Posted on 03/21/2011 9:28:24 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
“Fox is covering for the usurper with the O Reilly, Beck, Coulter and other Fox ‘birther’ cracks”
Nevermind O’Reilly, as regards the other two, better yet as reagrds Beck since he’s the subject of the thread, who cares if he rants against Obama 98-99% of the time, to the point of boring the hell out of even me, a bone-fide Obama-despiser? Who cares if he can from time to time sound like a Hannity-esque party hack in his laserbeam focus on the evil that is the current White House, or, to be fair, the evil that swirls around the current White House, in the form of George Soros, Van Jones, and Cass Sunstein? Who cares if I can barely tell the difference between what I’m watching and examples of Bushophobia from a few years ago, and would rather be hearing about the history of Progressivism, of all things?
None of that matters, so long as one issue with a teeny, tiny constituency is overlooked. So long as birtherism is denied, Beck could devote ten thousand hours to Obama bashing and remain a water-carrier for the administration and an agent provacateur for True Monomaniacs...err, I mean “Conservatives.”
O’Reilly is an RINO village idiot, most especially when it comes to matters dealing with the military.
When we were in Iraq and Shitcanistan and were in a place where we could watch his show, he used to unanimously draw all kinds of cattle calls from all of us whenever it came to matters of what we should do or his viewpoints on the war. He's utterly clueless. Kind of like our current Vacationer in Chief or those rump rangers Gates or Mullen. I am soooo glad I am retired so I don't have to take orders from that Kenyan Village Idiot. It absolutely breaks my heart to see what Obama and his two stooges Gates and Mullen are doing to our military. I really long for the day when we had people like our beloved Ronald Reagen and Casper Weinnerger calling the shots.
when Napolitano is standing in for GBeck, i just delete the episode from my tivo
“which is traditionally a spot reserved for less theatrical news.
Maybe Beck needs a spot in primetime, or at 11 (which I think would be ideal).”
What is the mystical connection between harder (or “less theatrical”) news and the afternoon? There is none. It’s only traditional, I’d think, because buzzy shows with high ratings are reserved for timeslots when people are actually home to watch, i.e. primetime. The only reason Beck was slotted so early is because they had no idea he’d catch on. And there may be good reason to switch him now that he’s proved otherwise, but absolutely not because he’s too showy, crybaby-y, or Comedy Central-y for 4 o’clock (central time). The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if Beck’s timeslot is bad for his type of show, tell that to his ratings.
By the way, this line of thought (that is, the ratings line) does not hold good when certain other considerations (that is, those beyond specious nods to tradition) enter. For instance, fears over whether material is appropriate for children. To my mind, fears over Beck being appropriate for afternoon news is totally without foundation.
Opinion shows are a part of news stations, and if people are watching at any particular time, that is a good time for it. If Beck’s show was so sensational as to not be even an opinion show anymore. if he was, for instance, to become Phil Donahue or The Daily Show, that’d be another matter. But for now, he sits firmly in the O’Reilly tradition.
So, what's your point?
It's O.K. for the Seattle Seahawks to have a 7 - 9 record because everybody else in the NFC West sucks even more?
Advertisers do not care in the least if the 15 people that watch your show are three times as many as the 5 people that watch the other guy's show. Advertisers only care about ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. If you do not produce absolute numbers, advertisers take their dollars elsewhere.
From my own link:
Fox News' Bill O’Reilly– down 3% -- (Solidly within the range of statistical variation. He will be staying.)
CNN's Larry King – down 46% -- ("Well, Larry, you're an icon .... a legend .... a classic! We love ya! We really do. .... Don't let the door hit you on the @ss on the way out.")
Fox News' Glenn Beck– down 30% -- ("Well, Glenn, we know that you suck less than your competion. But you are down THIRTY PERCENT. FOX News does not want your time slot to be the Seattle Seahawks, the best of the worst. Fox News wants your time slot to be the New England Patriots and kick adverstising dollars butt. We want GREAT in that time slot. We will not settle for "We suck a lot less than the other guy.")
I think if Fox is considering dumping him, it has to do with kowtowing to the administration
His rating dropped a ton and Fox News is all about money. If Beck can’t get the ratings than he is gone. It is nothing more than that.
HELLO AMERICA? Glenn Beck Posts Biggest Ratings Drop Of Any Cable News Show In January
HELLO AMERICA? Glenn Beck Posts Biggest Ratings Drop Of Any Cable News Show In January
Not if people aren’t watching.....ratings are important to the network and if he can’t perform than he is gone.
I have this posted on my profile page and bring it out when circumstances warrant.I thought you might enjoy it:
My American Journeyby General Colin Powell
Page 291-292
What I saw from my perch in the Pentagon was America sticking its hand into a thousand-year-old hornet nest with the expectation that our mere presence might pacify the hornets. When ancient ethnic hatreds re-ignited in the former Yugoslavia in 1991 and well-meaning Americans thought we should "do something" in Bosnia, the shattered bodies of Marines at the Beirut airport were never far from my mind arguing for caution. There are times when American lives must be risked and lost. Foreign policy cannot be paralyzed by the prospect of casualties. But lives must not be risked until we can face a parent or a spouse or a child with a clear answer to the question of why a member of that family had to die. To provide a "symbol" or a "presence" is not good enough.
Page 302-303
I knew that Weinberger, for all his outward self-possesion, had been deeply troubled by the tragic bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. I did not realize how deeply until a singular draft document came out of his office. He asked me to take a look at it and circulate it to the administration's national security team. Weinberger had applied his formidable lawyerly intellect to an analysis of when and when not to commit United States military forces abroad. He was put off by fancy phrases like "interpositional forces" and "presence" that turned out to mean putting U.S. troops in harm's way without a clear mission. He objected toour troops being "used" in the worst sense of that word. He had come up with six tests for determining when to commit American forces.
Weinberger's antagonist, George Schultz, was dismissive of Cap's approach. I had watched the irony of their squabbling for months. The Secretary of State was often ready to commit America's military might, even in a no-man's-land like Lebanon. What was the point of maintaining a military force if you did not whack somebody occasionally to demonstrate your power? On the other side was the man responsible for the forces that would have to do the bleeding and dying, arguing against anything but crucial commitments.
Not only did Weinberger want to sell his guidelines inside the administration; he wanted to go public that summer. We started considering possible speaking platforms, but White House political operatives nixed any such controversial speech until the election was over. After Reagan's reelection, Weinberger addressed the National Press Club on November 28. I went with him to hear him describe the tests he recommended "when we are weighing the use of U.S. combat forces abroad."
(1) Commit only if our or our allies' vital interests are at stake.
(2) If we commit, do so with all the resources necessary to win.
(3) Go in only with clear political and military objectives.
(4) Be ready to change the commitment if the objectives change, since wars rarely stand still.
(5)Only take on commitments that can gain the support of the American people and the Congress.
(6)Commit U.S. forces only as a last resort.
In short, is the national interest at stake? If the answer is yes, go in, and go in to win. Otherwise, stay out.
So it’s the police that are keeping the Japanese people in line? I’m sorry, but having lived among the Japanese people for over 30 years ( in Hawaii ), I have nothing but respect for their values and culture. I’d say they practice more “Christian values” than our culture presently does.
Yes, they have a homogeneous culture, and that can be an advantage. But they are not looting because of alleged government or police repression. They are not looting because it goes against their societal values. Merchants are lowering prices instead of scalping victims.
I still value American individualism above all, but PC multiculturalism is rapidly eroding our freedoms and liberty.
Unless you have more facts, I think you should retract your statement. The Japanese government may not be fully informative, but ours surely isn’t either. And if there was looting, you can be sure CNN would have reported it.
Who said it was "bad" for it? I sure didn't. I said that it was out of place.
FNC could broadcast live yoga classes with Playboy bunnies in that same time-slot. The ratings would be off the charts. Does that mean "live yoga classes with Playboy bunnies" is the best use of that time-slot? Yea, I don't think so either.
Networks have proven time and time again that crap can drive ratings. Ratings shouldn't be the sole measuring stick of quality. Want more proof? For the week ending March 6, Entertainment Tonight drew over 6M average viewers. That same day those ratings were released (March 7), Beck drew 1.7M viewers. Using your standard, is Entertainment Tonight a better, more informative television show than Glann Beck because it drew more viewers?
Clarification: I meant the government/police tend to keep a tight lid on the news that such things are happening. We don’t always hear about it...
Apologies for the confusion.
“But, they’re broadcast in the prime-time, not in the middle of the day where stories are still developing and should be covered”
A) News stories “develop” all day, and if it’s anything actually important you better believe primetime will be preempted. Granted, more happens earlier, and primtime shows are less often interrupted than anything else. But not to the extent that Beck is getting in the way of us actually learning anything new. His presence just means less time for: “How’s it going over there in the Iraqi desert, Jim” “It’s bedlam per usual, Megyn.” And: “What do you have to say to your constituents, Congressman Blowhard?” “Blah, blah, Constitution, blah, equality, blah, taxes, blah, blah.”
B) What you call covering the stories of the day amounts to by-the-numbers updates from hack reporters, rote talking-head interviews with blithe and platitudinous politicians, alternately tedious and wild speculation from so-called experts, and symmetrical shouting from talking points in ties.
C) What you’re talking about actually happens in the middle of the day. When Kelly is on, yes, but less so with Cavuto and hardly at all with Baier. Late afternoon and early evening programming consists of a summing up of the days’ events and lite commentary on it.
“You think straight-news is ‘boring’ (your word)”
Not straight news, no. Not that that’s what Kelly, Cavuto, or Baier are doing, anyway. But, again, that’s not what I thought would be boring. Them in place of Beck would be. Any of them in a hard opinion format would bore me to tears.
“especially not at 5pm”
I still don’t get this objection. There is no mystical connection between that timeslot and harder news. The Kelly, Cavuto, etc. sort of show traditionally airs in that slot because in the past Beck sort of shows were saved for the limelight. Since he’s proved beyond a doubt that his sort of show can thrive in that slot, I don’t see what the objection is.
If people wanted hard news at 4, they’d switch to another channel. Turns out, as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what they want at four is Beck, not “straight news.”
Megyn Kelly(while intelligent)is simply yet another Fox News cupcake for guys to feast their eyes on(ratings), Brett Baeir the same...(for the gals). What does that mean? It means folks watching Beck are more likely to spend more time listening with their ears...than watching with their eyes.
Sheeple need an awakening...they can get their "cupcakes" on any number of mind-numbing MSM outlets.
Cavuto's voice gets annoying after a while...not to mention he's been jumping the shark quite a bit lately....(AKA O'Reilly like...playing both sides of the fence).
Some(maybe more)of Beck's success may have gone to his head...if he stays on message, and cut's out the theatrics, he's one of the best messengers out there to expose the evils that are prevalent today, not to mention exposing those in the past that got us to this point.
For some context: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/313452.php
“I sure didn’t”
Yes you did.
“I said that it was out of place.”
In other words, bad for that timeslot.
“FNC could broadcast live yoga classes with Playboy bunnies in that same time-slot. The ratings would be off the charts. Does that mean ‘live yoga classes with Playboy bunnies’ is the best use of that time-slot? Yea, I don’t think so either.”
That is a poor excuse for sophism. But even if it were a legitimate argument, apparently you didn’t read my whole post, the end of which addressed a limit to ratings as the ultimate judge. If Beck were to turn into Phil Donahue or The Daily Show, as I explicitly said, that would be one thing. It wouldn’t fit on Fox News any longer, let alone at 4 o’clock. However, as it is, Beck fits perfectly well within the cable news opinion show format, and therefore fits perfectly well on Fox News at any time, limited only by what would be the best time for maximum viewership.
“Using your standard, is Entertainment Tonight a better, more informative television show than Glann Beck because it drew more viewers?”
What kind of stupid question is this? Go back to argument school. Quit wasting my time.
“Beck’s program is produced, just like any entertainment program. For me, it just feels strange going from Cavuto to Beck and then back to Baeir.”
I summation, you’re saying “I don’t like Beck because I’m a fuddy-duddy and can’t handle alterations in format.”
Is what someone says when they don't have a compelling argument to make. Just saying.
However, as things actually are, Beck's ratings have DROPPED THIRTY PERCENT in his own time slot.
Same guy. Same network. Same time slot. Same message. Same audience. Thirty percent drop in comparison to himself.
Something is obviously not right here.
I do not believe that it is what he says. I believe it is how he says it with his over-the-top theatrics.
Glenn Beck, just creeps a lot of people out. Just like this guy does.
After the 828 Rally in D.C. (peak moment for Beck in my opinion) there appear to be two significant changes:
1. Emphasis on Mormon ideals (overt repetition of Faith, Hope, and Charity; storing up, etc.).
2. Time spent with Bill O'Reilly on tour.
Beck is not O'Reilly (thank God!), but I noticed a subtle change when they were spending lots of time together, including on air. I'm definitely one of the 30% who tuned Beck out ...and to think, I used to TVO the show and watch it every day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.