In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I do misquote you. My apologies. However, your "nearly", which I omitted, doesn't change your meaning all that much, and certainly doesn't affect my contention with your overall statement. They don't do "nearly" as well in the younger demographic as compared to whom? Themselves?
And the answer is, yes, compared to themselves. The truth of the matter is that they kick ass in that demographic. Just not as much ass as in the older age group. You see that as a weakness on their part. And I think Alabama is a paper tiger because they only scored 42 AND gave up 14 to ND in the championship.
Besides, everyone knows younger people hold way more liberal views than the elderly. That they lead in the younger demographic is actually surprising to me.
And do they break down viewership based on educational level? I'm interested in knowing the educational level of the networks' viewership...
"Nearly as" totally changes the meaning. The way you quoted me, it means that Fox News does not do well. I did not claim that. The way that I wrote it, I was comparing how Fox does in the 25-54 category relative to its competitors to how it does in all categories compared to its competitors. I.e., the way that I wrote my statement it was clearly true. The way you quoted it, the statement was ambiguous and arguable and you in fact argued it and asked for clarification.
Younger people do tend to be more liberal. I agree. That is one of the problems that Fox News fights. It has an extremely large viewership. However, the viewership is not the one that tends to bring in the money. The viewership tends to be older (not a good demographic for advertisers) and less educated (i.e. less money to spend and therefore less desirable for advertisers). More educated and younger people tend to be more liberal.
Fox News also fights another problem. Some advertisers do not wish to be associated with some of Foxes pundits, because they are afraid that it will lose them sales (largely Beck in the past and to a much lesser extent Hannity).
By the way here is how December went:
I do not agree with a lot of the articles opinions. It is extremely liberal. But the facts about how MSNBC did are true. MSNBC had great gains against Fox and actually beat Fox in the coveted (by advertisers) 25-54 age group. One month does not a trend make. I suspect that what CS wrote is true, that some people realized the bull about how the polls were wrong when they turned out to be right and Foxes pundits turned out to be totally wrong. For those, this is likely a real trend. I also agree with HawaiiKai that there were some conservatives that were upset with the results of the election and they just tuned out for awhile. This group is temporary and not part of a trend.
I believe your numbers have already been addressed in another thread. The listening/viewing audience is back.
While my misquoting does mischaracterize the meaning of that sentence, it was easy of me to dismiss your use of "nearly as" because the rest of your post was so full of gloating and slamming of Fox, that it seemed you had missed the fact that your own sentence did not claim that Fox had not done well. So, your opening sentence was a non-sequiter and you can surely see why I would misremember it.
And my point still stands. They kick ass not as much in the 25-54 age bracket. So how in God's name do the other networks manage to stay afloat? Crayon graphics? Four hours of programming a day?
I think you are GREATLY overstating/inventing some problem that Fox is having...
You did not misunderstand my post? You were worried that I misunderstood my own post so you misquoted it? Seriously?
Are you also making the patently wrong statement that the rest of my post was so full of gloating and slamming Fox because you are worried that I misunderstood my post? You really know that was false, but you are assuming that I believe it is true?
You misquoted me because you assumed I meant the wrong statement in your misquote rather than the accurate statement that I made?
Is this a joke? If you are being serious, I do not know how to have a discussion with you. You assumed that I meant something other than what I wrote even though the assumption was illogical and what I wrote was accurate.
This post was edited by Morethanafan 18 months ago
Of CoUrSE It Is NoThiNG MoRE ThaN A leFtist SmOkEScReEN/MiRaGE, At BeST!!!
TheY CoNTiNuE To CoME BaCK In DrOVeS.
MeMBeR SiNcE 9/11/2011
MaY GOD BLesS ThE U.S.C. TROJAN'S, AnD AMeRiCA,---FoR ALLL ETeRNiTY!!!
We clearly don't know how to argue with each other. Your opening premise (that Fox, compared to itself, was less awesome in an important demographic) did not match the rest of your post (they are in some kind of trouble and better watch out - their days are numbered).
It was disengenuous of me to say that I was editing you because you had clearly misunderstood yourself. Check the batteries in your sarcasm meter.
Instead I ask you to consider that I clearly respect your reasoning powers, and couldn't understand this ONE time how you could have picked a fact (Fox kicks all other networks' asses around the block and back again) and used that as support for your "Fox is in trouble" post. But please think this before replacing your batteries.
Huh? I did not post that they better watch out and that their days are numbered. Perhaps that is where the disconnect lies. Stank wrote that in a post in this thread (the first and third posts of this thread). Perhaps that is why you accused me of gloating and slamming Fox. Stank's posts could be characterized that way. Are you attributing Stank's posts at the beginning of this thread to me? If not, I am confused.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports