Cable News Viewers Don&#8217

Off the Cuff: Bad News for Cable News Networks

Cable news ratings have been plummeting with Donald Trump no longer in office.

That’s the topic of my Off the Cuff audio commentary this week. You can listen to it by clicking on the play (arrow) button below. http://bernardgoldberg.com/wp-content/uploads/OTC-Cable-Rating s.m4a

Editor’s Note: If you enjoy these audio commentaries (along with the weekly columns and Q&A sessions), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you!

Side note: If you’re a Premium Interactive member (the $4 tier), and have a question for this Friday’s Q&A, make sure to get it to me before Wednesday night at midnight. You can use this form on my website.

Off the Cuff: Cable News Viewers Don’t Want Honest Commentary

Cable news viewers want to be entertained, not enlightened.

That’s the topic of my Off the Cuff audio commentary this week. You can listen to it by clicking on the play (arrow) button below. http://bernardgoldberg.com/wp-content/uploads/OTC-Jan-19.m4a

Off the Cuff: Turning Off Cable News in the New Year

Note: Today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary is open to all. This weekly feature is normally only available to Premium Members.

This week, I explain why I plan to watch a lot less cable news in 2021.

You can listen to it by clicking on the play (arrow) button below. http://bernardgoldberg.com/wp-content/uploads/cableNewz.m4a

One more note: If you enjoy these audio commentaries (along with the weekly columns and Q&A sessions), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family.

One last note: If you’re a Premium Interactive member (the $4 tier), and have a question for this Friday’s Q&A, make sure to get it to me before Wednesday night at midnight. You can use this form on my website.

Bernie’s Q&A: Coronavirus Edition (4/3) — Premium Interactive ($4 members) Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Editor’s Note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you!

Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Sir, I have been watching & reading a variety of sources on the Coronavirus crisis. It is very disappointing to me how little the media knows about emergency management and Incident Management structure/authorities. It seems that everyone believes the Federal government is in charge and they can just take over. The systems, legal authorities, and structures are easily researchable. Providing context of this system would be very useful in holding elected officials at all levels accountable. Have journalists just become so lazy that they are unwilling to do the research to more accurately report on this crisis? — David I don’t know much about emergency management and incident management structure/authorities, either. In fact I know nothing about these things you mention, David. And so I’m not sure how they fit in to the discussion. I listen to the daily news conferences and haven’t heard anything about these things either. I think if the president used the terms you mention, journalists would be much more likely to do the research you think they should do. I know this isn’t a satisfying answer, my friend, but the topics have not been brought up by the Coronavirus team the president has assembled … and so they’re off the radar of most journalists (if not all journalists).

“The U.S. has the most Coronavirus cases in the world.” Ok … however, what percentage of the population has the virus … that’s the info I need. You got a lot of people … you may have a lot of virus infections. Malta: 156 cases/383,000 pop = .04% of pop; UK: 22,500/63,700,000 = .035%; Italia: 102,000/60,000,000 = .17; U.S.: 141,000/330,151,000 = .042. Not great for the U.S., however, could be worse. Isn’t this the kind of info we need, Bernie, not just sensational stuff on number of cases? Am I wrong? — Mike S.

Here’s the problem, Mike. Without many more tests, we can’t know how many Americans have the virus …and so we can’t come up with a percentage. As for journalists reporting the raw numbers, the total number of cases: I’m OK with that. If it scares people, maybe it should. This is serious stuff. But to your point: As more Americans are tested, we’ll have a better idea what the percentage of the total population is. Stay tuned.

Bernie, I very much enjoyed and laughed at your April Fool’s column. Well done. From what I saw on social media, a lot of others liked it as well. However, I did notice that the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake replied to the piece on Twitter, writing, “No. Let’s just not do this today. April Fool’s is bad.” Others complained (with lots of profanity) that with the global pandemic in full swing, April Fool’s jokes were tasteless.

Is there no room for harmless and obviously satirical humor during a health crisis (especially when it had nothing to do with the health crisis)? It seems to me that we could all use a good smile or laugh right now. — Ben G.

They’re entitled to their opinions, of course. That said, I wonder if they’d be upset if someone who shared their political views posted an April Fool’s column. You know what I mean? Besides, this isn’t a joke. I really am the new Fake News Czar. Oops, I did it again. Sorry those who are offended. Not really.

Fox News has been taking a lot of criticism over a number of its commentators going out of their way to downplay the seriousness of the coronavirus crisis (to help Trump politically), even as late as mid-March. Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters, Jeanine Pirro, and Ainsley Earhardt among them. The network apparently fired Trish Regan for calling the crisis an “impeachment scam,” but she wasn’t even the worst of the bunch on this. Being that millions of viewers tune into these people every day for their news and views, do you think the network or these individuals should have to answer for stoking a false sense of public security, and probably encouraging some reckless behavior (like continuing their social daily rituals) from their viewers? — Jen R.

First let me say that Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters, Jeanine Pirro and to a lesser extent Ainsley Earhardt are Trump bootlickers who we should not take seriously. Jesse Watters in particular is a dolt. But to your main point, Jen: Yes, these sycophants should have to answer “for stoking a false sense of public security” … but FNC’s most loyal viewers aren’t complaining. Who’s going to hold them accountable? Fox News management? Tell me when you stop laughing. Any number of things could happen by the time this gets answered, but I didn’t want to pass up the chance to submit this question.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, lots of Dems (including Feinstein and Pelosi) were saying that Christine Blasey Ford should be believed based solely on her testimony because she’s a woman, and we should “believe all women.” They said this even though Ford had no evidence to confirm her accusations, and her best friend actually denied that the party in question ever occurred. SO…will Feinstein, Pelosi, Ford, and the other Dems simply believe Tara Reade now that she is accusing Joe Biden of sexual assault?

I mean, that’s what they kept shouting during the Kavanaugh hearings, so now that a Warren supporter is making these accusations against Joe Biden, I mean…they’ll simply believe her without question and dump Biden…right? RIGHT!? — Hypocritical Leftist Me Too Nonsense Regards From The Emperor

Listen to my Off the Cuff on the subject which aired last Monday.

I find myself lately focusing on COVID-19 stories that discuss the back side and recovery of the pandemic, probably because they provide a ray of hope and constructive action. In my view, we can only hunker down so long because the human body and spirit have to get out and liberate themselves. Also, we can’t just kill the patient (the U.S. and world economies) in order to cure the disease. It seems like if we increase the level of testing to show who is at low risk or has the antibodies present, those people should be allowed to re-enter society and common areas. This would be followed by a slow release of other people and activities into our communities, activities, and marketplaces. I think we’re in for a rough two months of protecting and hunkering down. June should be a realistic time frame to slowly transition into normalcy. In your opinion, what is our path out of this, and what does it look like? — Steve R.

You may be on to something Steve, but I have a concern: When the risk gets to a point when it’s low — or at least lower than it is now — what about people considered high risk — older folks, people with debilitating conditions, etc? What do they do? A younger, healthier person can assess the risk and decide what to do. That person may very likely decide it’s time to get back to business, to go out to a restaurant, whatever. The ones in high risk groups will also have to make a decision. But the consequences if they choose wrong … could be fatal. So June may indeed be a realistic time frame to move toward normalcy … for some, but not for all.

For weeks, the CDC told Americans that wearing medical/surgical masks offered no protection against the coronavirus, and that doing so was even counterproductive. As it turns out, they had only said that because they were worried that consumers would purchase too many masks, and thus diminish the supply available to hospitals and doctors offices. In fact, healthy people wearing masks while in public DOES significantly lower their risk of getting the virus, and some elected leaders are now recommending masks for regular citizens. While I understand why the CDC did what they did, I don’t like our government agencies tricking us with propaganda (instead of just leveling with us about the shortage and recommending homemade masks/bandanas). Plus, it makes me wonder how many more people caught the virus as a result. What are your thoughts? — Ian M.

I’m with you, Ian. If we should wear masks, tell us that. If we don’t need to, tell us that. But tell us the truth … otherwise we won’t believe the government next time it tells us something. And in a crisis, that can be very dangerous.

What do you think of the charge that our federal government was unprepared for the coronavirus because they were busy and distracted with Trump’s impeachment hearings? I’ve heard this mostly from Trump supporters, but even Trump seemed to shoot down that claim in a recent press conference, saying it had no effect. — Alan S.

I think it’s ridiculous. Are we really supposed to believe that the Trump administration would have been ordering ventilators and masks and hospital gowns but impeachment distracted them? I’m not buying it for a second.

Did you ever work with longtime CBS journalist Maria Mercader, who recently passed away from the coronavirus? — Joseph T.

No.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit

When Fox News’ Most Loyal Fans Turn on Fox News

I recently received a question about Fox News viewers which was sent to my Friday Q&A sessions on this website. It was from “Andy D.” who wanted to know why so many of those viewers had turned on Chris Wallace.

“Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t think I am,” Andy wrote. “Judging by online conversations and conservative blogs, it used to be that Fox News viewers respected and were generally proud to have Chris Wallace as part of the network. … But ever since Trump won, Wallace seems to be one of the more despised Fox News personalities (among the network’s viewers) — often framed as a biased anti-Trump pro-Democrat hack who needs to be fired. … In reality, he hasn’t changed at all. He’s the same guy they used to admire — fair, blunt, and still holding both sides’ feet to the fire.”

Then came the $64,000 question: “Do these Fox News viewers no longer care about the network’s credibility? Do they no longer care about having reputable, professional journalists that they can hold up as examples to the network’s critics?”

The answer I gave Andy is that the Fox News Channel’s most passionate viewers never really cared about the network’s credibility. They never really cared, either, about having professional journalists with reputations for fairness that they could hold up as examples of honest journalism to Fox’s many liberal critics. All they cared about was Fox giving them the kinds of opinions they already agreed with.

“The kind of Fox viewers you describe,” I told Andy, “don’t care one bit about anything but pumping up the president. If he does something that puts him in a bad light, and Chris Wallace says so, they turn on Wallace.”

Or, you will recall, they turn on Megyn Kelly. On August 6, 2015, at the first GOP presidential debate, she had this exchange with Donald Trump:

“You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,” Kelly began.

“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump said to applause and cheering.

“For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell,” Kelly said. “Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?”

It was a perfectly reasonable, fair, question. Except those passionate Fox viewers didn’t think so. (For the record, I’m making a distinction between Fox viewers in general and MAGA hard-right Fox viewers.)

Choosing to side with a Fox anchor or with Donald Trump was a no brainer: They chose Mr. Trump who went on a tweeting rampage, calling Kelly, among other things, a bimbo.

For those who haven’t figured it out yet, MAGA hard-right Fox viewers are loyal to Fox only when Megyn Kelly or Chris Wallace or anyone else on FNC tells them what they want to hear. When they don’t, they get hammered on social media and elsewhere. Just ask Bret Baier.

He recently pushed back on a point conservative panelist Mollie Hemingway, a reliable defender of President Trump, was making about an interview Jared Kushner gave to Politico. Kushner was asked about the meeting he had at Trump Tower in June, 2016 with a Russian who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. At one point, the Politico reporter asked Kushner, if it happened again, would he this time call the FBI.

Mollie Hemingway thought it was an old, tired question – and then blasted the media in general for not asking what, in her view, were more relevant questions about FBI misconduct and what she said was Democratic collusion with the Russians.

Baier asked her, politely but directly, if she really thought it was irrelevant to ask if Kushner would call the FBI if the Russians tried to set up a similar meeting in the future. Hemingway gave her answer and they moved on. But Fox’s passionate viewers didn’t.

Here’s just a small sample of reaction to Baier:

@BretBaier Liberal side is in full effect. He was totally disrespectful and rude to Molly Hemingway but kid gloves with that AWFUL NPR Lady! Way to Go Bret I thought you were better than that! So disappointed your turning out to be as fair and balanced as Nut Bag @ShepNewsTeam

— Rhonda Sexton (@RhondaSexton17) June 3, 2019

@MZHemingway @BretBaier was out of line.Its obvious he is a liberal.He wants to hold to his base & gain liberals.We resent his interruption & questioning of your observations. @realDonaldTrump @charliekirk11 @DFBHarvard @RyanAFournier

— Darrell Collins (@DarrellCollin19) June 4, 2019

I don’t know how you can take @BretBaier any more. He ignores all the facts and facilitates the Trump collusion charade. I used to think he was a good news man, but he’s shown himself to be just another swamp rat with TDS.

— Dave Baker (@FlyoverVet) June 4, 2019

For those of you who don’t know, TDS stands for “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Now, @BretBaier is becoming a #NeverTrump idiot. I only wish he would attack the other #NeverTrump idiots (@MaraLiasson) as much as he did @MZHemingway tonight. @foxnews is going left fast.

— Chris (@Chris_1791) June 3, 2019

Again, Baier was not “rude.” He did not “attack” Mollie Hemingway. He simply asked her a question. So why so much anger?

“Trumpism is a religion. And when someone like Baier challenges a member of the Trump faithful, it’s considered blasphemy,” my friend and fellow columnist John Daly told me after the flare up on social media.

Ever since Fox went on the air in 1996, its commentators have played to the faithful in the congregation, giving them what they want to hear. So when a real journalist asks a real question that doesn’t conform to what they’re used to, they’re understandably shaken.

Opinions they don’t want to hear aren’t what they signed up for.

That’s not how it’s supposed to be, they must be thinking. For many years, we got the kind of opinions we want, they figure. So when Chris Wallace or Megyn Kelly or Bret Baier does what a journalist is supposed to do – ask tough questions without taking sides – the Fox viewers feel betrayed. You’re supposed to be on our side, they say.

MAGA hard-right Fox viewers have abandoned their principles, at least when it comes to defending Donald Trump.

Here’s a hypothetical: Let’s say it was President Obama who said he had fallen in love with North Korea’s brutal dictator Kim Jung-un. And let’s say Mr. Obama said it was because Kim had sent him “beautiful letters.” How do you think Hannity and Ingraham and Carlson would handle that piece of news?

We know exactly how they’d handle it. And we also know how Fox’s most passionate viewers would handle it. Yet when their messiah, Donald Trump, made that ridiculous observation about his affection for a dictator who kills or imprisons his enemies, real or imagined, Mr. Trump’s loyal supporters who are glued to the Fox channel day and night, just yawned.

For some time now, politics has been a form of warfare. Cable TV news has provided the ammunition to fight the war. Cable news, I recently wrote, is a weapon — one used to either support the president or to bring him down.

Roger Ailes, the visionary who created Fox News, created something else: a loyal audience that was tired of liberal bias just about everyplace else on the TV news dial and found a home at Fox.

Ailes gave them a safe place where they could go to get their biases validated. And these days, Fox is the place they can go to hear opinion talking heads tell them how wonderful the president is and how evil his enemies are.

They don’t go to Fox News to hear tough questions asked by real journalists about a controversial president. That, they can get in a bunch of other places.

At Fox, and at CNN and MSNBC, considering the other side’s point of view is looked upon as a waste of time. The idea that Fox viewers can learn something from Trump critics is heresy. And the same goes for CNN and MSNBC viewers learning something from supporters of the president.

Andy, who sent in the question, wondered if Fox viewers no longer care about the network’s credibility. Andy, my friend: They never did. It’s just much more obvious these days, in the Age of Trump.