'Most-watched News Network' and the Meaning of 'Mainstream Media'

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac’s thread on neologisms was opened and summarily shut down before I had the chance even to see it, let alone read it. So I’m going to risk incurring the wrath of the moderating team and address a couple of misconceptions from that thread. 
 

Contrary to a couple of posters in that thread, “mainstream media” is not a term invented by conservatives. Rather, it arose with the emergence of myriad alternative sources of news and information that came with the advent of cable broadcasting and the internet. It helps distinguish between the traditional, or legacy, news outlets — such as the three over-the-air broadcast networks and national print sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post — and news outlets on cable and the internet. It really hasn’t been a political or ideological term, as such, at least not initially. 
 

And on a related note, I must correct Miserere Nobis, whom I hold in high regard but with whom I occasionally disagree. Fox does not style itself as “the most-watched news network,” but rather, as the “most-watched CABLE news network.” Which, if I understand correctly, is quite true, as it outdraws other cable operations, such as MSNBC and the execrable CNN, the chief propaganda organ of the Democratic Party, which has plummeted in its ratings of late. 
 

Furthermore, under the definition I posit above, Fox could not be mainstream media, since it is a cable network. 
 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

The definition you posit is not accurate in regards to the current meaning and usage of the term.

You are also being silly with Fox News. It is the most watched news network and the most watched cable news network (in the United States of course for both). Why make the distinction as if the original statement is incorrect? It is not.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The definition you posit is not accurate in regards to the current meaning and usage of the term.

You are also being silly with Fox News. It is the most watched news network and the most watched cable news network (in the United States of course for both). Why make the distinction as if the original statement is incorrect? It is not.

I don’t know which network news is the most watched overall. I don’t think you do either, as you didn’t document your claim. I was challenging the assertion made on the other thread, which was that Fox brags about being the most watched news network. In reality, it claims to be the most watched CABLE news network. That’s an important distinction, as there are only three or four such networks with similarly broad-based appeal.  
 

As to what constitutes “mainstream media,” these days, that’s a bit murky, with media conglomerates and mergers arising in recent times. With trust in news media being at an all-time low, I think it overly simplistic to label the term “mainstream media,” which has been around for quite a while now, as a neologism invented and used only by the right wing. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac’s thread on neologisms was opened and summarily shut down before I had the chance even to see it, let alone read it. 

It was perhaps too political a topic.  I didn't really intend it that way, but I could see why it was shut down.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was perhaps too political a topic.  I didn't really intend it that way, but I could see why it was shut down.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah. It had turned into a bit of a light-hearted farce anyway. I don’t really care that it was shut down. I just felt an urge to challenge a bit of the Democratic group think. 
 

Interesting thread topic, though, even if it’s not a good fit for this board. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know which network news is the most watched overall. I don’t think you do either, as you didn’t document your claim. I was challenging the assertion made on the other thread, which was that Fox brags about being the most watched news network. In reality, it claims to be the most watched CABLE news network. That’s an important distinction, as there are only three or four such networks with similarly broad-based appeal.  
 

As to what constitutes “mainstream media,” these days, that’s a bit murky, with media conglomerates and mergers arising in recent times. With trust in news media being at an all-time low, I think it overly simplistic to label the term “mainstream media,” which has been around for quite a while now, as a neologism invented and used only by the right wing. 

They talk about being the most watched cable news network but there are no non-cable news networks that have anywhere near the viewership of the major cable networks. Do you need a source on that?

The term “mainstream media” is not new and has been used in other contexts but when it comes up on right wing talk radio it is clear what they mean and will often launch directly from that to bashing CNN or MSNBC in addition to other forms of journalism.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'll always remember June 2018.  It brought me a gift: the news story that CNN had fallen below the Food Network in ratings.  

https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/26/cnn-food-network-ratings/

In my lifetime, I've seen the downfall of the big 3 networks.   It's a good thing.  And I've also seen the ending of relevance for such titles as "most watched news network".  It's now as relevant as the title "Best selling wall phone" or "Most played board game" or "Most listened to local radio station".  Yeah, it still means something, but in a world with cell phones, computers and gaming systems, and satellite radio/radio apps, there are a flood of different options, each one better than the last.  

I mean, it means a lot to people who focus exclusively on one source of news.  But, like a group of miners in a coal mine with no canary, they're sick and they don't have any way to know it. 

That's right, I'm saying if you get all your news from only one source, you're doing it wrong.  You are forcing yourself to be ignorant, and you don't even see it happening. 

Here's a short list of news sources for folks who wish to be well-informed, and also have relevant opinions about things:

- Various forms of traditional media (what we're arguing about here.  It's a starting place only.)
- Local coverage/original news sources (always better to go to the source.  If you must start with Fox or some such, click 3-4 times until you're at the original report.)
- Twitter (I first heard about the Iranian General from Trump tweeting the American flag.)
- Foreign news coverage of local events (they've got bias too, but it ain't the same as the biases in local reporting.)
- Stratfor, and similar organizations (they make money when they accurately predict the future, and their agenda is to make money.)
- Press releases from the newsmaker itself (Example: More useful to read the news at LDS.org, rather than argue about whether Desnews/Tribune's coverage is right/wrong/good/bad/accurate/etc.)

It's absolutely critical to understand that every source has a bias and an agenda.  There is no such thing as bias-free news.  It's also possible to become informed by a biased source who is providing commentary with which you don't agree.  You have to know the difference between reporting news and inserting opinion.  If you can't or won't do these things, there is something wrong with you, and your opinions in the public square are worth less than they could otherwise be.
 

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon

[tkv]

I must say that I have been embarrassed more than once to hear fellow ward members complain about the mere existence of Fox News when so many more influential media corporations, with broad reach, are dominated by strong Democrat party sensibilities.

[bluebell]

What does the OP have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  

[bsjkki]

Original sources are the best and as Loudmouth stated, following the story back to its origination is key. I know everyone doesn't have time to 'read the report' or 'watch the hearing' but even a little original sources can help break  through the filters. Everything that is written about something that has happened is going to be framed in some way or covered a certain way and that is where the bias creeps in. One example that for me was quickly debunked or reframed once I watched the original, full length video instead of a clipped snippet of film is the story of Nick Sandman, the Covington Catholic schoolboy. He was maligned nationally before his school bus arrived back in Kentucky. CNN has settled and he is now a very weathy 17-year-old. It took me about 5-10 minutes to find the full length video and 1-2 hours watching it (I often watch things on double speed--used to type transcripts for a living so am good at it) to realize these boys were being maligned and smeared. The networks and the AP (even Deseret News) ran with the original framing of the story which maligned these students. They did not wait to talk with the boys or leaders of these kids to get the 'other side.' They did not watch a longer video for accurate context. They went with the lie that was presented to them as truth and didn't fact check. It is irresponsible. 

Headline writing is scary. With the church story about the financial whistleblower, most reported it as a quote about the allegation. The problem is, most people read the headlines that are quoting one source and believe what the headline says is true. Many times the headlines are not true but the quote about the allegation is true. It is crazy how much information is spread through headlines based on unproven allegations from an aggrieved party. You have to be very, very careful with what you believe. 

Today I was presented with another take on the whole thing. Scott Adams, in his book Loserthink states this, "For big complicated political questions "doing your own research" is a waste of time." Why? Confirmation bias. There are plenty of studies, stories and statistics to support either position. Researching isn't going to help. That is why Nehor and I can read the Mueller report and come to vastly different conclusions. He instead encourages people to understand the other side and why they think the way they do. I always found reading from both rabid left or right wing media, would give me a clearer context of the issues because I understood the arguments from the other side of aisle. It would challenge by natural biases to read the arguments from the other side. It gets easy to see what information is conveniently not presented (this happens on both sides.)

For me, I also did this when I had my faith crisis. I still get on ex-mo reddit and see whats up out there. My fallen away children get their information from these sites and I want to be 'up on it.' I understand the arguments, the valid or petty, and have chosen to maintain my faith even in light of all the information out there. 

[blarsen]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah. It had turned into a bit of a light-hearted farce anyway. I don’t really care that it was shut down. I just felt an urge to challenge a bit of the Democratic group think. 
 

Interesting thread topic, though, even if it’s not a good fit for this board. 

Ah, "group think".  Another apparent neologism that is another apt descriptor of a very real phenomenon.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They talk about being the most watched cable news network but there are no non-cable news networks that have anywhere near the viewership of the major cable networks. Do you need a source on that?

The term “mainstream media” is not new and has been used in other contexts but when it comes up on right wing talk radio it is clear what they mean and will often launch directly from that to bashing CNN or MSNBC in addition to other forms of journalism.

I’m not sure if the viewership of Fox exceeds that of the NBC Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, the ABC News, or the other programs such as the Sunday shows like Meet the Press or Face the Nation. Or the quasi news shows in the morning, like Good Morning America or the Today Show. Or the magazine-style programs such as 60 Minutes or 48 Hours or ABC Prime Time. Do you have figures on that?

That conservative commentators use the term “mainstream media” does not make the term inherently right wing. To prove that, you would have to show that nobody else uses it. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

Ah, "group think".  Another apparent neologism that is another apt descriptor of a very real phenomenon.

Yeah. 

It originated in Orwell’s novel, 1984. It was co-opted by psychologists and then became part of the popular vernacular. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What does the OP have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  

The OP of this thread? Nothing.
 

I’ve already explained that I felt the urge to challenge a couple of points that came up in Smac’s thread, and I’ve already acknowledged I risk incurring the disapprobation of the moderating team in doing it. They are, of course, free to close the thread at any time. 
 

If you mean the OP of Smac’s thread, you would have to ask him. 

[blarsen]

When it comes to information processing too many of us are willing to be satisfied with what i would call our 'validation sources'; those sources we have accepted in the past, for whatever reason, to supply us with valid information, news and opinion.  Doesn't matter that they may have drifted away from being as reliable as they once were, or that they are getting new conditions/situations dead wrong.  Going to original or multiple sources mitigates the bad effects that may arise from using  limited validation sources but how many people have the time/motivation to do so?

Another real danger when it comes to dealing with information is getting caught up in and trapped by what I've come to regard as meme thinking and behavior, defined by:  "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme.  A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures." (from Wikipedia).  Its a "neologism coined by Richard Dawkins" in a book he wrote in 1976, and is certainly not limited to the more common internet usage of an internet fad or sarcastic cartoon.

Perhaps I should differentiate between what may be regarded as 'bad vs. good' memes.  The bad ones are driven or replicated mainly by emotion, but may have impetus from a certain amount of logic and even evidence.  But you know you are caught up in a 'bad meme', when you become obsessed with its content, exhibit a black-and-white attitude about its correctness; and resort to anger when it is countered, not being amenable to calm discussion or logical arguments.  Accompanying this behavior is normally a lot of name calling and psychological projection.

The prevalence of 'bad memes' moving through our present-day local and world-wide culture and capturing the minds of people is alarming .  I've never seen anything quite like it before.