MSM What Fox says now leads, not what the NYT says

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10056.html

With numbers like these,(See link for graph) Fox News is TV Cable News. It’s no wonder that Fox seems to be driving all the major stories these days. It’s simply a matter of sheer mindshare. A story on Fox reaches more people. When Fox decides something is news it becomes news whether anyone else likes it or not.

Fox is supplanting the role long played by the New York Times and the Ochs-Sulzberger family that owns the 88% of the paper. For nearly 50 years, the Times has sent out its headline for the next day out on the wire and newspapers and broadcasters have en masse synchronized their own stories to whatever the NYT decided to cover. The Ochs-Sulzbergers ultimately decided what was and was not news for the entire country.

Now Fox has stolen the crown. Even people who hate Fox now find themselves forced to react to it. Politicos and pundits who want to reach half of the cable news audience have to show up on Fox. Other news organizations are forced to cover the same stories as Fox just to remain relevant.

I don’t watch TV news in general and I dislike Fox’s format the most. It is so loud and garish that concentrating on the story is like trying to read a physics text in a dance club. However, they ask the right questions and piss off the right people.

Troke said:

I don’t watch TV news in general and I dislike Fox’s format the most. It is so loud and garish that concentrating on the story is like trying to read a physics text in a dance club. However, they ask the right questions and piss off the right people.

Click to expand...

When I think "loud and garish", I think Chrissy Tingle Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Rachael Madcow.

I didn't make a habit of watching FOX news (or any news station) until reading the controversy about them here--sometime last year. I didn't make time for that. I got the news from the local radio station (turns out they're about 3 days behind FOX tv) and my sister Usually Curious when she was outraged enough about something to call me and vent.

I enjoy keeping FOX on in the background while I'm working. O'Reilly, Beck, and Hannity are entertaining--not mindlessly, like Oprah or Ellen, so I enjoy them more than "women's TV."

I was even able to take Geraldo last night--as he did a split-screen thing with the voting and interviews. Of course...interestingly enough, he was interviewing a GOP person (I don't remember whom) and the guy said this passage was not whole-scale defeat because it guaranteed that most of the incumbents would lose their seats in 2012. Interesting take on the matter, but it assumes that there will actually be elections in 2012. I'm not putting my money either way--and I won't be surprised either way. I feel as though we're living on a fault line and waiting for the Big One.

When Faux refused to invite Ron Paul to one of the presidential debates, I turned off my satellite TV.

I suppose it is of value to know what the MSM is saying. But frankly, I don't miss the noise and I have better things to do with the $600 per year I was paying for their carp.