- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Roger Ailes, Former Fox News CEO and Chairman, dies at 77
- Thread starter Johnnypenso
- 27 comments
- 1,374 views
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,968
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,968
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
- 13,995
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
What a classy funeral - Ailes's son threatens his accusers from the pulpit.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
I'm interested to know what this good taste is that "unfortunately" isn't enforced by the rules...........like, what's the definition of good taste here (or more to the point, not good taste - the stuff that might offend people, which logically wouldn't be allowed), which dead people would it apply to, and how long would it apply for?
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Would you appreciate someone bringing up the past up of your deceased family member?
He's dead, don't continue to beat the horse.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
I'm not aware Roger is a relative of anyone involved in this thread - if he is then I agree that would somewhat be a different matter.
The reason I asked was because I read an interesting FiveThirtyEight article the other day about how Fox News under Ailes contributed to the polarisation of news media in the US. It arguably painted this part of his legacy in a negative light. I was going to post it but the fact this might risk offending someone to the extent that they don't just want to see it, they want that enforced by the AUP, sorta caught me off guard. Hence why I'd like clarification on what's considered acceptable (or not acceptable/too offensive), who it applies to, and for how long it applies.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I'm not offended by it. But I did find it in bad taste. I respect the dead.
That said, I would be interested to see how Ailes changed news as we know it.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
Here. It argues that according to opinion polling, before Fox and Ailes the demographics of the main networks were much the same as how the country was voting (modestly Democrat). And after Fox successfully won over most Republicans, the other networks followed with their own partisan coverage to match their now mostly-Democrat viewerships.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? All of that list except Fox leans to the left. Introduce another network that leans to the right and it's polarizing by definition. The only way they couldn't be polarizing is if they were another shill for the Democratic party like the other networks listed.Here. It argues that according to opinion polling, before Fox and Ailes the demographics of the main networks were much the same as how the country was voting (modestly Democrat). And after Fox successfully won over most Republicans, the other networks followed with their own partisan coverage to match their now mostly-Democrat viewerships.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
A quick look at the numbers in the provided table answers that.
And more so now than they did before Fox was started, which pretty much proves the point: the mere presence of Fox's right-wing slant pushed the other networks to the left. That's pretty much the definition of "polarizing."
No, it's polarized by definition. The movement that happens after that point is polarization.
You're missing the point. You're speaking as if this were a one-year data set, or as if the numbers remained constant. Neither is the case here.
- 192
- Earth
"And more so now than they did before Fox was started, which pretty much proves the point: the mere presence of Fox's right-wing slant pushed the other networks to the left. That's pretty much the definition of "polarizing.""
It proves nothing. A bunch of numbers/stats don't themselves mean anything other than measurements at a snapshot of time when they were taken. To jump from that to that they prove some sort or causal mechanism (the details of which has not even been mentioned here even hypothetically) is simplistic and silly.
Right leaning viewers moved from one audience to another, which mathematically is going to produce the results. That may count as some sort of mathematical polarization, but to imply that encompasses all of what is being incorporated here (social/political/cultural polarization) is just too simplistic in thinking. Phenomena in this arena are rarely the cause of just one thing, it's just not likely or possible. Also, like JP said, chicken and the egg. Perhaps Fox came about by the left marginalizing the right in all the other network outlets, driving them to a place like fox, and they are (part) of the issue. There are millions of things to consider when it comes to the dynamics of culture and politics, you would be kidding yourself to think it could be explained this simplistically.
It proves nothing. A bunch of numbers/stats don't themselves mean anything other than measurements at a snapshot of time when they were taken. To jump from that to that they prove some sort or causal mechanism (the details of which has not even been mentioned here even hypothetically) is simplistic and silly.
Right leaning viewers moved from one audience to another, which mathematically is going to produce the results. That may count as some sort of mathematical polarization, but to imply that encompasses all of what is being incorporated here (social/political/cultural polarization) is just too simplistic in thinking. Phenomena in this arena are rarely the cause of just one thing, it's just not likely or possible. Also, like JP said, chicken and the egg. Perhaps Fox came about by the left marginalizing the right in all the other network outlets, driving them to a place like fox, and they are (part) of the issue. There are millions of things to consider when it comes to the dynamics of culture and politics, you would be kidding yourself to think it could be explained this simplistically.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,968
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
The table provided wasn't a snapshot. It covered the last twenty years. As for hypothesis the linked article seems to have that covered. Whether you want to believe it or not, you'd have to bring contradicting figures to disprove it.
FiveThirtyEight
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Bollocks. You don't need to disprove broscience. Media is a huge field that goes way beyond Fox and a handful of networks. The explosion of cable news and the 24 hours news cycle, the explosion of talk radio, the explosion of unregulated internet news and more, are all factors that have helped and will continue to help to shape the news landscape.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,968
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Especially when it's much less effort to denounce it loudly.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,968
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Whatever, bro...
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
First, as UKMikey pointed out, it's not a "snapshot." That's what Johnnypenso seemed to miss originally, and you're missing it now. It's twenty years of data.
Maybe, maybe not. It's the simplest interpretation of the data provided; Occam's Razor and all that. If you have data that counters it, by all means bring it in here, and we can incorporate it and adjust accordingly.
And it's your contention that this just happened randomly? Nothing about Fox's bias pulled those viewers into their audience?
Who said anything about "just one thing?" There are lots of reasons that right-leaning viewers are drawn to Fox.
Again, the data answers that. We have numbers before the egg hatched, and after.
Now, if you have reason to think the data on that chart is inaccurate, then I'd love to hear those reasons. If you have data that counters it, I'd love to see it.
What I'm not going to do, though, is ignore the only data set provided on the topic up to this point because you just don't like it.
Perhaps, but we'd need more data to arrive at that conclusion. You'd want to see more than one year before Fox's arrival, to see if the other networks had moved left before 1996 to say that a hole had been created for Fox to fill.
That's true of just about anything. Doesn't mean that you throw away what data you do have, and just make up whatever explanation makes you feel the best.
--
What does that even mean?
Who said otherwise?
If data about media outlets other than the ones included on the chart refutes what the chart suggests, then we should by all means adjust the resulting conclusions. Now, where did you say that data was at again?
In what ways? By what magnitude? At risk of sounding like a broken record: where's the data?
It's curious that a member who spent the last few days playing moderator in the America thread, chastising another member for not citing data with their conclusions, is now in here waving off data like it's irrelevant.
Who said anything was proven? The only thing I've claimed is that FiveThirtyEight's conclusion fits the data provided.
The usual response, for anybody who doesn't agree with the conclusion, would be to find data that refutes it, not just throw it all out and start playing the insult game.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
There's no need to refute a conclusion made with broscience. There's no cause and effect, no controlling for other variables, nothin that would deem the conclusion worthy of consideration to begin with. Broscience.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Still unclear about what "broscience" is. What specific objections do you have with FiveThirtyEight's methods?
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
In fairness I'd agree somewhat with @Sick Lenny that it's not a conclusive argument - the correlation is clearly supported by the data, but the causation isn't and is just a point of view, albeit a well made one imo. (Not being fully convinced and not knowing much about 90s US media was why I didn't post afterwards; I just wanted to share it because the data/argument seemed interesting).
Having said that I'm also not convinced by one of the counter-arguments, which was the networks in the 90s wouldn't appear polarising because before Fox, Republicans had nowhere else to go. That implies that Republicans felt forced to get their news from a TV network - maybe that was the case, but it doesn't seem likely, not with other sources of media available. If it wasn't the case, then the fact that in 1996 the demographics of TV news was in line with the political makeup of the country, is at least somewhat compelling.
No sympathy for the "broscience" crap, because magically that wasn't a concern when certain other opinions, like "The only way [Fox] couldn't be polarizing is if they were another shill for the Democratic party like the other networks", were stated as fact, apparently without a need to support it with anything. So I guess it's alright for some. Maybe if "broscience" is repeated another 5 or 6 times I'll change my mind?
Count yourself lucky there's an argument happening at all, and that no one has deemed it "poor taste" and advocates removing it under the AUP............
Having said that I'm also not convinced by one of the counter-arguments, which was the networks in the 90s wouldn't appear polarising because before Fox, Republicans had nowhere else to go. That implies that Republicans felt forced to get their news from a TV network - maybe that was the case, but it doesn't seem likely, not with other sources of media available. If it wasn't the case, then the fact that in 1996 the demographics of TV news was in line with the political makeup of the country, is at least somewhat compelling.
No sympathy for the "broscience" crap, because magically that wasn't a concern when certain other opinions, like "The only way [Fox] couldn't be polarizing is if they were another shill for the Democratic party like the other networks", were stated as fact, apparently without a need to support it with anything. So I guess it's alright for some. Maybe if "broscience" is repeated another 5 or 6 times I'll change my mind?
Count yourself lucky there's an argument happening at all, and that no one has deemed it "poor taste" and advocates removing it under the AUP............
Roo
Premium
- 7,415
- Hampshire, UK
- GTP_Roo
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
