Talk:Fox News viewership drops by half in 6 months

this article made me laugh, or are u just jealous that Fox still has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined? what a joke http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/stories/2008/12/30/fox_news_channel_viewership.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.195.189 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

can this be NPOV without comparing more extensively to other networks? this gives the impression that Fox is the only one to lose viewers since the election. The title is misleading. (I got exited at the thought of Fox's demise, but was quite disappointed)

More comparison with other networks would be a good thing. The original story made it sound like Fox was going down the tubes, but after a little digging it sounds like there may be a general trend. Also, I tried to find evidence that Fox's bias was the cause for the loss, as some have suggested, but there's no data to support the idea, that I could find. It seems equally possible that other stations have adopted Fox's tactics to compete (a very bad thing). More research into this would be very worthwhile, if someone is interested. BryceHarrington 03:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd also liked to see some other stats here, rise/fall of competing channels (CNN/MSNBC/etc), other entertainment channels, and tv as a medium in and of itself. While those numbers alone are very intresting, I'd be even more intresting to know where people are going. Personally, I stopped watching Fox news shortly after it came on air, and in turn, stopped watching CNN 1 year after that because it was adopting to many tactics that I didn't care for. (Or I matured and changed in how I cared about my news presentation). In the past 2 months I haven't watched any TV, so I guess I'm not the typical viewer. Anyways I'll see if I can dig up some numbers on other channels viewership. --ORBIT 07:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll be able to find anything recent and/or accurate :( Nielsen reports range from $250 - $750 for various information, and while I'm interested, I'm not that interested :D --ORBIT 07:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources flawed

The sources cited in this article are flawed. If you dig through the links, one is completely irrelevant while the other two are taken from known-bias opinion blogs. The original article, the "CNN press release", is not cited on any of the three source pages. In addition, each of the blog sources refer back to "TV Newser" which is the offical, original "Source" of the story. No surpirse: "TV Newser" is also an opinion-blog. This story doesn't seem based in reality actually.

If one were to write a story about viewership, one would need to collate data from companies which release statistics on viewership, etc. The original source of this data, in this particular article, is a "CNN press release". This press release cannot be found. Any of the original reported on statistics cannot be found. There is not one link to a credible (non-opinion blog) news source. This is highly suspect.

It certainly seems as if this article could have originated with memetic forgeries created elsewhere on the 'net. Additionally, the case and argument of the article is deeply flawed. See above comments. Another thing that wasn't mentioned was that FNC still has 20% larger viewership in this particular prime-time demographic when compared to CNN. For NPOV, I'd imagine that should be reported too.

You fail to understand that this is negative press towards Fox News and is therefore must be true -- at least around here it seems to work that way.

This article is a great way to trash the reputation of Wikinews. If you guys have no aspirations to be more credible than the DailyKos then go right ahead and keep publishing poorly sourced left wing trash like this.

Not only is the source questionable...

But the title is also. The title states the the viewership dropped by half, but it only did so in one age group, a proper title would be "Fox News viewership of the 25-54 drops by 50%"