Are wingnuts beginning to acknowledge that the alternate reality created by wingnut media is not a healthy way to wander through life?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Political commentator Sean Hannity was one of the big losers in the 2012 election
     
    The right-wing Fox News host lost half his audience in the weeks after Obama's win

    In a fitting coda to 2012, we've learned that the ratings for rock-ribbed conservative Sean Hannity cratered after Barack Obama won his second term, with viewers tuning out the Fox News Channel talk-show host in droves.

    According to Nielsen numbers, Hannity lost around half of his audience in the weeks after the election, while his Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly - who steadfastly refuses to identify himself politically as a conservative - retained around 70% of his audience.

    So what happened to Hannity?

    The going wisdom is that viewers who basked in his preelection anti-Obama rhetoric tuned him out when they were stunned to wake up on Nov. 7 and discover that the President had won a second term - a scenario that Hannity had all but promised could never happen.

    Before the election, Hannity was riding high in the ratings and topped thought leaders on the right, like Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan and talk radio bulldog Mark Levin, who predicted Obama would lose in a landslide.

    Those voices - and many others like them - all but drove the political coverage on Fox News, talk radio and conservative blogs.

    But as Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic just after the election, "Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different."

    Because in reality, statistics proved the presidential race was in fact never even close - despite the lopsided picture delivered to faithful viewers by Hannity and those who shared his opinions.

    Wrote Friedersdorf: "The right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear."

    And when the dust settled, it turns out Hannity's viewers opted to vote again - with their remotes.

    Adding insult to injury, two of Hannity's rivals on MSNBC, Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow, held onto huge chunks of their audiences, while at CNN, far less politically polarizing host Anderson Cooper lost almost none of his viewers postelection.

    It got even worse for Hannity in the 'money demo' of viewers 25-54, who are prized by advertisers.

    With this group, Hannity held onto less than half his preelection audience. O'Reilly, on the other hand, kept almost 70%.



    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/sean-hannity-big-loser-2012-election-article-1.1228269#ixzz2GeePXIIq

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Studies have shown that Fox news viewers are less-informed on current events that those who watch no television at all.  Its a joke to anyone with even moderate intelligence.  This is not good news for the GOP.

    They had better hope this viewership is just temporarily tuned into 'Swamp Loggers', or 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' rather than actual news networks that inform with facts.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    THREE seperate studies confirmed Faux News viewers are the least informed.

     

    1) Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

    2) Another study has concluded that people who only watch Fox News are less informed than all other news consumers. Researchers at Fairleigh Dickinson University updated a study they had conducted in late 2011.

    3) FOX News Top Source of Voter Misinformation. That's the finding of a new study, Misinformation and the 2010 Election, from the University of Maryland's World Public Opinion.

     

    And of course there's the fact that not only were the wingnut pundits wrong on the last election, they were so utterly incompetent and so out of touch with reality as to be ridiculous.

    They didn't just say Mittens would win, they predicted a landslide.

    They created some whacko wingnut alternate reality were every poll that showed Obama would win was a librul conspiracy. They ignored mathematicians like Silver, attacking him personally, just because his work showed Obama would win. Of course Silver was proven completely correct and the wingnut idiots were proven to be morons.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Look, conservatives have tuned out, but not for the reasons cited.  The real reason is that Romney never supported conservative issues, conservatives went along with him anyways, and Romney lost.

    This has caused conservatives to tune out of the process completely, as NONE of it addresses the issues of conservatives.  NONE of it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Look, conservatives have tuned out, but not for the reasons cited.  The real reason is that Romney never supported conservative issues, conservatives went along with him anyways, and Romney lost.

    This has caused conservatives to tune out of the process completely, as NONE of it addresses the issues of conservatives.  NONE of it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to jmel's comment:

    Oh, and one more thing for both you and Luser99.................51% of the people that watch FOX news and the programming on FOX (O`Reilly, Hannity, Greta) are DEMOCRATS!!!!!  That has been consistent for 5 years. There are MORE Dems and Independents watching FOX than any other station.



    Ummm, no.

    The Fox News audience was 14 points more Republican than the general public (39% vs. 25% of the public) and three points less Democratic. The regular CNN audience was 15 points more Democratic and seven points less Republican than the general public.

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    They had better hope this viewership is just temporarily tuned into 'Swamp Loggers', or 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' rather than actual news networks that inform with facts.

     




    And what networks would those be, exactly?

     

    Look . . .  Hannity is a cariacacture of himself and, while his over-the-top rhetoric can be mildly amusing in small doses, I would no more recommend him as a steady diet than I would Piers Morgan or Rachel Maddow or . . .   well . . .   pick your poison.

    I'm far less worried about who is or is not listening to Sean Hannity than I am about an electorate that just voted (marginally) in favor of a candidate who ran on the "It's Not My Fault" platform.

    The culture of irresponsibility has finally reached its pinnacle in the Oval Office and if you think we shouldn't be worried about that then I would submit to you that "denial" is not just a lake in Krackilakistan.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to jmel's comment:

    BTW, Farleigh Dick?  Huff Post?  Perhaps you could make a NY-resolution to try real sources, stop your "selective linking", and maybe sober up in 2013?



    There ya go again, wrapping yourself in the safety-blanket of ideological ignorance.

    Yep, three studies from two different sources just have to be wrong because you say so.

    And by the way, Huff Post is only reporting on the studies, you know, doing what the media's job is...reporting.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    They had better hope this viewership is just temporarily tuned into 'Swamp Loggers', or 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' rather than actual news networks that inform with facts.

     




    And what networks would those be, exactly?

     

    Look . . .  Hannity is a cariacacture of himself and, while his over-the-top rhetoric can be mildly amusing in small doses, I would no more recommend him as a steady diet than I would Piers Morgan or Rachel Maddow or . . .   well . . .   pick your poison.

    I'm far less worried about who is or is not listening to Sean Hannity than I am about an electorate that just voted (marginally) in favor of a candidate who ran on the "It's Not My Fault" platform.

    The culture of irresponsibility has finally reached its pinnacle in the Oval Office and if you think we shouldn't be worried about that then I would submit to you that "denial" is not just a lake in Krackilakistan.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Whoopsie

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Wow!

    This new forum is really a peach!

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Quite the compelling argument...you don't like the result of an election so just call everyone dumb and irresponsible.

    I submit the Queen of De-Nile doesn't just refer to Cleopatra.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from msobstinate99. Show msobstinate99's posts

    Why is it that so many Democrats know what was said or who was on FOX news if they don't watch it?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    Why is it that so many Democrats know what was said or who was on FOX news if they don't watch it?

     




    Because it's cited so often on BDC as a 'credible' source.

    Who says the Dems don't watch it?

    There's a big diffrence between 'watching' a news source and believing what news source says is the gospel truth.

    I personally do the former while avoiding the latter. Mutiple, diffrentiated souces of info are always better than a silo.

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from msobstinate99. Show msobstinate99's posts

    There's a big diffrence between 'watching' a news source and believing what news source says is the gospel truth.


    Thank you. Who's to say the Repubs and Conservatives believe every bit of what is reported on FOX?

     

    I personally read more than I watch anything on the MSM. But I get lumped in as one of the "FAUX"news followers for some reason. 

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    In response to msobstinate99's comment:

    Thank you. Who's to say the Repubs and Conservatives believe every bit of what is reported on FOX? I personally read more than I watch anything on the MSM. But I get lumped in as one of the "FAUX"news followers for some reason.  



    Well, that's kinda the point of the study.

    The people who only rely on Faux News for their news are much more ignorant than even people who don't follow the news, as in The Daily Show.

    So for all the wingnut guttersniping about people who watch The Daily Show, the truth of the matter is they are more informed than people who only get their info through Faux News.

     
Sections
Shortcuts