Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Jann Wenner, Obama's lapdog

There's a reason that Rolling Stone breathlessly reported their fourth extensive interview with Obama in four years: the President knows he's going to get the softest of Nerf balls lobbed from Wenner and there won't be a doubt to Obama's wonderfulness.  Beyond belief, Wenner burns off his first six questions with the President asking variations of "aren't those Republicans terrible?"

I used to subscribe to Rolling Stone but - Judas Priest - somewhere along the way they must had added an Orwellian two-minute hate to every staff meeting.

Nevertheless, Wenner managed to squeeze in some hard-hitting questions about meeting Mick Jagger.  In fact, here's how I broke down the questions asked of Obama:

Republicans - 6
Race relations - 1
Gay marriage - 1
War on drugs - 1
Occupy Wall Street/Wall Street - 3
Global warming - 1
Military / foreign affairs - 4
Bein' President - 3
Media (TV, music, etc.) - 12

Compare and contrast to the issues that Americans care most about (various polls):

Health care
Budget deficit/national debt
Family values
Fuel costs

Of course, we probably shouldn't expect any less from Rolling Stone.  The New York Times spent all of two days carrying on the charade that this election year will be different before falling back on their own reliable biases.  I'm sure any moment now the media will be discussing the jobless recovery how Gitmo is still open.  Aaaaaaannnnyyy moment now.

Is this a surprise?
Record numbers of Americans consider the news media to be “immoral,” “inaccurate,” and “biased,” a new poll says.
You know what those "Americans" are watching?  Fox News (where Obama fears to tread.)


Numbers said...

You know what those "Americans" are watching? Fox News

On average, at any given time, Fox News attracts the attention of 0.003% of the U.S. population. In prime time, the channel's viewership doubles, going up to 0.007%.

Ratings percentages aren't based on the entire public, but by the subset of people estimated to be watching at any point, as well as "sets in use." By either measure, at its peak Fox News does not come close to 1% of the viewing audience.

No Fox News broadcast makes the top 25 for cable show viewership, let alone network. Bill O'Reilly has the highest-rated cable news show on television; he would not crack the top 200 prime time shows. Fox News' #1 program wouldn't be one of the top 10 shows on Univision.

Of course, entertainment always does better than news. Let's look at the network news broadcasts at 6:30, even though they air an hour and a half earlier than prime time. In the history of television, these three telecasts have never had lower ratings than they do today. Despite their worst numbers ever, any one of the three broadcasts dwarfs Fox News in viewers, sometimes sextupling it.

The three 6:30 cable news shows (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) combine to get less than half of CBS' #3 rating, which in turn is 50% lower than top-rated NBC’s viewership. The lowest-rated news edition of the lowest-rated network (6:30 Saturday) substantially beats the highest-rated prime time weekday Fox News show.

This is before digging into the data, which is what advertisers care most about. Fox News has the oldest audience of any cable network, with just 20% of its audience in the 25-54 demographic. (CNN and MSNBC have the same problem, to a lesser degree.) CBS has lost billions in ad revenue because their network has the highest average age, 55. The generic Fox News viewer is more than a decade older than that.

Thus, equating "record numbers of Americans" with "Fox News viewers" is not correct.

Anonymous said...

That's an astonishing premise: if you think the news media is filled with inaccuracy and bias, you should instead watch.... Fox News.