NY Times (really!) discusses

[John Adams]

When the NY Times starts running these articles, it's really a chink in the armor of the left/socialists. Reality is catching up to Europe.

 

Changes have now become urgent. Europe’s population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets.

 

According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/eu...mp;ref=homepage

[Jim in Anchorage]

Allow more Muslim immigrants.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

That article echoed what I've said for years. The only reason those effete bastards have their luxurious lifestyle is because WE protected them from the Soviets.

 

We should pull the rug out from under them and make them spend on their own defense. Maybe then they'll be less likely to lecture US as to how to run an economy.

[/dev/null]

Allow more Muslim immigrants.

Offer Illegal Immigrants here free 1-way flights to Europe

[keepthefaith]

When the NY Times starts running these articles, it's really a chink in the armor of the left/socialists. Reality is catching up to Europe.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/eu...mp;ref=homepage

 

At some point, reporting primarily through the leftist lense will cost the news and print media a lot of money. As the population awakens (and it is awakening) to the reality that Obama and co. are moving fast in the wrong direction fiscally, domestically and internationally - viewer and readership will migrate away from those that continue to report with a left bias. I'm sure that the rising Foxnews ratings and circulation decline are putting a lot of pressure on a bunch of media outlets. Sooner or later they have to cave for financial reasons. That day may have come for the Times.

[Chef Jim]

When the NY Times starts running these articles, it's really a chink in the armor of the left/socialists. Reality is catching up to Europe.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/eu...mp;ref=homepage

 

And the article was also run in the SF Chronicle. I was shocked they ran it. Yes, we want to be more like Europe.

[IDBillzFan]

At some point, reporting primarily through the leftist lense will cost the news and print media a lot of money. As the population awakens (and it is awakening) to the reality that Obama and co. are moving fast in the wrong direction fiscally, domestically and internationally - viewer and readership will migrate away from those that continue to report with a left bias. I'm sure that the rising Foxnews ratings and circulation decline are putting a lot of pressure on a bunch of media outlets. Sooner or later they have to cave for financial reasons. That day may have come for the Times.

If you take the politics out of it for a moment and just look at it from a competitive standpoint, at some point the left-leaning media (NYT, Newsweek, MSNBC, etc.) have to look at the ratings success at FOX and accept that they will ultimately have to try something else since pandering to the HuffPost/DailyKos crowd is simply not enough. It reminds me a little bit of a scene in "Happy Gilmore" when there comes a point where Shooter McGavin realizes that playing his game may not be good enough, and he ultimately finds himself deep in the woods, all by his lonesome, attempting to drive off the tee like Happy does.

[John Adams]

At some point, reporting primarily through the leftist lense will cost the news and print media a lot of money. As the population awakens (and it is awakening) to the reality that Obama and co. are moving fast in the wrong direction fiscally, domestically and internationally - viewer and readership will migrate away from those that continue to report with a left bias. I'm sure that the rising Foxnews ratings and circulation decline are putting a lot of pressure on a bunch of media outlets. Sooner or later they have to cave for financial reasons. That day may have come for the Times.

 

Do you understand that Fox does well not because it's better?

[DC Tom]

Do you understand that Fox does well not because it's better?

 

Unless by "better", you mean "their anchor-MILFs are insanely hot"...

[John Adams]

Unless by "better", you mean "their anchor-MILFs are insanely hot"...

 

There is that.

 

Hotties=credible.

[DC Tom]

There is that.

 

Hotties=credible.

 

You didn't say "is credible", you said "does well". Megyn Kelly's high-gloss lips and low-cut blouses don't make me take Fox seriously...but they sure do get me to tune in every afternoon.

[/dev/null]

Unless by "better", you mean "their anchor-MILFs are insanely hot"...

Then why doesn't CNBC get better ratings?

 

Erin Burnett

Melissa Lee

Becky Quick

Maria Baritromo

[Magox]

Fox news has great ratings for a couple reasons, mainly because the conservative news on television is consolidated to just one news channel, whereas the rest of the channels lean to the left and their viewers are split between them as a result of this. Also, with the high ratings comes the $$, so they are able to attract good talent and that also helps them stay on top of the ratings game. Unless another Conservative news channel comes about to compete with them, their ratings will stay high.

[OCinBuffalo]

Do you understand that Fox does well not because it's better?

I think Fox does well because:

 

1. It is interesting and well done by clearly talented people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. It has the support of the right and most independents.

 

So # 2 is a distant second. What I have observed is Fox does Fox, and everybody else is trying a lame impression of Fox but using an intentional, ridiculous left-wing bias and not letting the other side have its say. And, B word all you want but Fox's lineup has the best talent. No question. In terms of pure interviewing skills, and starting with the facts of an issue, its a blowout. And, the talent doesn't end with the host, the research departments/straight news reporters at FOX = no contest. On a side note, I also think the FOX straight news people are given the freedom to report the news as they see fit. No way that is the case with the others.

 

Fox puts left wing people on all the time, MSNBC/CNN hardly ever does, and, if they do, they shout them down. Fox does the exact opposite. They want the left to say what they think so that they can crush them later when they are inevitably wrong. You can whine all you want, but the left is given every opportunity, and in fact, many on the left are employed by Fox and show up on a consistent basis. How many real conservatives are employed by CNN/MSNNBC/NY Times?

 

This is why Fox is winning: they have the balls to put people on who disagree, and aren't afraid to take a beating when they are wrong. This makes it: interesting. In contrast, the MSNBC/CNN talent won't consistently debate real conservatives live, and won't ever admit they were wrong about anything....and they have been consistently wrong for what? 5 years now? Nothing interesting about that = low ratings.

[OCinBuffalo]

Fox news has great ratings for a couple reasons, mainly because the conservative news on television is consolidated to just one news channel, whereas the rest of the channels lean to the left and their viewers are split between them as a result of this.

Nope. If you add up all of the market share of the others, Fox always has at least more, if not double the market share. Dude, Red Eye at 3am is beating Keith Olbermann at 8pm. Think of it that way.

Also, with the high ratings comes the $$, so they are able to attract good talent and that also helps them stay on top of the ratings game. Unless another Conservative news channel comes about to compete with them, their ratings will stay high.

Maybe but they do things the exact opposite way: they started with the talent and then got the money. Talent is the cause, not the effect. This is clearly the case when it comes to their straight news reporters as well as their hosts.

 

Or, think of it this way: should CNN have hired Bill O'Reilly? Straight business logic says: hell yeah, especially given his ratings with Inside Edition. A-hole ideology(um, Ted Turner) says no. Good business logic always wins. Ideology always walks. How about this: if MSNBC had the opportunity to hire O'Reilly tomorrow, would they?

[Chef Jim]

Do you understand that Fox does well not because it's better?

 

They cater to the older right leaners who still get most of their news on TV not online.

[/dev/null]

if MSNBC had the opportunity to hire O'Reilly tomorrow, would they?

 

Office pot lucks would be kind of awkward. It doesn't matter how great O'RLYs potato salad is. Olbertard would still call it the worst.....potato salad....in....the....world!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Office pot lucks would be kind of awkward. It doesn't matter how great O'RLYs potato salad is. Olbertard would still call it the worst.....potato salad....in....the....world!

 

 

I'd pay to see the cage death match.

[IDBillzFan]

Fox puts left wing people on all the time...

While this is true, it's also relatively useless to me. The lefties they put on are as bad as the righties they put on. So while on the surface it looks like you're getting both sides, what you're really getting is both extreme sides; people like Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel on one side and Dick Morris and Karl Rove on the other. The end result is fringe yelling points.

 

One of the better segments I try to listen to every day for about 15 minutes is Brett Baier and his panel, which usually includes a decent cross-section of folks, and almost always Charles Krauthammer, who I have really come to appreciate for some odd reason. But Baier usually goes around the panel quickly to get their take on some of the latest news topics, and everyone is respectful to each other without just blowing out your normal Beckel/Morris-like talking points. I think that panel could easily fill a full hour.

[/dev/null]

I'd pay to see the cage death match.

In the 3.5agon