I am not sure why one would compare ratings of a news channel to a fictional entertainment program, but you are the TV critic, so you must know more than me!

Hi Angela, You are right about them not normally compared, because it is considered unfair to expect news to compete with entertainment in popularity. But that is my point: This "news" program swamps this celebrated entertainment program in audience. Thanks. Z

They say people like to listen to people they agree with... I know that is true for me, I pretty much only watch Fox. I try to watch MSNBC from time to time but I find I HATE those people... I actually LOATHE them. I guess I know which side of the issues I am on.

I'm not sure I'd use the ratings for a weekly cable drama series as a basis for comparison to cable news ratings.

With a series, people are much more likely to watch later via DVR, OnDemand, or the Internet as opposed to live. They are much more likely to watch news live only.

That said, Fox News draws the ratings for the same reason Leno beat out Dave for all those years: It's sensational, it's bright, and it caters to the dimmest of intellects.

O'Reilly still swamps Mad Men even when you take the "7-day plus" replay ratings. See above comment about why comparing them truly shows how incredible the Fox and O'Reilly ratings are. Thanks. Z

I do enjoy watching Bill O'Reilly. I also like the Fox News news crawl at the bottom of the screen, which is a big reason why I tune in, sometimes muting the sound of the actual show, like Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingrahm, when she fills in. In reality, I watch Fox News to see what the opposing side is thinking and the basis of their arguments, which in turn bolsters my ideals.

He's entertaining, often brings on guests who don't agree with him, and provides a point of view that is different from ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS/NPR/CNN/MSNBC/NY Times/Wash. Post/Balt. Sun/Phila. Inquirer/etc. I spend my day being inundated by the above list, and even though I sometimes disagree with O'Reilly, it's just nice to hear another point of view!

Because he's a straight shooter. You may not see that and certainly all the people that lambaste him on the web, pulling only the bits that serve their purpose, don't see it either. He does try to be fair and give both sides. He gives credit where credit is due and that makes him credible. Think of all the people in your life who give you their opinion head on. Don't you trust them more than others who sneak behind your back? That's Bill O'Reilly. He is truly a straight shooter. You may not always agree with him (and a few times I haven't) but you know EXACTLY where he stands. Unfortunately, some people need their input slicked up and hand fed.

I think the reason Fox is rising is because they are seen as the "opposition" news source. Fox news originally took off during the Clinton Administration (and Rush had his rise as well). When Bush and the Republicans were in power, you saw the rise of Olbermann at MSNBC. Now you are seeing Fox rise again with Obama. The out of power party feels disenfranchised and takes out its frustrations by watching news that support their views (which arent being represented in Washington). That's my layman's take.

The true will set you free "Go Fox"

Part of Mad Men's problem is availability. Comcast dropped AMC as part of its standard package a couple years ago, so now not only do you need to have cable to see Mad Men, you need an upgraded/premium package. (I used 'other' means to view the show until I caved in and switched to FiOS earlier this year.) The other big issue with Mad Men is that you have to pay a lot of attention to it and watch all the episodes in order to make any sense of it. This requires not only attention but time, patience and intelligence. Three things precious few Americans seem to have.

Fox, meanwhile, is widely available, doesn't require devoted attention or viewing every segment in the proper order, and is designed for people with little patience or the will to think about what they're watching.

I would be curious to know what the ratings are for other basic cable, scripted shows in the summer. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them rate higher than Mad Men as well, because they have more availablity and don't require the same level of dedication.

Hi Gonzai: Good point about AMC and various cable companies. But AMC is not premium pay cable like HBO and Showtime, with high subscription fees.. What you are talking about is certai cable companies moving Mad Men to a different tier (usually digital). As for the other cable "news" show, except for those on Fox, the majority rate lower, in fact. Thanks. Z

I think FOX knows how to play the game. They call themselves "Fair and Balanced" and people like to hear that. Right-sided friendly stories that they promote as unbiased. They appeal to the general public I think. Maybe this is why they are so poplular. I personally like CNN. I did watch a little of FOX last night Greta VanSusteren following the bus with the "tea party people". Not impressed with this movement across America. Texas wants to succeed. I have a friend who is pro-Rush Limbaugh and you can't change her mind. Personally, I really don't like him at all. Sean Hannnity uses Newt Gingrich at lot or used to. Then they got rid of Alan Colmes so there is no balance at all in my opinion.

I'm curious to see Fox's ratings compared to a comparable news program. Is MSNBC and Olbermann also bringing in a lot of viewers?

I appreciate you putting the word news in quotes in your first comment response, as O'Reilly is more entertainment than an informative program. It's fair to compare two entertainment shows.

Maybe it is because they are the only news network questioning this administration and they are fair AND balanced, unlike the other major news networks who treat this president like a messiah and do not question ANYTHING and there are MANY things they should be questioning. The mainstream media is DESTROYING this country. The bias is so blatant and obvious and people are seeing it. Go FOX!!!

When I want the news I watch The Daily Show

I wonder how many people who watch MAD MEN watch FOX? That would be an interesting statistic.

I think the reason FNC is killing it right now is because there is a huge segment of the population who believes in the "democrat-media complex" and FNC, to them, is the only place to turn to hear someone with points of view they may share without being treated or made to feel like an idiot.

I don't know whether they're right or wrong about that, but people seem to believe Obama won a landslide election and everyone wanted his brand of change. He handily won the electoral vote, but he won the popular vote only 53% - 47%. That leaves nearly 60 million active voters who believe they have only one outlet to see and hear people who think the way they do.

A pool of 60 million for a cable news show has to be bigger than whatever group(s) is (are) most turned on by Mad Men in this age of so many entertainment choices at our fingertips, and therefore FNC simply has a bigger pool of viewers to attract its audience from than Mad Men.

Well, one reason may be because FNC doesn't condescend to their audience.

They don't label them haters if they aren't for same sex marriage.

They don't tell them that declaring a war a loss when there are troops on the ground, is the highest from of patriotism.

They don't call them extremists and link them to Tim McVeigh when they (or their neighbors) dissent at townhall meetings.

According to a Pew Institute study, FNC has more Democrats regularly watching it than CNN and MSNBC has Republicans in their audiences.

Many of the people who watch FNC (and who made it 3rd watched in all of cable tv) are also the people who voted on Obama and for "change".

The most salient fact about FNC is that it may criticize Democratic politicians (Democrats appear to rebut), what it doesn't do is sneer at the people sitting on the couch in front of their television sets.

Fox ratings are simple, and someone explained above. The disenfranchised are looking for an anchor to attach themselves too, and Fox is that proven anchor. O'Reilly's ratings in particular are high because compared to his contemporaries (Hannity, the insane Beck, etc.) he appears to be the most sane and articulate, and worthy of opposition viewing. The others just preach to the base. Went the Republicans regain control, Olbermann and Maddow and the crew will be ready to pick up the torch again.

This is the second time you've compared ratings with quality (Season 5 of the Wire). These shows have never had large audiences in the first place, nor am I expecting them to build them. As an above poster said, this is a intricately crafted, nuanced based show. I watch one episode at least three times during the week to pick up the notes, plus read a few followup reviews from your contemporaries to fill in the blanks.

To equate ratings with quality is absurd. More people will see "Transformers" than they will, say, the "Hurt Locker". Does Transformer's popularity make it a better movie? No. Transformers is produced for people that don't want to think. A show like Mad Men does make you contemplate it afterward, and there's a good cut of our culture that wants to watch television so they don't have to think.

Hi GMan: Thanks for the thoughtful comments. But I have to disagree on a few points. Number one, I am not equating popularity with quality in any way shape or form. But I have to say I think it elitist and silly to say certain shows that are popular are made for people "who don't want to think." What evidence do you have for whom and why they ewre made. Did the creators and producers and distributors say that? I am guessing not. And while popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality, popularity does matter. As a student of culture, I am most interested in why millions of people care about a show or other artifact. I say this in a civil way, but there is no nice way to say this: I think your position is totally elitist. And your argument is the same argument some used to try and dismiss the significance of Michael Jackson after his death. It's about power and certain groups of people in the culture trying to say their taste is superior to the taste of others. And I just absolutely resist that. But thankss for the stimulating discussion. Say what you will about Bill O'Reilly, there is a certian kind of populism that he remains true to. That populism can be dangerous, but it does not start out that way, and I think that is his real connection to his audience. And I respect that. Z

Fox news is awesome. CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS and others all have hte same view: Support Obama, Support Democrats. it is why those networks lose, and it is why Fox News wins.

Fox News is the opposition to the "mainstream" networks as i listed above. People want to hear something different, a different opinion, see things in a different perspective. They don't get those on the liberal stations of course.

That's why Fox has won in the past, continues winning today, and will do so for years and years to come.

GMAN, Will have to agree with Z on the fact that people "who don't want to think" watch FOX. I watched it last night. I like to think that is why I switch back and forth. I still like CNN, but sometimes I watch FOX and I do not disagree with all of it. Bill O'Reilly seems lately to have had on some interesting people and was not talking completely over them the last time I checked. I just want to get the news any way I can and then compare. Agree or disagree I can make up my own mind. I just think they appeal to the general pubic, not that the general public does not think or have an opinion.

This is America. We are a democracy. I think everyone is entitled to opinions.
However, my opinion stands that Foxnews needs to stop Saying they are "fair and balanced" Fox news seems to me to be Republican, conservative and sometimes just down right one sided about issues. I would have more respect for the Fox network if they would just admit it and move on. The only show I watch on Fox is Huckabee. He seems to live his convictions, stands up for his side of the story and tries to at least engage people in intelligent debate about issues that are directly affecting us.
Come on people, if we do not discuss the debt, social security, econonomy, healthcare and make some huges sacrifices and compromises our country will suffer way more than this recession.

Irene,

I do like Huckabee sometimes too. He does seem to stand for something and not waiver.

Z, I have questioned the amount of press shows like Mad Men get. Yes, they are popular for cable shows, but we're only talking about around 1.5 million viewers. There are 300 million people in the USA. These are tiny numbers. Don't you think the "echo chamber" of entertainment media make a much bigger deal about shows like Mad Men, Jon & Kate, or Rescue Me than they deserve? I have nothing against these shows, I just have never watched any of them and neither have most of the people I know. Yet, if you look at your blog or Entertaiment Weekly or USA Today, for example, they are constantly talked about.

It's simple, the other news outlets have become shills for the Obama adminsitration and the far left agenda. They omit and distort to the point that such news value as they have is vitiated. Fox, while wearing its ideological colors on its sleeve, at least attempts to show both sides. MSNBC is worse than a joke, CNN is clearly leftist in orientation, and the network news shows are worthless magazines of human interest and leftist reporting. One and one make two, Fox represents the values of most Americans, and that is not going to change.

The ground work was done a decade ago with being clear in Bill O'Reilly's opinion(s).

Like advertising, the results are delayed and come much later and then are accumulated with high ratings.

Why Bill is attracting a high segment of the most sought after demographics is an ability to keep complicated issues brief and simple. There is little context and depth on some weighty issues. But his analysis usually has a few grains of truth in them to be accepted by a national viewing audience.

Again, Bill has a propensity to head for the middle of the road or to swing a hard right or left depending on the news item. The folks are able to judge from there that the matter is liquid.

He has an excellent trained voice for delivery, unlike Studio B's Host Shepard Smith, who often sounds stressed out because his voice is unsupported by his diaphram.

Both are very charasmatic men; however, Bill O'Reilly is a throw back from the days of the "Mad Men!" in his sentiments of "The Way We Were". This is reassuring to the folks in times of great uncertainty, during a recession and with a new President, Barack Obama.

chipperie, Chicago

Fox News is simply the best News Station out there.

I have not watched any of the other secondary media stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC since 9/11 coverage. Why should I even consider them when none of their 'newscasters' are journalists (save two - Lou Dobbs & Joe Scarbough). If they really were journalists, they would be investigating/questioning all of what Democrats are doing in Congress; they would question why obama has selected Marxists to be throughout his administration and how all of what he's doing or contemplating is against all of what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Had a Republican suggested that the Internet be controlled by the White House - outrage would be exhibited by the media. Had a Republican suggested that children and other citizens 'tell on their neighbors' and email them people's thoughts on a topic - there would be outrage and investigations. And, if a Republican or conservative Congressman/Congresswoman would have 'thrown' disgusting epithets towards citizens who appear at Town Hall meetings or protest marches (as was done by Pelosi, Reed, Frank, Rangel and a number of other Democrats) there would have been a firestorm of outrageous protests from today's liberal media (except for FOX)

Newspapers and other media outlets are supposed to ask 'questions of our leaders - instead, they have their lips pressed up against Democrat backsides.

Fox news doesn't.

I think the writer who talked about quality vrs. popularity had a good point:
Bach and Beethoven are clearly the greatest composers- how popular are they?
Philosophers have tons more quality than more accessible pundits. How popular are they?
Most are attracted to the loud-the squeaky wheel- Fox is as simple as that.
Do you think the truth will be blatant like a car ad? like most of tv? Can it even be covered by tv?
It's a matter of education- and tv is an uneducated medium. People who are educated read more. TV simply has not been a thinking person's medium- although PBS tries.

Thanks for the reply Z. To your point, let me say that I think intelligent people enjoy shoot 'em up shows and serial crime dramas and big-budget blockbusters. I love that candy too. But this decade of television has given us writing that's bridged the gap between old time entertainment TV and literature.

There was the Wire with its novelistic/chapter approach, or Mad Men which echos John Cheevers and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Shows like 'Lost' which are kin with Ray Bradbury, or 'Breaking Bad' which has its base in the darker hardcore crime dramas. And there was the Sopranos, which defined the era, and was popular on multiple levels because it dealt with a familiar concept (Italian Mafia) with a deeper, more psychological angle.

Look at "Homicide: Life on the Street" one of the first shows to push television drama in a new, exciting direction. It lost the ratings battle frequently to "Nash Bridges." But which show influenced modern TV drama in both is writing, film work and camera work more? It gave birth to "Oz" which sent HBO out looking for dramas, that set up "The Sopranos". Quality and artistry has to count for something, doesn't it? I mean, this is a historical debate about all art right?

I thought the MJ coverage was riveting, btw. He was the last of the great pop icons, a guy who's death made people go out into the street at night, don a white glove and moonwalk in memorium. That's power, definitely worthy of coverage, a true American story.

Because, the Kool-aid is wearing off!

Z this will be hard for you because tv is your metier.
I think television is an undeducated medium except for some PBS shows.
Educated people think and read.
Fox attracts more because it is loud. I don't think the truth comes "loud". It exists in shades of gray- in subleties, in complexities...but- most people want the simple. The truth is difficult. Too difficult for most.
I think it's a matter of education- we need more education.

Z., isn't it curious that your Sept.1st article, "AMC renews 'Mad Men' for fourth season", has garnered a mere "1" comment thus far, whilst your other piece from yesterday re/ "Jon & Kate" and their getting almost unbearable to watch, going forward, received a whopping 80 comments....... and counting.

I think the hugely skewed responses to these two disparate T.V. 'products' kind of reflects the basic audience demographic realities out there, w/ "Jon & Kate" attracting a much larger and more emotionally-invested regular viewership than the smaller, scripted-drama-leaning, loyal "Mad Men" fan-base. That's not to say that both shows couldn't appeal to a particular type of viewer who has a taste for both the reality/ 'tabloidy' "Jon & Kate"-style shows, and the more polished, totally scripted dramatic series, like "Mad Men". ( Our Sherry T. being a prime example, no?)

When you throw the FOX News Channel (FNC) into the mix, and try to compare their phenomenal ratings spike, of late, w/ the lackluster numbers for the 3rd Season of "Mad Men", I really think it's a bit of the old "apples and oranges" speculative scenario; largely an unfair and untenable comparison.

Like several of my fellow bloggers on this site, I agree w/ their perception that O'Reilly & Co. on FNC speak to a very broad-based, grass-roots, Middle-American, Red-state constituency of viewers who sincerely believe that the mostly 'liberal' T.V. and national print-media (read The New York Times, The Washington Post et al) outlets are distorting their 'reality', and dismissing, and disparaging an entire swath of American citizenry.

Many claim O'Reilly/ Hannity & Co. are basically 'preaching to the choir', but let's face it, that 'choir' makes the famed Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like a dinky glee-cub. (HA!)

As one of our bloggers pointed out earlier, the margin of victory for Obama last November wasn't monumental, by any means, and there were some 60,000,000 Americans in the electorate who did NOT vote for him. That's a massive constituency to say the least. And the FNC Right-wing talking-head/ celebs seem to provide some kind of validation and media voice for this burgeoning anti Dems/ anti-Obama Administration T.V. demographic, who crave that daily 'fix' of neo-Con rhetoric, and chatter to somehow feel they are not mere voices in the wilderness, 'cause basically "Billo" SAYS they're not, damn it!

These angry, anxious, and disgruntled Right-wingers are much more committed to watching FNC, and feeling good about themselves by hearing what they want to hear, than tuning to a precious, artsy-fartsy, 'stylish', '60s-drama about a bunch of f------ed-up, Manhatten-based Ad-men, and their self-absorbed, screwed up, neurotic lives. (Sorry, I'm over-simplifying here, for effect)

Currently, "Mad Men" seems to be going thru some latter-day growing pains, (maybe a 'mid-series crisis'--like a mid-life crisis?), and it appears like many loyal, diehard fans of the show are becoming a little jaded about its current direction, and slightly underwhelmed by the new season fare. If some fans are, indeed, declaring 'mutiny', and jumping ship, I doubt they're clicking on over to FNC. Yet I could be wrong.

Frankly, I'm really not totally qualified to judge the travails and triumphs of the "Mad Men" phenomenon, since I've only caught a few episodes online. But just from my limited exposure, I'm very impressed, even if lately the story-line seems less engaging, a tad confusing, and erratic for many of its avid, longtime viewers.

Alas, the FNC 'choir' will continue to sing (tune in) in large numbers as the Obama Administration continues to struggle w/ major pressing issues like the dragging economy and healthcare reform, and his popularity in the polls sadly continues to slowly erode w/ each passing day. What's that all about?

And loyal "Mad Men" fanatics , longing for a highly entertaining escape from their demanding and stressful everyday lives, transported to another nostalgia-imbued era still familiar to many 'boomers', will continue to follow the intriguing Don Draper & Co., no less devoted and riveted as the FCN faithful, but w/ fewer in their devoted ranks. That's show-biz, boys and girls!

Folks. It's ALL good!

ALEX

*Note: my comp timed out a couple times so if this was posted a few times prior, I apologize.

Thanks for the reply Z. To your point, let me say that I think intelligent people enjoy shoot 'em up shows and serial crime dramas and big-budget blockbusters. I love that candy too. But this decade of television has given us writing that's bridged the gap between old time entertainment TV and literature.

There was the Wire with its novelistic/chapter approach, or Mad Men which echos John Cheevers and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Shows like 'Lost' which are kin with Ray Bradbury, or 'Breaking Bad' which has its base in the darker hardcore crime dramas. And there was the Sopranos, which defined the era, and was popular on multiple levels because it dealt with a familiar concept (Italian Mafia) with a deeper, more psychological angle.

Look at "Homicide: Life on the Street" one of the first shows to push television drama in a new, exciting direction. It lost the ratings battle frequently to "Nash Bridges." But which show influenced modern TV drama in both is writing, film work and camera work more? It gave birth to "Oz" which sent HBO out looking for dramas, that set up "The Sopranos". Quality and artistry has to count for something, doesn't it? I mean, this is a historical debate about all art right?

I thought the MJ coverage was riveting, btw. He was the last of the great pop icons, a guy who's death made people go out into the street at night, don a white glove and moonwalk in memorium. That's power, definitely worthy of coverage, a true American story.

YEA for FOX. Not only are their numbers soaring, they have the most educated viewers as proven.

Fox News should change its name to Fox "Opinions". The reporting is very tendentious and never balanced. Their popularity is reflective of the divisiveness in our society as a whole. It is a disheartening trend that Fox News has been able mirror in their programming and reporting -- to their benefit.

Thanks ALEX,

I do enjoy both of the shows and for different reasons as you have suggested. And I have watched Jon and Kate from the beginning and Mad Men only a few episodes or so, much like you ALEX. Jon and Kate has an emotional investment for me. Mad Men I am still trying to figure out the in's and out's of this show. You are very perceptive. I still think a good statistical question would be to poll how many people watch FOX that also watch MAD MEN. I'll bet that "smart people" watch both of these shows!!!

Does anyone else find it funny that fsuwalterb can say with complete confidence that Fox News is the best station out there and in the very next sentence admit he hasn't watched any other news station in 8 years?

Fair and Balanced as they state. Thier objective is to provide various points of view and let us decide. Most "other" outlets provide just the point of view they want you to support while offering a condescending or very negative spin or no spin on an opposing point of view.
Blatant example: The war coverage- most new outlets led with violence and distruction interspersed with pictures of George Bush. That all changed after Obama won. Did the war actually change that dramatically since November? Where is the high visibility of violence in Afghanstan and Iraq then put up pictures of the current commander in chief. We have no respect for most of the media and we surely do not trust their information.

Sherry T.,

Thanks for your kind comments, but I don't know if I'm any more "perceptive" re/ most current T.V. fare than the next guy, or gal. Frankly, I think you are much further ahead in your grasp of what's up w/ "Mad Men", and as far as "Jon & Kate plus 8", I've rarely watched the show, although in taking in all the comment-feedback on Z.'s blog-site, of late, re/ this angst-driven, very popular, now floundering reality series, I feel like I've seen almost every episode. (HA!)

As to the intelligence make-up of those fanatic FNC junkies, and those highbrow "Mad Men" aficionados, I don't view one viewer constituency as any brighter, or more 'with-it' than the other, and indeed as you pointed out earlier, there are likely those who find value, and enjoyment from both shows.

I feel the FNC appeals at more of a gut, emotional level to it's hardcore viewers, than the their intellects, but that's not saying 'Fox Newsers' are cerebral light-weights. Just maybe a little naive, and warped in their thinking. (HA!)

I'm a huge fan of "Jeopardy" and consider myself a fair-to-middling home-player, and have even toyed w/ the idea of auditioning for the show. I've been a loyal fan for years, going back to way before Alex Trebek lost the mustache. I've often speculated on how many North American's (Trebek after-all is a transplanted Canuck from Sudbury, Ont.) watch "Wheel of Fortune" w/ Pat Sajak and Vanna White right after they've stretched their noodles checking out "Jeopardy".

My slightly elitist self says that most diehard "Jeopardy" fans wouldn't be caught dead admitting they immediately stayed tune to "Wheel of Fortune" on ABC, since it's viewed by many critics as kind of a fluff, no-brainer, yet fun game show.

Ironically, both shows were created many years ago by that great show-biz polymath, talented dynamo, Merv Griffin.(Both made him exceedingly rich.) I think he saw each show as having an intrinsic appeal to a wide spectrum of T.V. viewers, and it really wasn't so much a question of the egg-heads vs the low-brows, but that there would likely be a lot of crossover appeal, since eggheads aren't averse to fun and the lighter-side of life, and the low-brows, on occasion might enjoy a little intellectual challenge, all in a fun, yet highly competitive format.

Let's face it, could you get much more compelling, riveting quasi-reality T.V. drama than brainiac Ken Jennings phenomenal 79 (?) consecutive show winning streak a few years back. Priceless!

Smartest Mormon dude I've ever met ....... well caught on 'the tube'. (Sorry Donny Osmond.) HA! HA!

ALEX

ALEX,

I do agree we shouldn't judge each other on the kinds of shows we watch. I really try to learn from all of the cable channels even if I don't agree with all the views all of the time. We should respect everyones opinions. I don't think I am any farther ahead in terms of MAD MEN. I tried to watch the second episode of the first disc and found I was falling asleep for some reason. It started out about a plane crash and I enjoyed the conversation with the guy, his dad was killed in the crash and he asked Don how he should be feeling and Don told him to go home and be with family. I am getting a feel for Don's character. I am so lost with the names of the characters because there are so many, it is frustrating. I think I will catch-up. At least I am enjoying this new season. Long time viewers can help with the answers on the blog I just have to pay attention. I know I wouldn't make it on Jeopardy, but I know you would. If you get on let us know so we can tune in.

After being raised in a Far Right-wing, very pro-FNC household, I can honestly tell you that Fox News has a very vocal, very loyal, and very uneducated base of watchers. I will admit to being an occasional watcher of FNC to hear what they are saying to remain objective and even-minded.

Fox News' definition of "Fair and Balanced" is accurate when placed in the context of the talking points the Far Right has spun for years; all mainstream print and broadcast media is slanted to the Left, kisses Obama's right buttcheek, and looks to aid in the destruction of the Constitution. How else to balance the scales and un-slant the news, in their opinion, than to come up with their own mainstream, Far Right-slanted, wannabe intellectual network?

Since Fox News is a bottleneck (there is no other Far Right-wing news network on cable that I know of), the Far Right can flock to that one network, bloat the ratings, and declare victory in the cable news sector. I personally feel that if there were another Right-wing cable network out there, FNC would not be the juggernaut in ratings they already claim to be. Keith Olbermann, I think, should take a page out of Chris Matthews' book and interview people he doesn't agree with to create lively debate and banter instead of having the same cadre of talking heads on his show every night (and I find Olbermann very amusing!).

With the news, ratings can equal quality. As much as I love Olbermann and love MSNBC, I know why Countdown and Rachel Maddow have been getting trounced every night-- and it's not because the rest of the country votes Republican. K.O. keeps the same list of people on his show commenting on various topics every night, and lacks both intellectual integrity (people love experts!) and imagination. Rachel Maddow, as intelligent and as bright as she is, can be quite dull. Maddow is, at least to the non-intellectual, unwatchable when put up next to the 1-2 punch of screamers in Bill-O and Sean Hannity! The days of two or more people sitting down, discussing issues in a friendly, non-confrontational manner is over in the prime-time sector (I'm only 27, but remember Square-Off on WJZ), and you may have to wake up rather early to get it (Morning Joe on MSNBC).

To the point of TV not being intellectual, I agree whole-heartedly. Shows like Homicide, The Wire, Oz, and Mad Men are or were not for the Jon and Kate watchers of this country, which seem to outnumber intellectual viewers. People want shows to be dumbed down and compartmentalized to fit their moods at any given moment, or to sate their hunger for human drama and BS. The same rings true in the news arena: As long as the volume is turned up and the "boom" factor is high, MSNBC and CNN will never beat FNC in ratings.

Just some stuff to think about...

So Fox News has great ratings.
...but so does American Idle.

.....HELLO!

IT'S SIMPLE ARITHMETIC- THERE IS A WIDER SPREAD LIBERAL CHANNELS ON TV BETWEEN PRIME TIME AND CABLE THAT IS WHY FOX - THE ONLY "CONSERVATIVE" RIGHT-LEANING STATION ID DRAWING A LARGER AUDIENCE.

I can understand going to Fox News or MSNBC for entertainment, but does anyone actually use cable news to inform themselves about the world?

I think FOX presents the truth. For example, this news about the NEA encouraging artists to create propaganda supporting Obama's hot button issues. I haven't heard anything about it from the other news channels. It's important to know what's really going on in my industry and community.

Fox has high ratings because more people watch it, and more people watch it because the Fox people are good at what they do. They don't seem to be political cheerleaders for anyone.

Actually, Bill O'reilly's have been flat at about 3,000,000 a night for the past five years. The real amazing story is that Keith Olbermann's ratings have gone from 400,000 in 2004 to 800,000 in 2006 to 1.2 million in 2009.
Rachel Maddow is also delivering the best ratings that MSNBC has ever seen, close to 1,000,000 a night.

Spare me the phony, ridiculous Olbermann spin, please. And actually, O'Reilly did 3.4 million several nights during the last week of August when last I checked. Thanks. Z

Special Report with Brett Bair should be renamed "Fox Evening News." They do an excellent job of giving all sides of the issues, addressing stories not reported by the three main networks and CNN, and they end the show with a panel that has liberal and conservative voices. It is the best hour on Fox.

After 14 years as a computer systems analyst in several Fortune 100 companies, I earned a Ph.D. in business from a highly ranked university. I followed that with 16 years as a professor at a state university, teaching Information Systems and Organization Theory. I was disheartened when I realized students are taught not to think but to spew forth the ideologies of their professors, good or bad, in order to inflate the students' GPA's. And that "education" transfers to their personal ideologies once they graduate, thus generally throwing them into a more liberal mindset. It also intends to instill the "Politically Correct" mindset in their thinking processes, thus shutting down discussions essential to truly deal with the pressing social issues of the day.

Additionally, I found that many educators in higher education seriously lack both personal and professional integrity, willing to do whatever it takes, ethical or not, to advance their careers and status in the academic environment. And words whisper but actions shout. Students do not miss those examples of advancing one's career at any and all costs and tend to mimic them in their career pursuits upon graduating until the real world shoots them down. But since these alumnae have college educations, one assumes they are intelligent. And for the most part, they *are* intelligent but incapable of truly critical thinking. We just plain don't teach students that skill. Consequently, even the more formerly educated segments of society end up parroting other's ideologies rather than forming their own independent ideologies based on their values, personal experiences, and education, formal or informal. This results in drawing both left and right leaning citizens to TV and news shows that support their learned rather than individually and personally developed ideologies.

As for TV viewing, I watch few shows regularly. I tend to be a voracious reader instead but concerning the major TV news media, FOX can be a tab bit too far to the right, though, for the most part, I do not consider it's opinions to be extreme, but they are the only TV outlet that addresses the conservative side of the political spectrum. However, most other news outlets drive me absolutely nuts with their complete disregard, condescending, and even insulting attitudes and statements towards viewers that do not accept the talking heads’ perspectives of their views and their perceived absolutism of those views. As many people have said, there is no such thing as reality; there are only perceptions. And no one person’s perceptions are necessarily better than someone else’s perceptions, except in extreme cases.

Additionally, Obama as a messiah who can do no wrong is truly disheartening and damning for him. How could any individual possibly live up to those expectations over time? The irony is Obama is an intelligent, articulate man though very inexperienced and especially naive in foreign affairs, both areas that he can quickly learn with his talents and abilities. However, the messiah mantra may not give him that opportunity since errors are inevitable in any learning curve.

For me personally, his obscene building of even greater debt for our nation is very discouraging and fiscally irresponsible. And I am not sure if that is a part of his value system or his intellectual abilities. If it is the latter, there is hope. This issue is never addressed in a non-biased fashion by most media outlets.

Historically, excessive government influence in the private business sectors has generally reduced productivity and especially innovation in industry, both crucial for the country's prosperity. And yet those points are not covered in most news outlets. Rather, "hot button" items dominate the news with both sides of the political spectrum guilty of spreading falsehoods, inaccurate rumors, and continual denigration of Americans of all stripes in pursuit of increasing network ratings and advancing the personal agendas of the news media pundits and their bosses, resulting in a very high disregard for all talking heads (and writers) in all areas of the “news media”, a term used very loosely and even a possible misnomer as exhibited today. With such a plethora of misinformation, how can any citizen, especially those trying to balance their limited time between families, social obligations, and jobs, draw valid conclusions concerning the issues facing our country today? The cynicism expressed by the American people for the news media is well deserved. The news media and their pundits have truly let down the American public.

(Sorry, Z, that my comments are longer than your article! You know how we academic types are never short on words.)

Simple: The women

Ginny,
I don't have a Ph.D., but I did find it disheartening that you feel critical thinking skills are not being taught in the colleges. I guess you would have first hand experience with this. That was amazing to me. I have always taught my girls to be independent thinkers. Why would these students be expousing their teachers viewpoints without any disagreement. I was just curious about more of your thoughts on this.

I also do not think getting the country into any more debt is a good idea at all our children's children and beyond will be paying for all of this for a long time to come unless we turn this around.

The explanation is very simple, Fox News connects with the people of our country and the rest of the new organizations do not.

I always watched CNN until last year. I tried Fox and now I can hear both sides of issues and my beliefs are respected. It seems like other channels rubber stamp the current administration and forget to report some news like Van Jones and his admitted associations.
I love Fox!

I have been watching all the news channels at one time
. or another, I can not help my curiosity to know more, so I find myself turning to Fox news Channel were I get the real truth about any given subject. The Fox News Channel tells the full truth and does Not have you left outfield. I also like the comments at the end of the news when people write in from all over the World and comment. Lets face it FNC is the best, and the Liberals and some conservatives don't get it... I like Glenn Beck too,he puts his life out on a lim to get the truth out on both Dems and Rep and any other group trying to distroy our Constitution and way of life, He is a real true Patriarch....

Fox News understands something that CNN, MSNBC, and the network news organizations do not understand: television news is entertainment. You have to be factual, but you also have to be compelling. The reason guys like Glenn Beck are so successful is that they are compelling; they are compelling because they have a strong message in which they obviously believe, unlike guys like Keith Olbermann who seem to have no message besides "Glenn Beck is crazy!"

@ Alex : " It's sensational, it's bright, and it caters to the dimmest of intellects."

What a stupid, retarded, moronic post from a typical loony left Daily Kos idiot.
Fox News viewers have more intelligence in their little fingers, than CNN and MSNBC viewers combined have in their entire bodies.
Every survey I have seen has Fox News viewers trump the sheep that watch MSNBC in intelligence and education levels.

It's laughable for anyone who voted for the empty suit communist 0bama, to come round and accuse anyone of lacking in intelligence.

There's one reason & one reason only for FNC's gains & that is none of the other outlets are even putting up a pretense of serving as the traditional watchdogs for government under this administration. The others are missing in action entirely. Things that would have led the broadcast had a republican admin been caught doing, don't get a mention at NBC. I don't even like Fox News but it's clear that it's the last place that's providing news to the people.

For a recent stunning example of this we need look no further than the disgraced "green Czar" Van Jones. The dude resigned last night because he is an avowed racist communist anti-semitic 9.11 truther wacko who was given control of 60 billion dollars of our tax money by the President. I mean, come on - it's all everybody was talking about around the watercooler & in the grocery lines in the real world these past two weeks. Yet those who don't get out & who depend solely on the networks, major dailies or the other cable news shows wouldn't have even recognized his name when they woke up today to read he was forced out, because those 'news' organizations chose to conceal the truth about him - indeed, they neglected to make any mention of him at all - from their viewers.

We're supposed to trust these 'news' organizations in order to stay up to speed about what's going on about anything at all now? What the hell else are these ridiculous "journalists" holding back on us? If Katie Couric is willing to breach the trust with her audience to carry water for a politician satisfying her own narrow partisan ideological agenda, how can we trust that she won't decline to cover say a fatal side-effect problem with a particular drug if she holds stock in the pharmaceutical conglomerate which markets it? See what I mean? They're all worthless, untrustworthy propagandists now - even hard core lefties I know admit it.

Fox News is the only outlet doing their jobs now - the rest are a ridiculously laughable Pravdaesque waste of time, no matter what your political persuasion is.

In addition to the discussion above concerning what is attributing to the rise of FOX, I think it is equally beneficial to look at what has attributed to the fall of the other news outlets. Although it is not the only reason, one dominant factor is the distrust many have developed for various news outlets that have been guilty of some pretty egregious "sins" recently. Some overlook the Dan Rather and Mary Mapes incident, but that shattered many people's idea of what CBS news stood for. And let's not forget about Eason Jordon at CNN, who claimed at Davos that U.S. soldiers were targeting journalists on purpose! Then there was the whole Jayson Blair issue at the NYT, where a journalist was just making up interviews. Again, though not the only thing at play, these factors, as well as others, have left a very bad taste in the mouths of Americans, and they react by changing the channel. Now, why these people STAY with FOX when they change the channel is being pretty well discussed above.

Hi, Thanks for the comments. I agree about rather and Mapes hurting the credibility of CBS News and other mainstream media outlets. Z

So, how and why is Fox doing it?
Sorry, but there aren't as many anti-American communist sympathizers out there as you think there are. You might find it hard to believe, but there are actually a huge number of us who are smart enough to prefer the traditional American values of our founding fathers such as rights and limited government, rather than force, big government tyranny, and socialism. Fox News recognizes that, accepts it and doesn't try to fight it. They have the right attitude.

Just ask Hillary Clinton which news channel in 2008 treated her with the most respect and was the most fair

...

Edited for possible allegation that I cannot confirm. Z

The allegation was a general criticism of watching a channel who have reporters and anchors who are openly disrespecting people who attend Tea Parties, etc.. falsely attributing opposition to be because of racism.. etc.

I did see that on one channel, but not the one you listed. And your allegation went well beyond that claim. I am just being careful -- in trying to have civil, reasoned, fact-based discussions here. And it ususally works. Thanks. Z

Fox has the "ring of truth". We the people recognize the truth when we hear it, and we hear it on Fox. The state-run media are an insult to one's intelligence, but I guess if you have no intelligence, it's no insult.

After years of CBS/Pravda, NBC/Pravda and ABC/Pravda it is refreshing to receive a new view point.
Fox -ie also have good looking babes one might add.
CNN Communist news network?

BUT if you really want to lose your mind....Watch Keith O'Gore-mann, Bill O'Really, Rachael's Madcow and Sean's Ins-Hanity all in the same night!

Maybe it's this...just a thought! Most people like myself are on the web. We get information from many different area on the web and from around the world...in some cases. I just find it that "others" like CNN, ect, just report from inside a box. They also talk down to us as Americans when they give their personal view on things and towards guest, they do this by asking only one sided questions that make their point. I'm finding that over some time now that Fox has stepped out side the box and listen to it's viewers by showing information that is found in the world of web or other media's. Also the regular small town headlines that make it big news are on as guest bringing it to you and making it more personal.
Don't get me wrong some one Fox are one sided but I do find that over all they give it a chance...they let the viewers make up their own mind.
As in video's of TH meetings time after time const. were talking down to people and were telling them that they ran the show not the voters. DC & some TV networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN MSN, HLN... they are the one out of touch with the world. And it show's in numbers. We have to much to do and so little time we don't want to waste it on shows that don't even try.

Angela said, "I am not sure why one would compare ratings of a news channel to a fictional entertainment program. . . ."

Nothing to wonder about, Angela. The comparison is between an entertainment program and an entertainment program.

And mr zurawik? Have you ever written anything that is not a shill for faux news?

Thank you, Mike. I am going to refer lots of conservative commenters who claim I have never written anything "fair" about Fox News to this comment in the future. Z

The answer to the question of "why?" is that Fox News covers things the "main stream media" refuses to. The Van Jones story was a big deal. Everyone I know was talking about it over the last few days, but it was impossible to get informed by reading the LA Times, or watching CNN. They ignored it. (probably because it made Obama look terrible) We heard about how "historic" it was to have the first black president... and it was. We heard about how "historic" it was to have the first Latina on the Supreme Court... and it was. Having the first self avowed communist working in the White House was also "Historic." But you had to watch Fox News to learn anything about it.

FOX does have other viewpoint guests on every program. Even Hannity does during his panel and of course FOX does lean right, except O'Reilly who is a traditionalist, which does not sit well with many as they vew him as a Conservative, but there is a difference. Olberman has zero counter viewpoints or guests who disagree. CNN is good with panels, but their hosts do not find anything critical to say about the Administration. In addition,it has been hard to find any criticisms of the Administration on any other network than Fox. It's as if everything that this Admnistration does is perfect, or for our good, This includes all networks and cable channels.. The one exception is CNBC who sometimes is critical due to economic policies, but look at what was done to two of their people, Cramer and Santelli for speaking their thoughts.

Z, is there something wrong with me? I am a conservative who watches FoxNews, but I've already programmed my recorder for the second season of "Sons of Anarchy".

BTW, my wife is a "birther", but I'm ambivalent on that topic.

Hi Rich, You are asking the wrong guy -- I have too many contradictions of my own, believe me. Thanks. Z

Fox reports what others don't. Suppose you wanted to know about Van Jones. ABC, NBC, CBS didn't mention there was any problem with Obama's "Green Czar" until the day before he resigned.

The leftists who dominate the major media in this country better hope that someone doesn't get control one of the three networks' news sides and decide to run news that is actually fair and balanced. If that happens, the other two will be run out of business.

I have been reading the posts. Amazing how the liberal left tosses excuse after excuse about why Fox is doing so well.

If you watch Olberman or Maddow - which is basically the same - making all those goofy faces, throwing paper at the camera and in general, using the TV as their bully pulpit to express their political views for an hour - add to that the guy with the massive comb over, and the fat guy before him and you pretty much just get a hostile, angry liberal diatribe.

While I am not a huge fan of O'Reilly or Hannity - I like Brett Baier and Shep the best. But at least you will get opposing views.

At the other networks, Communist News Network (CNN) and msDNC it's pathetically boring with lots of name calling and other childish antics.

I can't see how msDNC gets anyone to watch that POS.....

BTW, Beck was the only one talking about this guy....kudos to him while all the other networks are cozied up with Obama.

What's with all the trashing Pravda.com????

You will get MUCH more accurate world news there than ANY mainstream media outlet, possibly including FOX. (No joke.)

Plus sometimes they have actual photos of the aliens ... ( Joke)

Their Special on America's "March to Marxism" is nothing to laugh at, yet has Russians rolling on the floor...

A President that has pretty much EVERY part of his life "Sealed" except for the books he offers For Sale, in which he talks about studying Marxism and surrounding himself with Marxists, anarchists, and domestic terrorists his entire adult life is not enough to get ANY media outlet to raise an eyebrow, except Fox? I don't know why I watch them ...

Oh WAIT! And CONTINUES to surround himself with those same people, making them some of the most powerful people in the country???

Bill Maher is right ... most ARE stupid.

(Does sarcasm work in the Blogosphere?)

Raymond,

Bill Maher does make me laugh. I enjoyed him the other day, right or wrong. He has no problem telling the rest of us that we are stupid. Is that nice though?

Until 9/11 I watched very little news and couldn't have told you who Bin Laden was. Since then I have become entrenched in world and national news. Though I used to occasionally watch MSNBC, I avoid them totally and watch only Fox. I get both sides and very little hate mongering. Plus I get a lot more facts and truth about what's happening than anyplace else. Go, Fox!

Greatest thread ever. My favorite line...."when I want the news, I watch The Daily Show"....THIS is what is wrong with America.
I like Fox. I find myself getting angry occasionally at what they say....but I am incensed CONTINUOUSLY when I watch MSNBC/CNN, etc.
And to the people who ask how O'Reilly stacks up against other news shows....well, that isn't even a story, because they aren't even in the same league. That's why the author is illustrating how he buries an ENTERTAINMENT show.
And who can blame the average viewer? O'Reilly is up against Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, whose mindless drivel practically changes the channel on its own.

This is not a mystery.
Fox news ratings are such because people love to watch train wrecks (Beck), Meltdowns, (O'Reilly) and what is considered Confrontational Political rhetoric, whether is it accurate or not (usually not)......
as long as it gets the viewing populace moved to a response.
The Fox team have no equals in this respect. The defense is usually "it's just entertainment"..which is of course poppycock.

if people cared about the news being unbiased and factual, they would watch c-span. However, people care more about being entertained and fox is just better at it. Everyone has to remember that fox owns its own reailty channel and entertainment channel, so they know how to keep people's attention.

What I think is that Bill O'Reilly would be more aptly named "Shrill O'Biley."

I grew up in the good old days when the mainstream media were true journalists. When they took great pride in getting the story just right so they could report the truth to the American people. Good or bad. A great example was Walter Cronkite. I just learned when he died that he was a liberal. He never revealed this when he was on the air. It had nothing to do with reporting the facts and the truth. The journalists of old were truely trusted friends that you could always count on. They actually felt like they had a responsibility to accurately inform the American people and to hold our gov't accountable. We always felt like they were looking out for us. It is so disheartening to see how the media has sold out the people of this great country. What ever happened to that sense of duty and responsibility? What happened to the integrity?

Here the honest, fair and balanced reason I watch FOX News: It's more entertaining than their rival 'news' programs. I see Glen Beck and Bill O'Rielly as the Geraldo Rivera's of the late 80's or early 90's (when I was in high school/college). To keep up with current events, I read online news articles accessed through google and yahoo. When I look for truly unbiased information, I scan multiple articles from a variety of sources in search for factual information. It's become very difficult to find substantive information about important issues without really researching it as I would a term paper.
About 5 years ago, I valued FOX news and believed it was a good source of 'unbiased' information. Boy was I naive back in those days..

The reason I watch Fox...when I happen to flip to MSNBC or CNN, they're bashing Fox. Makes me want to tune in.

Also, the other shows are just boring. Really, how much is there to say about the President's date with his wife or his dog or his kids swingset?

We're in the middle of a WAR for Pete's sake. There are HUGE issues and changes taking place every single day. Yet the other networks don't report. If they would just do their jobs instead of singing the POTUS' praises, maybe their audience would increase.

CNN doesn't bash Fox or anyone else in an ongoing matter. It's focus is reporting the news. This takedown by Sanchez makes news in part because what Fox did is so outrageous -- and because it is so unusual for someone on CNN to do what he did. Z

They should give the death penalty for pre meditated lying through the media that would get rid of CBS,ABC,NBC,MSNBC,CNN, and the damage they do to this country and individuals with impunity.
Teachers I have been exposed to usually mindlessly parrot the liberal mind set with out taking common sense into consderation

Fox is so popular because EVERYONE loves watching a train wreck, the aftermath of a car accident, a plan crash, a burning building, ect, etc. If they would just call themselves what they really are; an entertainment network and not news, I'd be okay with it. But they are decidedly right leaning to the point of excess. I'll take my news neutral thank you very much, if I want an opinion I'll dig up my mother.

Fox is the only station that reports the news and reports the truth. The others are just propaganda machines for this president and his administration. It was only because the other stations don't report but either make up or cover up that this president was elected. If the truth had been told he would have never been elected.

People have been told what to think by the mainstream media for years. The mainstream media has steadily moved left over the years. The mindless ones in the audience moved with them. We now have a country that does not know the difference between capatilism and socialism, what the roles of the various branches of Government are Etc. The more intelligent viewers needed an outlet and Fox was formed as a result of market pressure. The brainwashed masses were, understandably, upset points of view that made them go outside of their carefully constructed and reinforced comfort zones.

Fox News has covered a conservative, Libertarian slant while allowing Liberals to convey their view points too, while retaining factual credible reporting. MSNBC (GE, Obama News), CNN and the networks have dropped the ball because their Liberal slant is more drastic, biased, skewed and sometimes does not even report accurately even versus Fox's more subtle Conservative and Libertarian slant, which has to stay on top of credibility and facts with their slant to even survive with the on slaught of daily Liberal attacks. Those never ending attacks benefit Fox, because they are the only news channel with a different message than MSNBC (GE News the Obama Haliburton), CNN and all of the other networks, which means Fox is original, edgy and unique and the rest of the pack is just boring, whiney and stale. It's a no brainer as to why the ratings are what they are. Maybe if the rest of the pack really wants to actually catch up, then they would actually allow TALENTED Conservatives and Libertarians to speak with real command and air time on their broadcasts, but until that occurs they should just enjoy low ratings and revenue earnings instead, which doesn't apear to be a trend, but instead is just a simple long term fact of life. It's cool to hear from Liberals, but Conservatives and Libertarians are people too and the pack should recognize that or suffer further low ratings and lost revenue.

Fox News is unquestionably conservatve in it's general overall format. That is a fact that I think most viewers would agree with. But, - and in all honesty, I would also consider other news / commentary based network stations, i.e., CNN, MSNBC, amongst others to be rather liberal / pro Democratic in their respective presentative views. Personally, I tend to be a news oriented person and quite diversified in regards to what news outlets that I watch and listen to. As such and In the all and all, I would have to say that Fox News, all things considered, provides a far more credible degree of verifiably factual information; irrespective to their given political "slant".