Fox News Channel

An absent Trump “wins” on social media

Not sure if “winning” social media counts for much, but it does show that the mindshare is with Trump, and even a formal Fox Republican presidential candidate debate doesn’t have sufficient momentum to change the Trump Juggernaut.

Donald Trump was the big winner across social media during the seventh Republican presidential debate – despite the fact that he was not even there.

Trump was the most searched-for candidate on Google during the debate, according to data supplied by the search engine, which co-sponsored the event with Fox News.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush also gained traction on Google.

Trump dominated Twitter mentions among all candidates during the debate, according to Brandwatch, a social media monitoring company.

The billionaire businessman received roughly 130,000 Twitter mentions during the debate, according to Brandwatch. This marked a roughly 40,000-tweet decline from the previous GOP debate – which he attended.   Read more »

Donald Trump tells Fox News to stick it

Donald Trump has told Fox News to stick their debate. He won’t be attending.

US Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has withdrawn from a debate with party rivals this week out of anger at host Fox News , leaving the last encounter before Iowa’s pivotal nominating contest without the front-runner.

Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, told reporters after a combative news conference held by the candidate that Trump would definitely not be participating in the debate.

During the news conference before he addressed a large crowd in Marshalltown, Iowa, Trump expressed irritation that Fox News planned to leave in place as a moderator anchor Megyn Kelly, whose questioning of Trump at a debate last August angered him.

He also expressed displeasure at a Fox News statement on Monday night saying Trump would have to learn sooner or later that “he doesn’t get to pick the journalists” and that “we’re very surprised he’s willing to show that much fear about being questioned by Megyn Kelly”.

“I was all set to do the debate, I came here to do the debate. When they sent out the wise-guy press release done by some PR person along with (Fox News chairman) Roger Ailes, I said: ‘Bye bye, OK’.

“Let’s see how much money Fox makes without me in the debate,” he added.   Read more »

News IS Entertainment

Much was made about John Key describing Campbell Live as “entertainment”…failing entertainment but entertainment nonetheless.

The left-wing were agog…how dare they call Saint John’s show entertainment…yet that is precisely how people consume news these days.

A recent article at Baekdal on wider media trends explains why. But the news segment is fascinating:

What about TV news? Is that dead? Well, this one is tricky.

Dedicated news channels like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are not really something people watch because of the news. They are more a form of entertainment and as such fit perfectly with the 2.8 hours of leisure TV per day.

As such, neither of these (nor their European counterparts) are in any real trouble. There will be changes commanded by the nature of on-demand TV (and the internet in general), but no real ‘disruption’.    Read more »

Tagged:

Does anyone still read the news?

Apparently not according to research by Microsoft. 

If analysts at Microsoft Research are correct, a startling number of American Web users are no longer paying attention to the news as it is traditionally defined. In a recent study of “filter bubbles,” Sharad Goel, Seth Flaxman, and Justin Rao asked how many Web users actually read the news online. Out of a sample of 1.2 million American users, just over fifty thousand, or four per cent, were “active news customers” of “front section” news. The other ninety-six per cent found other things to read.

The authors defined an active news customer as someone who read at least ten substantive news articles and two opinion pieces in a three-month period—if you remove the requirement of reading opinion pieces, the number of news readers climbs to fourteen per cent. The authors studied U.S.-based Web users who, between March and May of 2013, accumulated a total of 2.3 billion page views.

News can be a vague category; the authors defined by collecting news sites with appreciable traffic (the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and Fox News), blogs (Daily Kos and Breitbart), and regional dailies (the Seattle Times and the Denver Post). Using “machine learning” algorithms, the authors separated what, based on word usage, they considered front-section news from the other content on news sites, like sports, weather, life style, and entertainment. What’s left is the narrow, classical news article, about, say, the State of the Union, as opposed to one about the latest adventures of Justin Bieber or Farrah Abraham.

Various influences shaped the study. The data was collected only from Internet Explorer users (who, the authors say, tend to be slightly older), and it represents only those who agreed to make their Web-browsing history available. Additionally, just because people don’t surf news Web sites doesn’t mean that they don’t get news from other sources, like physical newspapers, talk radio, Twitter, “The Colbert Report,” or the evening news.

That said, the sample size, 1.2 million, is impressive—far greater than that of a typical survey. And the number of people whom the study shows to be paying attention to the news online is consistent with the low ratings of cable news during the same period. Also, as opposed to relying on what people said they did, the Microsoft researchers drew on a record of what they actually did, which is significantly different. In a 2012 Pew survey, for example, thirty-nine per cent of people said that they had read news online the day before. The difference between the two numbers—fourteen and thirty-nine—may, in part, reflect different definitions of “news.” (The Pew survey did not define the term.) And, of course, what people like to think they do is often different from what they do.   Read more »

What the NZ equivalent of Fox News?

Andrew Sullivan

The US has Fox News, some say that the UK has the Daily Mail as the proxy for Fox News in the UK:

A middle-market tabloid, with a daily readership of four and a half million, it reaches four times as many people as the Guardian, while being taken more seriously than the one paper that outsells it, the Sun. In January, its Web arm, Mail Online, surpassed that of the New York Times as the most visited newspaper site in the world, drawing fifty-two million unique visitors a month.

The Mail’s closest analogue in the American media is perhaps Fox News. In Britain, unlike in the United States, television tends to be a dignified affair, while print is berserk and shouty. The Mail is like Fox in the sense that it speaks to, and for, the married, car-driving, homeowning, conservative-voting suburbanite, but it is unlike Fox in that it is not slavishly approving of any political party. One editor told me, “The paper’s defining ideology is that Britain has gone to the dogs.”

But it raises the question…What is the New Zealand equivalent of Fox News?

Another question…is it time for a NZ Fox News to cater for all of us sick of the left wing media and their pink tinted glasses?