Fox News Is Very Serious

“Would this stuff be printed if it wasn’t devoured by viewers and readers — while more substantive stories tend to be ignored?”

I don’t think it’s so much that as it is they just don’t have anything else to talk about. With a 24 hours news cycle, they run out of stuff to talk about pretty quickly when the agenda is to talk about the serious stuff as little as possible.

“Would this stuff be printed if it wasn’t devoured by viewers and readers — while more substantive stories tend to be ignored?”

I don’t think it’s so much that as it is they just don’t have anything else to talk about. With a 24 hours news cycle, they run out of stuff to talk about pretty quickly when the agenda is to talk about the serious stuff as little as possible.

^Nano speaks the truthI’d also wager that Fox News viewers are way more sexually depraved than viewers of other news networks.

^Nano speaks the truthI’d also wager that Fox News viewers are way more sexually depraved than viewers of other news networks.

Indeed, Ashby. Their viewers are the sort that you would catch leering at the boobies in a park somewhere.Also, by having a 24 hours network, you end up with a stable of back-benchers and mediocre-at-best talent that cut it’s teeth on “water skiing squirrel” footage in small market local news. They’d go catatonic if a serious news story popped up on the teleprompter.

Indeed, Ashby. Their viewers are the sort that you would catch leering at the boobies in a park somewhere.Also, by having a 24 hours network, you end up with a stable of back-benchers and mediocre-at-best talent that cut it’s teeth on “water skiing squirrel” footage in small market local news. They’d go catatonic if a serious news story popped up on the teleprompter.

As for the chicken and egg question, watch the “most popular” links on the sides of Huffpo or other blogs. It’s almost always a mix of real news and tabloid-style crap. People are looking for both.If you’ve got as much content as The Huffington Post or a 24 hour news channel, you’re going to fill some of it with tabloid stuff to keep people from falling asleep.The really deep question we must answer is why this blog doesn’t have more boobies.

As for the chicken and egg question, watch the “most popular” links on the sides of Huffpo or other blogs. It’s almost always a mix of real news and tabloid-style crap. People are looking for both.If you’ve got as much content as The Huffington Post or a 24 hour news channel, you’re going to fill some of it with tabloid stuff to keep people from falling asleep.The really deep question we must answer is why this blog doesn’t have more boobies.

Swift is right, sadly.When I add a new painting to my art gallery, usualy the stuff with the biggest boobs gets the most views.I have specific proof of that by simply viewing my detailed gallery stats. Im not anti-boob what so ever, I love eating at hooters, but the simple fact is that sex sells.

Swift is right, sadly.When I add a new painting to my art gallery, usualy the stuff with the biggest boobs gets the most views.I have specific proof of that by simply viewing my detailed gallery stats. Im not anti-boob what so ever, I love eating at hooters, but the simple fact is that sex sells.

I see some boobs to my right, on the Evony ad haha.Funny we should ask about boobs here. I messaged Redmond about the amount of boobies on The Superficial and asked for a few sugarlumps. Not a lot, just a few. I don’t complain too much because the boobies are usually accompanied by madcap alcohol-fueled celebrity mayhem, which I love.I agree HuffPo has become the “Today Show” of the blogosphere. They seem to be trying for a formula that brings in the broadest spectrum of visitors. It can be a turnoff, though. I’m tired of the front page genuflection to celebrities that are really just advertising their own blogs and ventures. There really should be a section labeled “Celebrity self-indulgence that you probably wont be interested in but the asshole wouldn’t leave me alone about letting them post so here it is.”

I see some boobs to my right, on the Evony ad haha.Funny we should ask about boobs here. I messaged Redmond about the amount of boobies on The Superficial and asked for a few sugarlumps. Not a lot, just a few. I don’t complain too much because the boobies are usually accompanied by madcap alcohol-fueled celebrity mayhem, which I love.I agree HuffPo has become the “Today Show” of the blogosphere. They seem to be trying for a formula that brings in the broadest spectrum of visitors. It can be a turnoff, though. I’m tired of the front page genuflection to celebrities that are really just advertising their own blogs and ventures. There really should be a section labeled “Celebrity self-indulgence that you probably wont be interested in but the asshole wouldn’t leave me alone about letting them post so here it is.”

Let me add my two cents to this discussion of who (or what) watches FNC or FOX “NEWS.” At one of the buildings I used to work at, FNC was a constant presence, as was PBS. This was a pediatric ward at a local medical facility. The nurses and receptionists usually put the TV on FNC just about every morning, but if kids were coming in for appointments, they put it on PBS until the shows like Sesame St. and such went off, then they switched it to a local broadcast most of the time. I figure the nurses and receptionists turned to FNC out of habit, but it became apparent that FNC was the only cable “news” channel that was available immediately. What I mean to say is it was the closest to the local stations. I did not know the exact channel lineup, but I checked a few times myself (which was a bit unusual, given the fact that I’m an actual member of medical staff), and I could not find MSNBC or CNN. It was either local broadcasts or FNC. No one really paid any attention to what was on the television anyway.While I worked at a smaller facility, the staff was hooked on FNC. The weird thing was that they could not stand the obvious bias, but they found the other channel’s boring, I guess, since they were available. The staff was well aware of dubious FNC-speak, but they kept the channel on FNC all the while. We had some great conversations during the ’04 election, when FNC lost its god damned mind (example: John Kerry was a phony war hero married to a harridan, etc.). It was hilarious watching FNC back then. As busy as I was, I always chatted with the staff about politics, and FNC’s insanity was always a conversation piece.What I’m getting at is that I do believe that the cable “news” programs are catered to compensate those looking to the lowest intellectual considerations.Simply put, certain segments of the cable “news” audience feels the need to be kept abreast of current events, yet they also feel overwhelmed with details. The cable “news” program provides them with a feeling of intellectual gratification for the simple fact that it caters to both their lazy and curious sides.Trust me on this – I’m a doctor.

Let me add my two cents to this discussion of who (or what) watches FNC or FOX “NEWS.” At one of the buildings I used to work at, FNC was a constant presence, as was PBS. This was a pediatric ward at a local medical facility. The nurses and receptionists usually put the TV on FNC just about every morning, but if kids were coming in for appointments, they put it on PBS until the shows like Sesame St. and such went off, then they switched it to a local broadcast most of the time. I figure the nurses and receptionists turned to FNC out of habit, but it became apparent that FNC was the only cable “news” channel that was available immediately. What I mean to say is it was the closest to the local stations. I did not know the exact channel lineup, but I checked a few times myself (which was a bit unusual, given the fact that I’m an actual member of medical staff), and I could not find MSNBC or CNN. It was either local broadcasts or FNC. No one really paid any attention to what was on the television anyway.While I worked at a smaller facility, the staff was hooked on FNC. The weird thing was that they could not stand the obvious bias, but they found the other channel’s boring, I guess, since they were available. The staff was well aware of dubious FNC-speak, but they kept the channel on FNC all the while. We had some great conversations during the ’04 election, when FNC lost its god damned mind (example: John Kerry was a phony war hero married to a harridan, etc.). It was hilarious watching FNC back then. As busy as I was, I always chatted with the staff about politics, and FNC’s insanity was always a conversation piece.What I’m getting at is that I do believe that the cable “news” programs are catered to compensate those looking to the lowest intellectual considerations.Simply put, certain segments of the cable “news” audience feels the need to be kept abreast of current events, yet they also feel overwhelmed with details. The cable “news” program provides them with a feeling of intellectual gratification for the simple fact that it caters to both their lazy and curious sides.Trust me on this – I’m a doctor.

(.)(.)Boldly providing more boobies since 1976.One word: INFOTAINMENTWhen advertising rates are determined by ratings you will not get ‘news’, you will get infotainment. Tabloids are the oldest form of infotainment. Page four boobies sell more papers. This has always effected the entire newspaper business. Circulation determines advertising rates. Waterskiing squirrels sell papers. Celebrity wardrobe malfunctions sell papers. Presidential administration criminal conspiracies to invade and occupy a sovereign foreign state are depressing and distressing and won’t increase circulation. Same for stories about our voting machines all being worse than worthless junk and stories about anti-war protests. We don’t want to bum out our readers.Who doesn’t like more boobies?

(.)(.)Boldly providing more boobies since 1976.One word: INFOTAINMENTWhen advertising rates are determined by ratings you will not get ‘news’, you will get infotainment. Tabloids are the oldest form of infotainment. Page four boobies sell more papers. This has always effected the entire newspaper business. Circulation determines advertising rates. Waterskiing squirrels sell papers. Celebrity wardrobe malfunctions sell papers. Presidential administration criminal conspiracies to invade and occupy a sovereign foreign state are depressing and distressing and won’t increase circulation. Same for stories about our voting machines all being worse than worthless junk and stories about anti-war protests. We don’t want to bum out our readers.Who doesn’t like more boobies?

I think Hooter’s has food and beverage servers not Centerfolds.

I think Hooter’s has food and beverage servers not Centerfolds.

I’m with Rob Anderson on this one. I think the boys at Fox have Hooters confused with a certain men’s magazine. Not surprising, though, if one considers the source. They specialize in confusion, after all.

I’m with Rob Anderson on this one. I think the boys at Fox have Hooters confused with a certain men’s magazine. Not surprising, though, if one considers the source. They specialize in confusion, after all.