to go down that road: if the rightwing Post had such an undeniably popular product, they wouldn't need to charge half the cover price of any other paper in town.
yo ny reader: why is fox so popular and msnbc and cnn so much less popular?
doesn;tthis prove that fox is mainstream, and the other two more marginal, more left-wing?
i think it does.
If you want to swing on over to TV ratings, Relia, Fox/MSNBC/CNN at their peak have something like 1.5% of the viewing audience... combined. With a sample size that small, margins and gaps appear more dramatic than they are, and can be overemphasized.
And incidentally, CNN has more total viewers than Fox (or "cume"). It's just that the average Fox viewer watches for a longer period of time, thus giving that network higher ratings.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=6
(et al)
This is not to diminish the fact that Fox News beats CNN in the Nielsens. But in TV terms, it's two midgets fighting over a cupcake.
And while your rooting interest is admirable, to extrapolate a national groundswell based on a handful of NY tabloid readers -- or a bigger handful of cable news viewers -- would be an error.
my point is that cnn and msnbc are not middle of the road mainstream and that fox is and that their numbers prove this.
if they were mainstream then they would get more viewers. ditto the nytimes versus the post.
no one forces people to watch fox or read the post. they choose to. this choice reflects a political leaning. one which si more popular than that espoused by the nytimes/cnn leftist slant.
sure: there are leftists and dupes in the usa...PLENY of them. like you.
but most are not. hence the numbers.
btw: the wh and congress is more conservative than left. right now. this reflects the daem fact. the usa is more conservative than it is leftist.
and reent polling shows that REAGAN WON: plls show more people look less to government for panaceas.
"Hence the numbers"? You're not getting it. The numbers are small. Fox News and CNN both lose, usually badly, to Spongebob Squarepants and Danny Phantom. And any network show that had the combined audience of O'Reilly, Hannity, Cooper, King, and all the rest of the cable news gang would be cancelled after 2 weeks.
"ditto the nytimes versus the post"? From Monday to Saturday, the NY Times outsells the NY Post by about 400,000, and at four times the cover price. On the weekend, it's a circulation bloodbath; the Times sells four times as many $3.50 Sunday papers as the Post is able to move for a seventh of the price.
"Hence the numbers"??? Your Times/Post theory wouldn't hold water even if the numbers supported you... and they don't. And if Fox News really were "middle of the road mainstream," it'd be that skinny little line down the median. You seem unable to accept that the other 99%+ of television viewers are watching something else. That's not an exaggeration. Fox literally attracts between 0.7% and 1.0% of the viewing audience. Your "mainstream" seems to have a little drought.
So you like conservative media. Bully for you. In your home, the consumer demographics are overwhelming, I'm sure.
the nfl and buffy reruns are nt lkeft or right or moderate. they are entertainment.
but cnn and the nytimes are letfist - and more to the left than most americans.
so, people who choose to wathc newschannels choose the least biased one over the most biased. the middle is defined by a bell curve and most people fall in the bulge, and that's foxnews baby.
Man! How wrong can you be in such a short space? You seem incapable of understanding that the NY Times is vastly more popular than the NY Post. To put it into terms you might comprehend, in the NY marketplace, the Times is Barack Obama and the Post is Alan Keyes.
That doesn't even take into account the Post's circulation mirages, its failure to challenge the Times even at a 75-85% discount, an advertising gap that's even greater than that, or the fact that the Post is a money pit that costs Rupert Murdoch more than $30 million a year to keep open. There isn't a single statistic or standard that supports your wishful thinking.
And, extrapolating a liberal mainstream from the Times' success would be an error. So just imagine how wrong your foolhardy "Post = mainstream" theory is.
"the middle is defined by a bell curve and most people fall in the bulge, and that's foxnews baby."
I'm afraid that somebody's put Baby in a corner.
Are you finishing off Rush's old hillbilly heroin prescription or something? The middle is the middle. It's not the rightwing. It's the middle, you goofus. Technically, it's the middle 99%. The way an NFL 99-yard return would be "a run across the middle." I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but the middle-- and that's 99 U.S. citizens out of a hundred-- doesn't give the smallest crap what Sean Hannity has to say.
Even if you limit your weird analysis to the bell curve among news channels, Fox/CNN's combined audience is a blip. A bulge, baby? It's a "bulge" the same way a grape in a snake's stomach is a bulge. The boogeyman Dan Rather ate Fox News' ratings for lunch. So does the beleaguered Katie Couric. Her current ratings failure would be the greatest day in Fox News history.
Your premise is wrong. And your ability to absorb information is befuddled. You can't clap loudly enough to make your Tinkerbell come to life. Make like an Ohio Republican, and give up.
He did.
Post a Comment