Does Anybody Notice

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Because:

It's only written once, distributed tons of places that may or may not even list the story on their site (accessible via google sitemaps, etc.)

Jesse Jackson charged returns About 48,400 results (0.27 seconds)

Marco Rubio + Water returns About 49,200 results (0.24 seconds)

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

If that was the case the news would not be on TV. Again, unless you are specifically doing a search it's a bogus argument. The media is alive and well on TV and everybody I now watches the local evening news. Yes I live in NJ and no they are not covering it.

I'd imagine that everyone you "now" (sic) is a pretty small slice of the country's demographic divisions.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Because:

It's only written once, distributed tons of places that may or may not even list the story on their site (accessible via google sitemaps, etc.)

Jesse Jackson charged returns About 48,400 results (0.27 seconds)

Marco Rubio + Water returns About 49,200 results (0.24 seconds)

Clicking on the second link only returns 46,200.

Again though, even if the story is only listed once, I am not sure why a good measure of reach would not include how far it is distributed. The sitemap issue could certainly complicate the analysis, but it seems like both of these stories would be subject to the same issue, and I have no idea why they would react to this issue in a different way.

[CHFG8R]

I don't care what side you ascribe to, unless you are a complete idiot (Fred?), the amount of attention this received and the contention that this somehow could hurt his election chances in 4 years is somewhat disturbing for its complete and utter vapidity.

If this truly does matter in the current political spectrum, then we'd better all (Rs and Ds and everything inbetween) grab our ankles. Because we are completely F--Ked as a nation.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

I'd imagine that everyone you "now" (sic) is a pretty small slice of the country's demographic divisions.

Nearly half of Americans still watch the news

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Nearly half of Americans still watch the news

I watch the news all the time. . . when I want (BayNews 9 - 24-hour local cable channel).

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Clicking on the second link only returns 46,200.

Again though, even if the story is only listed once, I am not sure why a good measure of reach would not include how far it is distributed. The sitemap issue could certainly complicate the analysis, but it seems like both of these stories would be subject to the same issue, and I have no idea why they would react to this issue in a different way.

It's an entirely valueless metric. It doesn't measure scope of coverage nor reach.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Nearly half of Americans still watch the news

If you read the report, that's 48% of people who regularly consume news on a daily basis, not 48% of Americans.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

If you read the report, that's 48% of people who regularly consume news on a daily basis, not 48% of Americans.

What does it say below the poll?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Huh?

The Pew Research survey showed that among people that regularly consume news from any source, 48% get it from television in 2012.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Huh?

The Pew Research survey showed that among people that regularly consume news from any source, 48% get it from television in 2012.

That was not shabs claim. His claim were only people 65+ watch the news which we all know is ludicrous

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

That was not shabs claim. His claim were only people 65+ watch the news which we all know is ludicrous

My claim was that far fewer people watch the. 6:30 EST PM national news than they used to.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

My claim was that far fewer people watch the. 6:30 EST PM national news than they used to.

That was not what you said

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

That was not shabs claim. His claim were only people 65+ watch the news which we all know is ludicrous

Well it looks like he said "most people under 60" don't. My point was simply to point out that it isn't 50% of Americans, it's 50% of news consumers.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Well it looks like he said "most people under 60" don't. My point was simply to point out that it isn't 50% of Americans, it's 50% of news consumers.

Well ceratinly we can't expect chidren to be watching the news or for those under 30 for that matter.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Well I mean if you look at that data it works out to slightly more than 1/3 of people 18-49 (prime demo) that are news consumers get their news from television. Which leaves about 60-65% from that demographic (and more if you include non-consumers) who don't.

People are watching less television for news over the last few decades with a slight uptick in 2012.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Well I mean if you look at that data it works out to slightly more than 1/3 of people 18-49 (prime demo) that are news consumers get their news from television. Which leaves about 60-65% from that demographic (and more if you include non-consumers) who don't.

People are watching less television for news over the last few decades with a slight uptick in 2012.

I don't think people are watching less television, it's just think the gene pool has been reduced to reality shows.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I don't think people are watching less television, it's just think the gene pool has been reduced to reality shows.

Well television viewership is absolutely down, but I meant solely in the context of news:



Cable news had a huge uptick following 9/11 but has had a generally aggregate slow decline in the last four years.

[JerseyGator01]

If you really want perspective on news coverage, do a search for a Mrs. Morbelli, who died last week from a botched abortion. I couldn't find her name in a search on any of several major news outlets, even Fox.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

We can't afford to elect a president who needs to take a swig of water on occasion! It would be a disaster!

or uses a teleprompter.