Analyzing the news media…
The New York Times’ Katharine Q. Seelye has a report on a new Pew Research survey on the media which some pretty obvious (to me) observations…
The survey found “a startling rise in the politicization of opinions on several measures,” and its authors said the results reflected the increasing political polarization of the country. This was especially pronounced on the question of whether news outlets “stand up for America” or are too critical of America.
“Republicans increasingly express the view that the press is excessively critical of the United States,” the survey said, with 67 percent agreeing with that statement now compared with 42 percent in July 2002. About a quarter of Democrats say news organizations are too critical, the same level as three years ago.
No kidding. TV Newser breaks down the numbers even further…
While CNN still ranks #1, (giving Roger Ailes another reason to declare that Pew is a “liberal lobbying organization”), its audience share has declined in the Pew study
Ailes might be critical? That’s an understatement. It totally flies in the face of the Nielson numbers. FOX has consistently beaten CNN handily on every breaking news story. If more Americans are ranking CNN above FOX according to Pew, where the hell are they when news breaks? Not turning on their TVs apparently if Nielson is accurate. Someone needs to reconcile these two sets of numbers in such a way that it shows that they’re both right. That would be one survey I would be very interested in reading.
Read exactly what the survey says though:
“People in the Pew study who said they get most of their news about national and international issues from television were also asked to identify the specific networks they watch most often.”
People that get most of their news from television, may just mean that people who watch Fox also use other news sources! It doesn’t mean that more people don’t watch Fox.
Comment by Benedict — June 27, 2005 @ 11:54 am
Something appears to be a little off. The results don’t seem to match up with the ratings and the ad dollars.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with the political ideology, Fox is the best run business at this point. The other players are not even close. Fox has clearly positioned itself as the “go-to” network for breaking stories and insightful commentary on the issues of the day. Whether or not the critics agree with the right-wing ideology that runs through most of the network’s commentary, Roger Ailes and his team have built a business that is the envy of the cable news community. Their coverage of stories that matter to the public is solid. They have their finger on the pulse of today’s American viewer and they serve it up in a way that keeps them coming back.
The Fox formula works. They get the numbers (ratings) that allow them to attract advertisers. During their most popular shows, Fox can command an advertising premium. That’s how you make money in television.
It is important to remember that television is a business (a big business). The pundits and TV critics continue to hammer home the fact that Fox has a point of view. They act as if no news organization has ever mixed the news and ideology prior to Fox News firing up its transmitter. This is a telling symptom of the problem with the other cable news networks. In trying to please the critics, they do not present a clear image to the TV news consumer.
The fact that America leans to the right (politically) allows Fox to give their viewers what they want – good news coverage presented in a way that their viewers welcome. Providing a solid product the way the customer wants to consume that product sounds like a good business to me.
The critics will be quick to point out that Fox will never admit to having a network-wide ideology. That’s fine. Think about it; when consumers go to the store to buy soap does anyone tell them that there is little (if any) difference in the chemical composition of the products on the shelves? The soap manufacturers dress up their product so that it will sell. They do this by packaging the product differently then their competition. Fox does the same with news. They tout their reporting and they package it in a way that sells – with insightful, consistent commentary.
What we see today in the form of competition from the other cable news outlets are cable news networks that try to present the news in a way that will not offend people. This is a defensive posture. While CNN and MSNBC offer coverage of most of the same stories as Fox News, they have no network-wide consistency when it comes to opinion. The product on CNN and MSNBC is unpredictable and consumers embrace consistency. The number two and number three cable news networks package their product in a generic wrapper that says “News”. This leaves the consumer searching for a way to differentiate the products. Clearly this is not as effective as the Fox approach – a point supported by the ratings day after day.
Cable news is not network news. It is a different animal. It is a 24-hour business. The viewer gets that. There are too many hours to fill and reading news from sanitized copy just doesn’t cut it on cable. Journalistic integrity dictates that everyone must get the story right based upon the facts. Interpretation of the facts (opinion) is one of the cornerstones of free speech. It has also been a staple of news reporting since the invention of the printing press.
Viewers want to hear what the experts think and they want to know where to go to get a definite opinion – day or night. Fox makes this clear and the consumer will always embrace a well-defined product over an ambiguous one.
Comment by David V. Lorenzo — June 27, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
Loved this part of the survey:
Perhaps more important, the public still wants an independent rather than a partisan press model. Once again, two-thirds of Americans would prefer a “neutral” press over one that is “pro-American.” Don’t be misled by the inflated notion that the ratings of Fox News Channel suggest something to the contrary.
And BTW Nielson ratings is an estimate THAT’S ESTIMATE and not real number of folks actually watching a channel. It’s a flawed system that folks live by.
Comment by Hairy — June 27, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
Yes, but it’s the flawed system that advertisers pay attention to…nobody uses Pew to charge ad rates…
So while Nielsen may be an estimate and it may be flawed it’s a lot more important a number to the cable nets.
And I’d still like to see someone difinatively reconcile Nielsen with Pew…if it can be done.
Comment by Spud — June 27, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
Remember also that CNN suffers from the same problem as CNBC, in that many loyal viewers turn to CNN in places not hooked to a Nielsen box — the office, the bar, train station, airport or online … many consider the Web site (normally ranked number one) to be the same as the cable network. Food for thought…
Comment by Ed — June 27, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
True that. But those places are full of distractions. How many people really stay glued to the TV in those environments compared to say home viewers?
Comment by Spud — June 27, 2005 @ 11:42 pm
My God, people. AQH has nothing to do with cume. The ratings that advertisers care about and that blogs publish are AQH ratings. Pew is more indicative of cume. AQH: the number of people watching during an average quarter hour. Cume: the cumulative number of people who have watched any amount over a period of time. CNN has more viewers than Fox, and they frequently point it out. Fox fans, though, are, well, fans. They watch more frequently and for longer periods. Think of it this way: if 4 million people all watch fifteen minutes of a one-hour CNN show, the AQH would be 1 million. But if 3 million people watch all sixty minutes of a one-hour Fox show, the AQH would be 3 million. CNN gets more viewers, Fox gets higher ratings.
Comment by Ricky — June 28, 2005 @ 2:21 am
CNN counting the airport networks in their ratings is totally misleading. Almost as misleading as your suggestion that “many consider the website the same as the cable network.” That is simply not true, counting the airport numbers is simply an attempt by CNN to try and not look like they are loing so bad.
Comment by MrTony — June 28, 2005 @ 2:52 pm