News outlets and the political lean of their primary consumers

ABC is most balanced, apparently.

Not a ton surprising here except perhaps the New York Times. Maybe that’s how the NYT wants it.

 

Is there a single surprise on the list? I say no. The Times political coverage and op-ed pages are deliberately designed to get hate clicks from their suckers, er, readers, and it's been a smashing commercial success. I haven't watched cable news in so long, I can't even believe people still do. Huffing paint thinner kills less brain cells.

 

I've watched an ABC newscast - it's terrible. Once they get past the A block it's all fluff. Maybe 90 seconds of world news, very video and graphic heavy, little depth.

 

So idiots watch Fox News. We've known this for decades.

 

Alice loves network news, and so I watch a lot of it. (Hey, we're 70, she's entitled to her habits.). ABC is terrible but the others ain't much better. 1. First they do a headline summary of what's coming next, cutting precious seconds out of each of those stories. 2. They're all essentially the Weather Channel. The fires on the West Coast and hurricanes are indeed national news. Blizzards in Montana and nor'easters in New England, not to mention, "wow, it's July 20th and it's hot!" stories are not. 3. The mandatory heartwarming "America, you're great" last story. Fuck that. I'd give an Emmy to the broadcast that ends with an "America, you suck and here's why" segment.

 

ABC hasn't been good since Peter Jennings died.

 

I do like Lester Holt. Always have. Probably the anchor I'd turn to if the world was ending.

Not a fan of Stephanopoulus or Muir. Cable news generally. Really enjoy the BBC Global News daily podcast. NPR irritates me, I'm guessing they have a mandate that they have to do a story on a marginalized group facing hardship during every broadcast.
I do think it's good that they look out for those stories not being covered elsewhere, but like The New Yorker too often - I almost think it's a fetish to satisfy a weird kink in their audience to know that other people are suffering more.

 

That’s...not a good thing IMO.

 

I completely agree. But that's how it works there. I guess when you passed up putting a billion into Google back in the early '90s in favor of buying the Boston Globe for a billion five and then wind up giving that away, it's all just playing catch up.

 

I can take or leave Lester Holt. If the world were ending, I would probably be doing something far more decadent than tuning into a newscast.

Regarding the idea that NPR has a mandate to do a story on a marginalized group facing hardship on every broadcast, that is only the half of it. The segment has to be a full 10 minutes in length; the narrative must include at least one mother-child pair suffering greatly and the report will always conclude with a prayerful tone as the reporter wonders how this circumstance could possibly be allowed to happen. And then NPR will go to its "8 Great Minutes Of Begging" as it asks everyone to empty their wallets and send the cash to NPR...

 

Think this is pretty close:

 

I think the one hour of actual news Fox News does a day (really a half hour because they spend the last 30 minutes with a heavily weighted panel) is as legit as anything out there.