Posts tagged #MSNBC

Democrats Are Starting To Realize They Need To Appear On Fox News Instead Of CNN If They Want To Reach Voters. The Bernie Sanders Town Hall On Fox Is The Most Viewed Of Year

We already knew Fox News was the king of cable news. The channel’s ratings and success prove it. Now, we have indisputable proof thanks to, of all people, Bernie Sanders.

Monday night the Senator and current Democrat frontrunner for president appeared on Fox for an hour that was the most watched town hall of the year with 2.6 million viewers. So far, the average viewership for CNN’s town halls is 903,000. Rivals Fox News and MSNBC’s regular programming airing during the CNN town halls each easily beat the network with Fox receiving an average of 2.2 million viewers and MSNBC 1.1 million.

I give Sanders credit for being willing to appear on Fox because not all Democrats would’ve done that.

The Vermont senator was wise to go on Fox because he knew if he wanted to reach a mass audience with his message, Fox was the place to go. No one outside of his base would’ve ever seen him on MSNBC, and if you look at the ratings for CNN, not many that “Burn for Bernie” or any other candidate’s supporters for that matter would’ve seen them on CNN.

Fox is in talks about hosting a town hall with Pete Buttigieg next. If he’s smart, he’ll accept the invitation so he can actually reach voters.

Even Democrats are starting to learn that if you want to reach an audience, you gotta go on Fox. Otherwise, you’ll just be talking to people that are walking through an airport glancing at CNN on a TV screen.

###

Dr. Chad Whittle holds a doctoral degree in mass communication and is the host of “A Whittle Bit of Commentary.” Subscribe today to his podcast on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and Google Play. Read his daily column at ChadWhittle.com and follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

 

 

The Mainstream Media Should Be Beacons Of Truth In The Age Of Fake News, But New Poll Shows Many Americans Know They're Not.

According to a new poll of 2,200 Americans conducted by The Hollywood Reporter and Morning Consult, many Americans know what we all know to be true about the mainstream media: the majority of it is liberal.

The study reports 46 percent believe CNN leans liberal and 43 percent believe MSNBC is as well.

Just 12 percent believe CNN is neutral which is still too high of a number.

Broadcast TV networks are believed to have a liberal bias as well with 36 percent believing NBC is liberal, 35 percent for CBS, and 34 percent believe ABC’s coverage is slanted left.

Of the sample, 51 percent believe Fox News is conservative.

The poll also found that 40 percent of Americans believe there should be less coverage of politics with another 40 percent believing TV news should cover world events more. It’s hard to disagree with them on this point.

I’m glad to see there are so many others that are figuring out the agenda of the mainstream media. The more Americans figure out the news coverage they are receiving from mainstream traditional news sources is slanted, the better informed they’ll become because they will seek out more accurate, alternative sources.

In the age of the fake news and misrepresentation spreading all across social media, traditional journalism institutions should be beacons of truth and accuracy. A place Americans can turn to find the truth and not a biased agenda. Sadly, this isn’t the case and probably never will be. They’ll continue to go left, and because of this, their ratings will continue to go south.

###

Dr. Chad Whittle holds a doctoral degree in mass communication and is the host of “A Whittle Bit of Commentary.” Subscribe today to his podcast on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and Google Play. Read his weekly column at ChadWhittle.com and follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

UK Government Establishing Regulator To Oversee Social Media And The Spread Of "Fake News" And "Disinformation." Will This Lead To Censorship?

The UK government has established the world’s first independent regulator to try and help social media giants like Facebook in check according to CNET.

Companies could face fines for not following the new requirements that will be implemented.

The goal of the new internet regulator is to make the web a safer place.

The regulator will ensure social media networks tackle problems including:

-Incitement of violence and the spread of violent (including terrorist) content

-Encouragement of self-harm or suicide

-The spread of disinformation and fake news

-Cyberbullying

-Children's access to inappropriate material

-Child exploitation and abuse content

The new requirements will apply to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media networks and other websites.

I believe everyone can agree that we don’t want children to have access to pornographic content or that violent inciting content should be widely available online to be viewed. However, what does concern me is who gets to decide what “disinformation” and “fake news” is?

We’ve already seen social sites deactivate and delete the accounts of Alex Jones and other political figures for their posts. While I don’t agree with Jones and others, they should be able to speak freely online unless they are encouraging violence or harm toward others.

While the new UK regulator has no jurisdiction over the U.S. and our access to social media content, this new governmental figure could push the social giants toward blocking certain websites in the UK because they feel it’s “disinformation” or “fake news.”

Wonder if he or she decides that BreitBart or The Daily Caller is “fake news”?

Would you be ok with that? If you’re a liberal, then maybe you’d say yes.

However, what if the new regulator says Mother Jones, CNN, or MSNBC is spreading “disinformation”? Which actually wouldn’t be a lie, CNN spread fake news for two and half years about Trump and Russia, but regardless, I would not agree with their websites being blocked off social media.

It’s a tricky and potential dangerous slippery slope when a government grants someone the ability to fine social sites for content on their websites they deem spreading “disinformation” or “fake news.”

Will this new UK regulator make the internet a safer place or just a more censored place?

I lean towards these new policies creating more censorship than safety.

###

Dr. Chad Whittle holds a doctoral degree in mass communication and is the host of “A Whittle Bit of Commentary.” Subscribe today to his podcast on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and Google Play. Read his weekly column at ChadWhittle.com and follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Whittle at 'Media Equalizer': Boycotts Hurt All Sides

Our Founding Fathers felt freedom of speech and the press was so vital and important to the continued success of our nation that they granted this right in the First Amendment of the Constitution. They knew all freedoms that followed would rise and fall on the freedom to freely speak and debate political, moral and religious topics.

In 2019, there are more ways than ever to share your viewpoint on any topic imaginable. All you need is a computer, keyboard, a social media account or website, video camera and a microphone. The Internet is the Founding Father’s freedom of speech dreams fully realized.

You no longer have to be on the payroll of a large media company to share your opinion. You can go live on YouTube and reach millions.

While there are almost countless digital media options for Americans to use to share their opinion, there are many politically motivated groups that are trying to stop popular media figures from having the right to speak their mind on the issues of the day.

Read the rest at Media Equalizer Here

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Wants To Be The Ross Perot Of 2020 And Help Trump Win

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has all but officially announced his run for the White House in 2020. This is the best thing that could happen to Donald Trump. It’s Ross Perot all over again, but this time it’ll help the Republicans and not hurt them.

When Ross Perot ran his failed independent campaign in 1992, he took votes away from George H.W. Bush and gave us Bill Clinton.

If Schultz goes through with his campaign in 2020, it’ll do nothing but hurt the Democrats because he is no doubt a left-leaning Democrat. Just examine the values of Starbucks under his leadership, and it’ll give you an idea about his worldview. If he goes through with running, it doesn’t matter which candidate the Democrats put up against Trump; it almost guarantees Trump gets reelected and this is especially true if they run a weak candidate again like Hillary Clinton.

Starbucks is a corporate brand not well liked among conservatives, and their former CEO running will not take votes away from Trump. If it was the CEO of Hobby Lobby, that’s a different story.

This is the worst news for the Democrat Party since election night when Trump was announced the winner. Perot received almost 20% of the vote in 1992. If Schultz gets a similar percentage of the vote, it’s panic time at MSNBC.

 ###

Sign up today for Chad’s FREE newsletter to receive his weekly column and “A Whittle Bit of Commentary” podcast delivered to your inbox.