Fox News President Exchanges Barbs With Some Liberals

• Prescott

  Pretty good stuff.
  Classic line.
  "I am not in politics, I am in ratings, and I am winning."
  
  
  
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I saw this and thought it was funny. Roger Ailes is Roger Ailes. He is who he is. He is a conservative that puts together a winning formula for ratings that has a conservative lean to it.
  
  I wouldn't say destroys by the way. But, he did look good.
• ou1980

  Prescott wrote: Pretty good stuff.
  Classic line.
  "I am not politics, I am in ratings, and I am winning."
  
  
  

  Common sense wins every time....Roger Ailes destroyed Huffington here!
  
  p.s.
  
  
  Walters must have recieved some bad plastic surgery, geesh does she look bad....and not to say she's always been somthing to look at.
• BoatShoes

  sad that ratings are the goal for a news station president; and that applies regardless whether you're MSNBC or Fox...but we were all told this would happen.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I read this earlier this morning...
  
  http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/is-america-getting-over-keith-olbermann/19337944/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl3|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2Fstory%2Fmedia%2Fis-america-getting-over-keith-olbermann%2F19337944%2F
  

  Griffin, not surprisingly, says he doesn't believe Olbermann's recent hiccups are part of any larger trend. "Keith has been our tentpole," he says. "I watch the show every night. It's a great show. It's as smart and clever and fun as any out there, and I'm pleased with where we are."
  He attributes Olbermann's January ratings slip to a news cycle in which international news, rather than domestic politics

• Prescott

  sad that ratings are the goal for a news station president;

  Ratings might be the primary goal, but not the only goal.
• majorspark

  

  Good ratings are a necessity to generating good add revenue. Running a news station is not free.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark wrote: Good ratings are a necessity to generating good add revenue. Running a news station is not free.

  Eh, I'm not sure. Fox News for instance is just one small part of News Corporation...I don't think it would be that much of a crime against the shareholders of News Corporation if Fox News were to be managed in the interests of informing the public as opposed to being managed in the interests of increasing the profits of the shareholders only, as is the in vogue management ethic in the U.S.A.
  
  And that same thing goes for NBC and CBS, MSNBC, etc. I don't think it would hurt Microsoft's shareholders so badly if MSNBC would stop trying to corner the market to feed far left hippies what they want to hear.
  
  If we think back to the film network...at the shareholder's meeting it was discussed how the news division was unprofitable...and this is largely true...hence they put a mentally insane person who thinks he's talking to God on the air to make it profitable and get ratings.
  
  IMO, if you're going to invest in a news division as part of your corporate holdings, you shouldn't sacrifice the public trust for profits and ratings....giant companies like General Electric can afford to take the profit hit if their news isn't as entertaining as American Idol and just give people the news.
  
  I have faith in people...I believe somewhere, some how you can get people to care about the news and listen to a soft spoken but comforting anchor tell you about what's happening in the world without dumbing it down...but maybe that's a fantasy and I'm probably wrong as I'm wrong a lot.
• fish82

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I saw this and thought it was funny. Roger Ailes is Roger Ailes. He is who he is. He is a conservative that puts together a winning formula for ratings that has a conservative lean to it.
  
  I wouldn't say destroys by the way. But, he did look good.

  He had no trouble slapping Arianna down, that's for sure. She looked like she wanted to crawl under the table.
• Prescott

  you shouldn't sacrifice the public trust for profits and ratings.

  Don't the ratings indicate that Fox News hasn't violated the public's trust?
• jmog

  Prescott wrote:

  you shouldn't sacrifice the public trust for profits and ratings.

  Don't the ratings indicate that Fox News hasn't violated the public's trust?

  Shh, you aren't allowed to use common sense in the political forum, its banned here .
• BoatShoes

  Prescott wrote:

  you shouldn't sacrifice the public trust for profits and ratings.

  Don't the ratings indicate that Fox News hasn't violated the public's trust?

  Not necessarily...PBS and CSpan have basement ratings but they're giving you the bare bones facts. You can go right to the source and watch and see what your representative is doing on Cspan but no one watches that.
  
  You can go to MSNBC or Fox and hear what you want to hear in primetime (I realize, news "commentary", but we can hear what we want to hear...for the most part). Nobody on a station that calls itself a "news" station...should on the one side say things like "Obama is post racial, I forgot he was black....blah blah" or on the other side "Obama and his socialist/marxist/real american hating/secret muslim manchurian candidate/born in africa takeover of America blah blah" Unless the people saying these things are the guests on the show and will be rebutted by a neutral host who will refuse to allow fallacious arguments to go through unchallenged to the public like a Judge will disallow improper testimony or evidence from getting to a jury.
  
  Ratings, in America, although like everything else this isn't always true, often indicates what is most popular but not necessarily what is of high value.
  
  Mcdonalds has sold a billion hamburgers, Nickelback has sold millions of albums, the Jersey Shore was one of the most popular shows on cable, Twilight was a box office smash, More people vote for American Idol than for President, Coca Cola is one of the best selling products in the world, USWeekly outsells magazines like National Review or the New Yorker easily,
  
  Maybe "violate the public trust" was poor word choice but c'mon...Putting Chris Matthews on T.V. who will practically fellate the President doesn't help someone with a progressive ideology reevaluate their position from a neutral point of view. Some of these guys are better than others but the general point is there. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while so the fact that we might gleen some value here and there isn't enough for me.
  
  And for instance, and I concede, I'm picking on Fox News here...but they gave so much more coverage to the Scott Brown victory than the Haiti Earthquake...perhaps it's fair to say that CNN didn't give enough coverage of the Scott Brown victory...but I think when choosing what to show, the editors ought to ask...
  
  "What does the public need to see, what's crucial, what do people need to know about";
  
  as opposed to
  
  "What is going to get me the most viewers so that I can generate more ad revenue and improve the stock price for the shareholders"
  
  Glenn Beck being a demagogue is going to beat boring ass Anderson Cooper standing in a depressing poor country every time.
  
  And although the people need to hear about the scott brown victory as it might show a reflection of public opinion and a repudiation of what is happening in domestic legislation, but do they really need to hear about it more than what is one of the worst catastrophes in our Hemisphere? I'm just not sure...
  
  MSNBC probably would have done the same thing if it was a democrat winning Kay Bailey Hutchinson's seat and the point would remain the same.
  
  And then, CNN and who's covering the Haiti tragedy have to add these human interest elements to make it more entertaining, etc. and that IMO is just as problematic.
  
  I just want to watch, boring, hard hitting, critical and skeptical news and you can't find it because news editors are managing their programs in the interest of their shareholders wallet...the best place is PBS and that is contrary to the way it should be because it is the government's subsidized news which by definition you shouldn't be able to trust as the government watchdog and plus...a rigid list-like reader of the Constitution might even suggest that this government funding for PBS isn't even constitutional.
• FatHobbit

  

  Prescott wrote:

  you shouldn't sacrifice the public trust for profits and ratings.

  Don't the ratings indicate that Fox News hasn't violated the public's trust?

  Ratings indicate entertainment. I don't think the majority of the public would know if their trust had been violated.
  

  BoatShoes wrote:

  Prescott wrote:

  you shouldn't sacrifice the public trust for profits and ratings.

  Don't the ratings indicate that Fox News hasn't violated the public's trust?

  Not necessarily...PBS and CSpan have basement ratings but they're giving you the bare bones facts. You can go right to the source and watch and see what your representative is doing on Cspan but no one watches that.
  
  You can go to MSNBC or Fox and hear what you want to hear in primetime (I realize, news "commentary", but we can hear what we want to hear...for the most part). Nobody on a station that calls itself a "news" station...should on the one side say things like "Obama is post racial, I forgot he was black....blah blah" or on the other side "Obama and his socialist/marxist/real american hating/secret muslim manchurian candidate/born in africa takeover of America blah blah" Unless the people saying these things are the guests on the show and will be rebutted by a neutral host who will refuse to allow fallacious arguments to go through unchallenged to the public like a Judge will disallow improper testimony or evidence from getting to a jury.
  
  Ratings, in America, although like everything else this isn't always true, often indicates what is most popular but not necessarily what is of high value.
  
  Mcdonalds has sold a billion hamburgers, Nickelback has sold millions of albums, the Jersey Shore was one of the most popular shows on cable, Twilight was a box office smash, More people vote for American Idol than for President, Coca Cola is one of the best selling products in the world, USWeekly outsells magazines like National Review or the New Yorker easily,
  
  Maybe "violate the public trust" was poor word choice but c'mon...Putting Chris Matthews on T.V. who will practically fellate the President doesn't help someone with a progressive ideology reevaluate their position from a neutral point of view. Some of these guys are better than others but the general point is there. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while so the fact that we might gleen some value here and there isn't enough for me.
  
  And for instance, and I concede, I'm picking on Fox News here...but they gave so much more coverage to the Scott Brown victory than the Haiti Earthquake...perhaps it's fair to say that CNN didn't give enough coverage of the Scott Brown victory...but I think when choosing what to show, the editors ought to ask...
  
  "What does the public need to see, what's crucial, what do people need to know about";
  
  as opposed to
  
  "What is going to get me the most viewers so that I can generate more ad revenue and improve the stock price for the shareholders"
  
  Glenn Beck being a demagogue is going to beat boring ass Anderson Cooper standing in a depressing poor country every time.
  
  And although the people need to hear about the scott brown victory as it might show a reflection of public opinion and a repudiation of what is happening in domestic legislation, but do they really need to hear about it more than what is one of the worst catastrophes in our Hemisphere? I'm just not sure...
  
  MSNBC probably would have done the same thing if it was a democrat winning Kay Bailey Hutchinson's seat and the point would remain the same.
  
  And then, CNN and who's covering the Haiti tragedy have to add these human interest elements to make it more entertaining, etc. and that IMO is just as problematic.
  
  I just want to watch, boring, hard hitting, critical and skeptical news and you can't find it because news editors are managing their programs in the interest of their shareholders wallet...the best place is PBS and that is contrary to the way it should be because it is the government's subsidized news which by definition you shouldn't be able to trust as the government watchdog and plus...a rigid list-like reader of the Constitution might even suggest that this government funding for PBS isn't even constitutional.

  I agree. People like to have their opinions validated or to be entertained so they listen to the news that suits them. They only want to find the biggest story and have no interest in reporting the truth. Both sides are only interested in placating their side. No interest in reporting the truth.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Funny how Fox gets so much grief for presenting the conservative side of things -- but of all the networks, Fox has, BY FAR, the most representatives of the left on (to provide opposing views) when they air discussion programs and panels.
  
  Yes, they are skewered to the right, but they do a far better job of at least presenting the other point of view than MSNBC and CNN combined.
  
  On topic: I saw the exchange and Ailes pretty much made Huffington (in particular) look like an idiot. I know the bar is low on that one, but she's such an arrogant hag it was fun to watch.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Sorry Boat, I just don't buy it.
  
  News stations have always wanted to be #1, ALWAYS. Even before cable networks.
  
  You might be too young, but NBC, CBS, and ABC were constantly trying to out-do each other. Always tried to get the better figureheads to anchor their shows.
  It was all about ratings back then, and it's the same way now. Nothing is different.
• rightfield

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Sorry Boat, I just don't buy it.
  
  News stations have always wanted to be #1, ALWAYS. Even before cable networks.
  
  You might be too young, but NBC, CBS, and ABC were constantly trying to out-do each other. Always tried to get the better figureheads to anchor their shows.
  It was all about ratings back then, and it's the same way now. Nothing is different.

  This has been the case in print media as well as TV. Always has been competition for readers/viewers. Ratings rule, money talks, ect.
  Fox does it far better than anyone else. The others would be smart to emulate them.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I'm not in the business of news, I'm in the business of ratings.....
  
  Tell us something we didn't know.
• Prescott

  Ratings indicate entertainment. I don't think the majority of the public would know if their trust had been violated.

  That sounds the company line at MSNBC and is the elitist attitude that exists at MSNBC.
• majorspark

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: I'm not in the business of news, I'm in the business of ratings.....
  
  Tell us something we didn't know.

  What is wrong with this? Should your news be free? Ratings generate ad revenue which generates profits. There is more information available to you, me, and everyone else commenting in this thread than at anytime in the history of mankind.
  
  Capitalism and profts in the news/information media through ratings and ad revenue has brought all this information to the average American at little cost. What do some of you want? A TASS like news agency.
  
  This is why you don't see me bitch much about the "main stream" media. I don't need them to get my news and information. I can be in line at the BMV patiently waiting for my service from the government, and can pull my Droid out of my coat pocket and instantly have access to all the news/information I desire.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes wrote: Not necessarily...PBS and CSpan have basement ratings but they're giving you the bare bones facts. You can go right to the source and watch and see what your representative is doing on Cspan but no one watches that.

  CSpan only gives you the "bare bone facts" when there is nothing more than a camera running in the well of the Senate or on the floor of the House. This is the only way to assure non biased facts as they are not filtered through a third party. Most Americans that tune in find this boring. Many of us that pay close attention to the goings on in government find these procedings many times are nothing more than a dog and pony show.
  
  Watching this is enough to get terrorists to talk.
  
  

  You can go to MSNBC or Fox and hear what you want to hear in primetime (I realize, news "commentary", but we can hear what we want to hear...for the most part). Nobody on a station that calls itself a "news" station...should on the one side say things like "Obama is post racial, I forgot he was black....blah blah" or on the other side "Obama and his socialist/marxist/real american hating/secret muslim manchurian candidate/born in africa takeover of America blah blah" Unless the people saying these things are the guests on the show and will be rebutted by a neutral host who will refuse to allow fallacious arguments to go through unchallenged to the public like a Judge will disallow improper testimony or evidence from getting to a jury.

  Unless you advocate empowering a judge to regulate arguements in the media like arguments in a courtroom, your point is moot.
  

  "What does the public need to see, what's crucial, what do people need to know about";
  
  as opposed to
  
  "What is going to get me the most viewers so that I can generate more ad revenue and improve the stock price for the shareholders"

  Who gets the power to decide this? A government bureaucracy mandating what people need to know? Or the people themselves. Which do you want to have that power?
  

  I just want to watch, boring, hard hitting, critical and skeptical news and you can't find it because news editors are managing their programs in the interest of their shareholders wallet...the best place is PBS and that is contrary to the way it should be because it is the government's subsidized news which by definition you shouldn't be able to trust as the government watchdog and plus...a rigid list-like reader of the Constitution might even suggest that this government funding for PBS isn't even constitutional.

  You can't find it? Are you serious? Americans today have access to more information today than any other time in history?
  
  Imagine that a list-like reading of law. Is this not the purpose of law?
• believer

  

  Fox News has its best January ever.....
  
  ....holds down 13 of the top 15 cable news network programs.
• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan wrote: Sorry Boat, I just don't buy it.
  
  News stations have always wanted to be #1, ALWAYS. Even before cable networks.
  
  You might be too young, but NBC, CBS, and ABC were constantly trying to out-do each other. Always tried to get the better figureheads to anchor their shows.
  It was all about ratings back then, and it's the same way now. Nothing is different.

  I agree...this applies just as much to CBS and NBC, etc. but in a different sense. So far CBS and ABC still pretend or try to have "objective" anchors who can't have an opinion...surely we've seen them still get through to slant the news but they can't do it to the same degree as Chris Matthews and hence...they lose out to them because it's more entertaining.
  
  So...the regular news networks which can't be so clear with their "slant" so in order to get viewers they have to dumb down the news and create infotainment and human interest stories rather than hard news.
  
  I've been particular about cable news but the main networks are bad too.
• I Wear Pants

  Anyone pretending that most Americans are being presented with anything even close to what should be called "news" on almost all of the networks is blind and deaf.
• believer

  

  ^^^It's not a matter of being blind and deaf. It's a matter of actually having options. One person's news is another's propaganda.
  
  At least now there are enough "news" sources available to suit just about everyone's political preference.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  I watch Fox News all the time and I know a lot of ppl. of the same political veiws who tune in too. But the reason I do so is more or less to get a good chuckle at the ridiculous things they try to pass off as "fair and balanced". And then you can get another good laugh imagining all the sheeple out there who are taking Fox's nonsense as hard-hitting news coverage.
  
  But then it makes me sad to think of all the problems that we'll be facing because of people accepting false info. as truth. One day it's going to bite humanity right on the ass, if it can get past the big head that's inserted in the ass.
  
  But then I laugh again at the prospect that I may be alive long enough to see the destruction of mankind and they'll realize it was their own stupid ignorant fault. Then I go to sleep smiling.