Is it Maddow, the show content, a combination, or something else that's attracting viewers to her show?This will be a very critical stance you'll hear but you may find these answers to be informative if you don't take it personally that I'm going to call out left-wing media, modern liberals, and the Democratic party on this. This is going to be a truthful response to your questions but I won't be softballing these. If you're up for it, give some feedback and we'll have a civil debate.
A combination of what you mentioned is attracting viewers to her show. Maddow is emotional and creates a hyperpartisan atmosphere, in short, she's dramatic and people love drama, especially right now. There's money to be made, as well as a political agenda that can be pushed by continuously focusing on the negative aspects of one political party or President. In Maddow's case, she makes modern liberals feel safe by giving them the types of opinions they want to hear and they flock to her show as a result. Having said that, she won't attract a very diverse audience, it'll remain limited to modern liberals, Democrats, and some left-leaning independents for the most part.
Many are in a spot where they simply don't want to learn about when the opposition is doing something right or beneficial, they want an atmosphere of relentless criticisms and often disregard the multiple instances where someone like Maddow has been wrong or has repeated false information. This is the case with some Fox News viewers as well, sometimes they don't care about the validity or fairness of the arguments being made near as much as they care about how bad the coverage is for the opposition. News anchors recognize that and not only give the viewers what they want, they even
encourage fear and distrust of their opposition. Having mentioned what Fox News is doing, it's still clear to most people that the majority of the mainstream media is dominated by Modern liberals and Democrats, which I'll expand on below....
Why are other cable news outlets, such as Fox and CNN, losing in the ratings?As a result of the media being dominated by Democrats and modern liberals, Fox News should actually stay safe as long as they stay conservative. Conservative viewers, along with moderates and independents, make up a large portion of the viewing public and they view Fox News as the only MSM network that will give a conservative perspective on a daily basis from the majority of the news anchors. There are exceptions with Anchors like Juan Williams, Shepard Smith, Chris Wallace, along with a few others so Fox News isn't as conservative as more obscure networks online, like Breitbart News, but as far as the major networks are concerned, Fox is where to go if you want to hear a conservative perspective on politics. That's the primary reason Fox News has dominated in ratings for so long, there's little in the way of competition. Left-wing viewers are dispersed between multiple networks, and most conservatives seem to funnel primarily to one network.
I believe CNN's ratings are the lowest because they've gone to even further extremes than MSNBC. CNN used to be more centrist than it is today but many who aren't associated with the left now view CNN as a joke at this point. They've been caught in lies too much, have lost staff members for premature accusations in their coverage, and Trump has exposed a number of other things as well so he could be playing a role.
Trump often hurts himself with petty arguments against individual anchors, but he's also brought a lot of attention to what the network, as a whole, is doing. I'm glad CNN is exposed though I think Trump should have gone about it a different way, he's most effective when he's simply pointing out where they've been biased, where they've gotten stories wrong, or where they've lied. Perhaps MSNBC is viewed as the more credible than CNN but MSNBC also has to be careful with the accuracy of their reporting.
What might the ratings translate to in the midterm elections?I think the media will continue to gain attention in such busy times, especially due to the dramatic nature of their coverage but I also think that they're having a negative impact on the Democratic party in some respects. The favorability ratings of the news media are far worse than the approval rating of the President, they've lost credibility and are generally not viewed as fair or objective, (I can show the polls if you need confirmation). For an example of a lack of objectivity, Trump didn't pick the most conservative choice for the Supreme Court, you might not be hearing that on MSNBC, but Brett Kavanaugh was the establishment choice who had the most in common with Anthony Kennedy. He's conservative but of any of the remaining Trump pics, Kavanaugh is the one who's most likely to be a swing vote on the court and this shows in his voting record.
However, it's doom and gloom no matter what on left-leaning networks and with politicians, they stated beforehand that they'd fight against Trumps pick no matter who it was and they're living up to that.
I've heard a pundit quote REM and argue that...
"It's the end of the world as we know it"I've heard...
"We're looking at the destruction of the constituation of the United States"I've heard...
"This is a line that has been drawn about whether or not we're going to criminalize women"https://stream.org/end-world-progressives-know/https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/0...cotus_pick.htmlCriminalise women? What does that even mean? Between the media, politicians, and protesters, they make this sound so broad that it's as if we're going to put women on the back of the bus, prevent them from getting their nails done, and lock them up if someone thinks a woman looks funny. This is really about Roe v. Wade and regardless of the candidate they were prepared to argue that it would be overturned and that
women would lose rights. They've been doing this for decades with Republican Supreme Court nominees yet Roe v. Wade never gets overturned despite the scare tactics.
That reminds me, it seems that 99% of the time they frame abortion as "
a woman's right to choose" rather than addressing the death of an unborn child. If I had a chance to debate Hillary or get on a CNN panel and they used the standard left-wing talking point that says
"hey look over here, support for abortion is supporting a woman's right to choose.". I'd reply
"Okay sure, but a woman's right to choose to do what? To choose what she wants to do with her body, right?............. Okay, to get down to it, what is she choosing to do with her body in this particular case?"I'll explain why I'm getting so deep into abortion at the end of this reply, but it's typically explained by modern liberals in the media in the broadest and most vague of possible terms. I support abortion under very special circumstances, especially if the mother's life is in danger but abortions which take place because a woman who's pregnant simply doesn't want children should have thought of that before sex or be willing to put the baby up for adoption. That may sound unfair but I'm not arguing that in this type of circumstance, how the woman feels isn't important, but it needs to be mentioned that
it's not the only thing that's important. To simply argue that this boils down to how women feel means you have to completely reject the idea that an unborn child has any degree of value. It's a short-sighted and self-centered stance, especially in regards to highly developed babies.
The media and Democrats in office will very rarely mention the fact that at 6 months, a baby in the womb can be to the point that it could survive without the mother. The chances that the baby could survive independently increase every month after the 6-month mark as well so for all practical purposes we're talking about a baby at this point rather than a fetus. Those who support abortion often say fetus no matter what, while the religious often say baby no matter what. Whatever word that's used, if a supporter of abortion wants to say fetus, it doesn't change the fact that the unborn child has value.
As they take that position, left-wing media pundits and politicians who support late-term abortion, very rarely mention that babies aborted late in a pregnancy have been seen crying and cringing as they're being aborted. Here's some info on that...
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/18/polling...d-abortion-ban/QUOTE
"There is now substantial scientific evidence that the unborn child can feel pain by at least 20 weeks."
QUOTE
More than 18,000 very late term abortions are performed every year on perfectly healthy unborn babies in America. These are innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia.
"Many of them cry and scream as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we dont hear them, he said."
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/16/baby-sc...is-babys-cries/The left-leaning Washington Post even covers this to a degree....
QUOTE
"After a fiery debate in committee this month, HB 479 was amended to allow mothers to forgo fetal anesthesia if they gave informed consent. (There would still be paperwork, a talk, and some kind of government-issued pamphlet about fetal pain.)
Still, all of the Montana House Democrats have opposed the bill. "The intent is very clear, said Rep. Jenny Eck (D) during floor discussion Tuesday, to insert politicians and their political wills into the exam room."
How can Democrats oppose a bill to make an abortion painless for a baby/fetus???? That makes no sense at all and shows a complete disregard for life. I'll go as far as to say that, in part, abortion is a woman's rights issue, but any fair-minded person will get to the guts of what that particular right is. This isn't simply a woman's rights issue and it isn't simply an issue of morality in regards to the death of an unborn child but not many people will drop the damn partisanship and speak the whole truth.
This could be classified as a woman's rights issue easily but for all practical purposes, it could also be classified as baby murder in certain circumstances, as strong as that sounds. For example, a woman deciding to do a late-term abortion simply because she doesn't prefer the sex of the baby. That would be illegal the second the baby is born but some act as if the same baby, 10 minutes ago before the birth, magically isn't important enough to be considered. Although they're far less common, illegal post-birth abortions have happened as well so this isn't an issue to be taken lightly or to be glossed over for political purposes. Abortion should be viewed as an ugly situation even if a person decides that a woman's right
to have an abortion, trumps the life of an unborn child, who could have potentially been fighting for their own rights if allowed to survive.
I mentioned abortion in detail because it's a perfect example of how the media gets more viewers and pushes a political agenda. Modern liberals in the media cater to the far left, they focus on issues like abortion to stir up emotions as they obscure facts and distort the situation. Their approach attracts those who don't want to see a more complete picture of the world and it attracts those who want to find reasons to oppose their opposition. That's great for the media but it's lead to a lot of hate and that won't change unless people start looking beyond what's two feet in front of them. To be fair that can be very applicable to the right on certain issues as well.
This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 12 2018, 02:39 AM
Sponsored Links
Jul 8 2018, 12:17 PM
