MSNBC - You're a tumor!

I guess you prefer FOX News instead with the imbeciles they have on board!
 

Recently I received a mailing about a post here on PO that suggested that just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it true. 

Just because Fox has a high viewership doesn't mean it's any good.  Just because MSNBC has a low viewership doesn't mean it's bad.

Indeed, studies have proven that Fox viewers know less about current affairs than people who  don't watch news at all.  Or something like that.

Don't recall how MSNBC faired but Fox is about as bad as it can get and they are the top-viewed channel.  Would that make it a tumor?

I am sick of your damned Republican cracks about Liberals.You people have nothing to offer only cutting programs which we need and have to exist on such as SS and Education programs. The only thing you adhere to is cut the taxes for the rich.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Recently I received a mailing about a post here on PO that suggested that just because a lot of people think something doesn't make it true. 

 

Just because Fox has a high viewership doesn't mean it's any good.  Just because MSNBC has a low viewership doesn't mean it's bad.

 

Indeed, studies have proven that Fox viewers know less about current affairs than people who  don't watch news at all.  Or something like that.

 

Don't recall how MSNBC faired but Fox is about as bad as it can get and they are the top-viewed channel.  Would that make it a tumor?

Fox wouldn't be wildly successful if it was bad.   MSNBC wouldn't be a miserable failure if it was any good.  It's called the market.  It knows.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Fox wouldn't be wildly successful if it was bad.   MSNBC wouldn't be a miserable failure if it was any good.  It's called the market.  It knows.  

I'd be careful here. All we can say is that one is more popular (or desirable to people in the market) and one less popular (or less desirable to people in the market). Their relative goodness or badness is a far more subjective characterization.

For example: Microsoft Windows has a much larger market share vs. Mac OS X...and there are many who would say that the goodness/badness is inverse proportion to their market shares.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I'd be careful here. All we can say is that one is more popular (or desirable to people in the market) and one less popular (or less desirable to people in the market). Their relative goodness or badness is a far more subjective characterization.

 

For example: Microsoft Windows has a much larger market share vs. Mac OS X...and there are many who would say that the goodness/badness is inverse proportion to their market shares.

I see.  So we should trust the market endlessly....until we don't.  You've often accused me of "not trusting the market."  Why is this different?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I see.  So we should trust the market endlessly....until we don't.  You've often accused me of "not trusting the market."  Why is this different?  

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about not trusting the market?

I was merely pointing out the things like "good" and "bad" in the way you're referring to them are highly subjective.

This goes along with the truth that just because something is more popular or believed by more people doesn't make it good, right, true or workable. It is simply more popular. It might be good (or true or right or workable) but it is not made that way by virtue of its popularity.

The only thing we can say about the relative fortunes of these "news" sources is how popular they are. There's nothing wrong with that.

I was simply trying to separate positive vs. normative statements. I wasn't even saying the that anyone should do anything about the outcome (except perhaps the news organizations trying to make their product more attractive to a larger audience.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

I am sick of your damned Republican cracks about Liberals.You people have nothing to offer only cutting programs which we need and have to exist on such as SS and Education programs. The only thing you adhere to is cut the taxes for the rich.
 

I'd support tax cuts for the poor if they were actually paying any taxes rather than getting a refundable rebate.

How can they pay taxes when there hardly any jobs to get.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about not trusting the market?

 

I was merely pointing out the things like "good" and "bad" in the way you're referring to them are highly subjective.

 

This goes along with the truth that just because something is more popular or believed by more people doesn't make it good, right, true or workable. It is simply more popular. It might be good (or true or right or workable) but it is not made that way by virtue of its popularity.

 

The only thing we can say about the relative fortunes of these "news" sources is how popular they are. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

I was simply trying to separate positive vs. normative statements. I wasn't even saying the that anyone should do anything about the outcome (except perhaps the news organizations trying to make their product more attractive to a larger audience.)

MJ:  "SDW, why do you distrust the market so?"

Don't recall the date, but it was within the last few months.  In any case, doesn't the market know quality?  We're not talking about a mere popularity contest.  We're talking about people essentially purchasing a product (in the end, that's what it is).   FOX kicks the living shit out of MSNBC and CNN.  Is that because there are simply that many more conservatives who watch cable news?  While polls show the nation is more conservative than liberal, it's not anywhere near the same margin.  If Fox was "bad," it wouldn't be embraced by the market.  It's no different with any product.  People don't buy crappy cars when they have other choices, the same way people that don't watch MSNBC when they have other options.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

MJ:  "SDW, why do you distrust the market so?"

 

Don't recall the date, but it was within the last few months.

You are taking a statement out of context and mis-applying here. I think you probably know that. When I said that, I was referring to your advocacy of government solutions vs. market solutions for a number of things that I believe can be achieve with private, market-based solutions. I am not advocating any government solutions here. I'm not even saying that the choices made by market participants is "wrong" (that would be profoundly arrogant of me).

In this case you are implying that my response to you indicates my own mistrust of the market. That is completely untrue.

My response to you here was merely to be careful about applying a subjective qualitative characterization (e.g., "good" vs. "bad") to something merely because a lot of people like it (or buy it or use it or buy it). It is an analytical mistake to do so. There are a number of individualized factors that go into buying decisions and the quality ("goodness" or "badness") of the product or service is only one aspect.

Most importantly, none of why I said has anything to do with not trusting the market. That would be a valid statement if I had said something like "Clearly the market isn't making a good choice, so the government ought to step in to bail out MSNBC and CNN to save them from financial ruin." or, worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

In any case, doesn't the market know quality?

The "market" is not a person. Don't anthropomorphize it. It is merely the name we give to the conditions in which people are freely buying and selling goods and services.

Does the market "know" quality? Not necessarily. All I have said is that a given market outcome only tells us what people's (market participant's) choices have been. Those people may have chosen things that are of higher quality or lower quality (based on whatever criteria one wishes to evaluate quality). McDonald's sells more hamburgers than anyone else in the world. Are these hamburgers "better" than, say, something from Red Robin? Probably not. But that merely means that people are making a choice based on a different mix of values (quality, convenience, time, cost, availability, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We're talking about people essentially purchasing a product (in the end, that's what it is).

I know that. What I'm saying is that just because some larger group purchases some product or service doesn't necessarily mean it is "better", only that more people have bought it.

More people voted for Barack Obama than John McCain (and may that for Mitt Romney). According to your reasoning, that would make Barack Obama a better candidate. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

FOX kicks the living shit out of MSNBC and CNN.  Is that because there are simply that many more conservatives who watch cable news?

Possibly. Could be that there are people that don't even agree with Fox that watch it. I don't know what the audience breakdown is. But there again...this isn't about whether something is "good" or "bad" but rather what the viewer's/purchaser's personal preferences are. That's all that we can say definitively and relatively objectively about this outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

If Fox was "bad," it wouldn't be embraced by the market.  It's no different with any product.  People don't buy crappy cars when they have other choices, the same way people that don't watch MSNBC when they have other options.  

I disagree. There may be other reasons why people have chosen to watch Fox vs. the others that may have little to do with it's quality.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying that Fox isn't good...merely that it isn't merely good by virtue of its ratings. We don't really know why people have chosen to watch it.

Does this make sense?

I understand your point.  That said, I think it's clear that if Fox was truly bad, it wouldn't have high ratings.  And if MSNBC wasn't a biased piece of trash, it would have more viewers.  No?  That's what I mean.  

The "market" has decided that McDonald's offers an attractive product (quality, service, convenience, etc).  That overall product they sell (it's not just the burger...it's everything else just mentioned) is the best, because the market says it's the best.  If McDonald's wasn't offering all of the above at levels better than the competition, it wouldn't be as successful.   True, the burger itself is inferior to many others.  But that's just one part of the product you're actually buying.  

I think the reasoning just doesn't work for politics.  McDonald's isn't going to get away with telling you it's burger is made out of one thing when it's really made of another.  Wendy's isn't going to get away with giving you shitty service whilst claiming it's the best.  But in politics this happens all the time...and a whole lot more as of late. 

The term "quality" is the issue.  What does that mean?  If you mean how stories are developed and supported and/or the coverage of important topics, then yes...that makes perfect sense.  But news networks are much more than that, just like McDonald's is about much more than hamburgers.   News is about facts, yes.  But it's also visual presentation, personalities, points of view, debate, etc.  Fox clearly combines all of these in a package that "the market" finds much more appearing than MSNBC and CNN combined.  

We probably don't actually disagree here.  It's just that pesky term "quality."  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I understand your point.  That said, I think it's clear that if Fox was truly bad, it wouldn't have high ratings.

We're layering adjectives (truly) on top of subjective terms (bad). This is the point. The "goodness" or "badness", in this case, are highly subjective. What may be good to you is bad to me and vice versa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

And if MSNBC wasn't a biased piece of trash, it would have more viewers.  No?  That's what I mean. 

You're claiming that Fox news in unbiased? Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

The "market" has decided that McDonald's offers an attractive product (quality, service, convenience, etc).  That overall product they sell (it's not just the burger...it's everything else just mentioned) is the best, because the market says it's the best.  If McDonald's wasn't offering all of the above at levels better than the competition, it wouldn't be as successful.   True, the burger itself is inferior to many others.  But that's just one part of the product you're actually buying.

Again...this term "best". It's subjective and imprecise at best. ;-)

What does "best" refer to? In regard to the news sources, what does "best" or "better" mean?

I'll say again that the ratings merely tell us that a lot of people have chosen to watch one over the other.

Why? Who knows. Is it because the source they've chosen tells them what they want to hear? Do they simply like the hosts or graphics better?

Notice that all of this is highly subjective. None of it speaks to whether one source is more accurate in reporting facts or is more or less biased for example.

Now, this still all supports what tumptman has contended that, apparently, Fox is more aligned with and saying the things the more people want to hear (see and read) than the other sources have been. Whether all of that is "good" or "bad" is...well...a matter of opinion.

In fact, (I disagree with you about this reasoning's applicability to politics below) we see this often in politics where someone skilled at telling people what they want to hear garners greater votes. That this might turn out to be smoke and mirrors doesn't change the first fact. Additionally, trumptman has made the valid point that people in the liberty/libertarian/Ron Paul movement have not gotten a large amount of traction...they've been unable to "move the needle" much. Does this mean they are wrong? Bad? Unworkable? Maybe. Maybe not. At the very least it simply means that this movement has been unable to get their message to "click" and resonate with a large number of people. Why? Could be any number of reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I think the reasoning just doesn't work for politics.  McDonald's isn't going to get away with telling you it's burger is made out of one thing when it's really made of another.  Wendy's isn't going to get away with giving you shitty service whilst claiming it's the best.  But in politics this happens all the time...and a whole lot more as of late.

I disagree that the same reasoning you've tried to apply doesn't apply in politics. You've basically said that because most people chose a thing, it is, by virtue of most people choosing it, the "best." People can be misled in the market place as well. They can make their decisions based on short-term criteria. They can believe that the iPad is "magical" only to find out it is merely great electronics and software...and maybe something that doesn't really do what they want or need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

The term "quality" is the issue.  What does that mean?  If you mean how stories are developed and supported and/or the coverage of important topics, then yes...that makes perfect sense.  But news networks are much more than that, just like McDonald's is about much more than hamburgers.   News is about facts, yes.  But it's also visual presentation, personalities, points of view, debate, etc.  Fox clearly combines all of these in a package that "the market" finds much more appearing than MSNBC and CNN combined.  

 

We probably don't actually disagree here.  It's just that pesky term "quality." 

Agree that the term "quality" is problematic because it has a tendency toward the subjective or normative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

We're layering adjectives (truly) on top of subjective terms (bad). This is the point. The "goodness" or "badness", in this case, are highly subjective. What may be good to you is bad to me and vice versa.

 

 

 

You're claiming that Fox news in unbiased? Seriously?

 

 

 

Again...this term "best". It's subjective and imprecise at best. ;-)

 

What does "best" refer to? In regard to the news sources, what does "best" or "better" mean?

 

I'll say again that the ratings merely tell us that a lot of people have chosen to watch one over the other.

 

Why? Who knows. Is it because the source they've chosen tells them what they want to hear? Do they simply like the hosts or graphics better?

 

Notice that all of this is highly subjective. None of it speaks to whether one source is more accurate in reporting facts or is more or less biased for example.

 

Now, this still all supports what tumptman has contended that, apparently, Fox is more aligned with and saying the things the more people want to hear (see and read) than the other sources have been. Whether all of that is "good" or "bad" is...well...a matter of opinion.

 

In fact, (I disagree with you about this reasoning's applicability to politics below) we see this often in politics where someone skilled at telling people what they want to hear garners greater votes. That this might turn out to be smoke and mirrors doesn't change the first fact. Additionally, trumptman has made the valid point that people in the liberty/libertarian/Ron Paul movement have not gotten a large amount of traction...they've been unable to "move the needle" much. Does this mean they are wrong? Bad? Unworkable? Maybe. Maybe not. At the very least it simply means that this movement has been unable to get their message to "click" and resonate with a large number of people. Why? Could be any number of reasons.

 

 

 

I disagree that the same reasoning you've tried to apply doesn't apply in politics. You've basically said that because most people chose a thing, it is, by virtue of most people choosing it, the "best." People can be misled in the market place as well. They can make their decisions based on short-term criteria. They can believe that the iPad is "magical" only to find out it is merely great electronics and software...and maybe something that doesn't really do what they want or need.

 

 

 

Agree that the term "quality" is problematic because it has a tendency toward the subjective or normative.

Again, we're not that far apart on this.  The only thing I'd take issue with is your little strawman here:   

I didn't address that.  It's not an biased vs. unbiased absolute.  There is bias in almost ALL news coverage, at least in some way.  I do think that Fox is, by far, closest to being unbiased as compared to any other cable or broadcast news network, particularly with their actual news coverage.  They get the hard right reputation because of their opinion shows, such as Hannity.