Stirewalt: Fox News executives were afraid of audience | CUOMO
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Before he joined NewsNation, political editor Chris Stirewalt was part of the team at Fox News that projected Joe Biden the winner of Arizona. It was a decision that sparked major backlash from viewers. Shortly after, Stirewalt departed the company in what was described as a "restructuring." Looking back, Stirewalt says he was unaware of how “afraid” Fox News executives were of the cable channel’s audience.
#FoxNews #media #Capitolriots
Chris Cuomo hosts "CUOMO," a no-nonsense show featuring the day's most important news from all perspectives. "CUOMO" airs weeknights at 8 p.m. ET/ 7 p.m. CT on NewsNation.
NewsNation is your source for fact-based, unbiased news for all America.
More from NewsNation: www.newsnation...
Get our app: trib.al/TBXgYpp
Find us on cable: trib.al/YDOpGyG
How to watch on TV or streaming: trib.al/Vu0Ikij
I'm afraid of the Fox news audience too.
You must still wear a mask, in the car, while driving alone and the windows up.
Boooooo!
For sure - unreal such people exist
The whole comment thread is a good example of their lunatic supporters 😂
Exactly! 😂
I would not want to work at a place where I was afraid of my own audience. I am a free agent. 🎉💃
good to know you may not agree but fox is going down they said so if your afraid i whould not work there
tuck tuck said jan 6th was okay they where there for a tour really thats also why his show is going down
So showing video from j6 is bad news? Bad take Chris.
Showing cherry picked footage to push a false narrative is bad news, and you know that was the argument, but your lot never argue in good faith.
Wrong again, Chris.
Thank you to Tucker Carlson
WOW, you are the problem, when you know your being lied to and accept it. Our Democracy is at stake. Grow up, get your misguided life in control. I wish you the best to find some other hobbies because politics isn't your Forte.
Tucker Carlos
Tucker Carlson: the George Santos of journalists and news hosts.
Tucker Carlson sold his own son out. His own son was there on the capitol riot day, working for Jim Jordan and was scared about it. Go look it up for yourself. Not that it will matter to you. Keep believing the guy who will sell out his own family though, what could go wrong?
Stirwalt 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You're right it's not good for the republican party to dwell on it however tucker Carlson is awesome and he spot on
Spot on in public or in private? Because the two are diametrically opposed.
Tucker Carlson was one of the few to have the guts to push back on election being overturned. I also don't remember him ever being a big huge Trump supporter. So I'm not sure what the big deal is.
He lied
Tucker is showing videos of insurrectionist walking around the Capitol saying that they were PEACEFUL. Lying is a big deal. People died.
Are you high, or just stupid? Nobody defended Trump more than Carlson.
Smh you have no shame.
You’re one to talk about getting fired from a news station 😂
What you deflecting, republican chump?
He is! He has experience!
*FOREWORD*
Chris likes to play Koi here by stating that he never had a producer tell him what to say while working for CNN, but what he doesn't tell you is that there is a culture to these media outlets where it's implicit that you make sure you don't rock the boat of what most of the people who work at those places view as their political philosophy or ideology includes; because if you do shake that tree limb you're going to find your keister out on the sidewalk with a small cardboard box of your work possessions along with what's left of your pride.
Chris also eschews how these networks' bottom line is ratings, which is to say it's all about the money. That's a designation Chris attempts to make in some interviews about FOX as opposed to other media outlets like both CNN and MSNBC. He's wrong. They _all_ care about one thing and one thing only (other than maligning the other side of the political aisle's reputation, that is): $$$.
*_“FOX NEWS Funeral: MSNBC and CNN Have a Schadenfreude Party at Their Expense… ‘Hold My Beer!,’” by Bif Crowley_*
Sure, FOX sucks. We all knew that. Only now do we have the receipts to prove it.
However, this doesn't allow both MSNBC and CNN to peacock around like they're all that either. Those networks are only _slightly_ "better" than FOX. Or, rather, FOX is slightly worse?
I write that because there has been _plenty_ of evidence to suggest that those other two networks shouldn't display so much Schadenfreude during FOX's wake.
First off, MSNBC fired talk show host Phil Donahue when he had the best ratings on that network because he had the gall to run an anti-war segment just prior to the first Gulf War back in 1990. Apparently, no matter how "left" we think these networks are, at their core, they're still war-loving propagandist psychopaths, as they seem to fall under a ghastly spell every time a war jumps off.
Second, MSNBC fired their anchor and journalist, Ed Schultz, because he had the gall to thwart his producer's edict to not give Bernie Sanders an interview just before the 2016 election. It was obvious by then that MSNBC and CNN both had plans for Sanders, and those plans never included giving him much airtime. After the 2016 election, we found out that all of the corporate acronym media outlets combined gave Donald Trump over 1,100 hours of _free_ airtime. Hillary garnered over 800 hours of free airtime. Bernie? He raked in a _whopping ten minutes of free airtime._ So those networks can't talk much about bias and who gets exposure.
And if you're wondering why they gave Trump all of that free airtime and Hillary less, as you're probably thinking that's something FOX would seemingly partake in, they did so because Hillary and the DCCC (same thing) advised them to do so because they believed Trump would be an easier opponent in the general election. No, this is _not_ a "conspiracy theory," it was exposed when Wikileaks aired all of Hillary's dirty laundry after it was most likely downloaded to a thumb drive and then handed over to a former British diplomat to the United States named Craig Murray, who then gave it to Julian Assange.
Regardless of what you believe happened-that it was either a hack or a download-the material still contains the same pertinent information. The manner in which the information is extracted and then relayed has no bearing on whether it's factual or not; and in this case, it was. Plus, why _else_ would all of those media outlets give Trump so much time?
Oh, right, ratings too! Money, in other words. Something Chris scoffed at FOX about, like those other two or more networks _don't_ try to boost their ratings for more cash? That's ludicrous on its face! Chris knows this, too. CNN's Bryan Stelter also knew this to be true when he attempted to gaslight a dais of former _actual_ journalists one day at a National Press Club discussion about the state of our news media today.
According to the website, Biz Pac Review: Business & Politics, _"Koppel broke the news to Stelter during a panel discussion on journalism at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday as he explained the co-dependency of the press and the president. He was making the point that some top media executives have admitted that Trump has been good for business,d (sic) driving up ratings as they tune in to follow the latest coverage of the president and his administration._
_"'That means what?' Stelter interjected. 'If ratings are up, that means what?' 'The ratings are up, that means you can’t do without Donald Trump,' Koppel replied. 'You would be _*_lost_*_ without Donald Trump.' Stelter shook his head in disagreement. 'Ted, you know that’s not true,' he said. 'CNN’s ratings would be in the _*_toilet_*_ without Donald Trump,' Koppel reiterated, drawing laughter from the audience. 'You know that’s not true. You’re playing for laughs,' Stelter fired back. 'You’ve lived through enough presidencies to know. There will be more presidents. If we go back down 40 percent, that’s okay too,' the 'Reliable Sources' host added. 'I reject the premise that these networks are making so much money off of Trump and thus, we benefit from it.'"_
You can access the video for yourself. After Stelter claimed that CNN didn't care about ratings or money, but rather the money they made from those ratings, the dais of journalists laughed in unison, as did the audience who attended the forum panel's discussion.
And CBS said, _"According to the head of CBS, the foul-mouthed presidential candidate is 'damn good' for the network and the 'money's rolling in' thanks to his antics. Les Moonves, executive chairman and CEO of CBS, made the comments during a speech at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 'I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us,' he said at the event. 'Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going. It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS,' he said."_
So this notion that somehow FOX is the only media outlet that doesn't cater to ratings for money is just a bad joke.
During "Russiagate," both CNN and MSNBC told half-truths-which, by proxy, are also half-lies-and skirted around issues pertaining to that "story" by using soft preposition and verb and adjective phrases _on the regular,_ like "if, could be, may be, might be, some are 'saying,' many are 'speculating,' sources close to the story 'allege,' those 'in the know have told us,' 'many of our sources claim' to know another person close to the story,' and they have 'alleged'"-just how much hearsay was that again, CNN?
And during those four years, both in print and in the television realm, _all_ of their "mistakes" about that story fell only on one side of the ledger-that being Trump's side of the scoreboard. Usually, when there's any story but one as long as the _Russiagate_ story included, errors do happen, but they usually occur on _both sides_ of the ledger. And that just didn't happen. And even when some of those fish wraps in the print media did issue a retraction, they put it in the abyss of the story _without_ changing the headline or taking the mistake out of the story. Those outlets knew that most people merely read the headline and moved on, while others read portions or half of the story before ejecting, but most people probably didn't read the entire story and, by extension, would never see the retraction eternally rotting at the base of the piece.
There _are more_ instances I could mention, but this piece has gone on way too long, and it's late, so I will stop here. 😜
*About the Author:* _Bif Crowley is a freelance thrill-seeking writer who lives in his grandmother's basement and likes to pick and eat his own boogers like did that Smails kid back in the day. His interests include golfing, skinny snowboarding, skinny surfing (the internet), howling at the moon while hammered on _*_Jägermeister,_*_ frequenting soup kitchens from time to time, and performing aid to unwed former runway model mothers in their late twenties._
_©BifCrowleyProductions_
Bad week for democrats.
The wheels are comin off haha
What the hell are you talking about? It's just the opposite.
@@HTHAMMACK1 he’s a troll who lives in the bubble. stupid angry is all they have.
Do they have cheeseburgers in that alternate reality?