"(It is physically impossible to learn anything substantive by watching cable TV news. It's like trying to grow muscles by drinking Coke.)"

Just wanted to say that this is one of your finest parentheticals yet, "M.S."

TV news was not always garbage, but I stopped watching 25 years ago. On the rare occasions when I visit where a TV is on, I see nothing to change my mind.

Can anyone explain why the Fox News-Tramps all look like women you wouldn't pick up in a bar for fear of catching something ?

There's still news on TV?

Now blogging, there's an informative medium for ya! Not like that useless TV. TV's all opinion and partisanship and the almost complete absence of substantive facts. The devil take it.

"Television is fundamentally a terrible medium for communicating events and public affairs."

I disagree.
CSPAN still does good work and if you look at TV formats from the 1960's and 70's, when interviews were long, say an hour, TV anchors actually produced good dialogue on public affairs issues.

The 24 hour news cycle destroyed television news. Now it is all sound bites and talking points. If you can't say it in 15 seconds, don't bother.

I hear fewer people read newspapers now. do you have a similarly indignant diatribe on that?

Watch BBC America.

You will get the impression that the US is full of intelligent, articulate, thoughtful people.

Which it is.

Real debate, real analysis, real people.

And the best bit, is one learns just a little about what is going on in strange corners of the world.

Oh I forgot.

Read the blogs where regulars like bampbs and Pascover make us laugh out loud.

I'd like to see these numbers contrasted with other news sources to be quite this dismissive about cable news' influence. Also, in another blog post another commenter mentioned opinion leaders. Cable news might be more important if its watchers represent virtually the entire population of really annoying friends that won't stop talking politics when you go out for a beer (I will speculate that myself and many fellow commenters fall into this category as well). These people probably each influence several more not as politics obsessed people as well.

Or it may be that cable news is like the recent Daily Show skit where he surfs the chat roulette site and finds nothing but other reporters (and a few people not wearing pants).

M.S., are you eating Jaspers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Santaroga_Barrier

I'm generally in agreement about the uselessness of cable news commentary, and most of the day these channels usually are a waste of time. But when a real, rapidly unfolding news event comes up (i'm thinking like 9/11, earthquake,...military coup in mexico) having that continuous coverage can actually be very valuable and informative. So i'm not prepared to write it off completely.

May I just say balderdash? This article is wishful thinking from the Alinsky left. How can Barack Obama fundamentally transform American if the people keep squirming and saying no? People are watching cable TV alright. And they are listening to talk radio.

=======================

Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Posted on 10 March 2010 by Robert Seidman

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for March 09, 2010

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,464,000 viewers
CNN – 405,000 viewers
MSNBC –374,000 viewers
CNBC – 210,000 viewers
HLN – 308,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,809,000 viewers
CNN – 602,000 viewers
MSNBC –909,000 viewers
CNBC – 160,000 viewers
HLN –638,000 viewers

Read the full story: http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news

That's a great picture along with the blog entry: "Priest questions whether Sean is a good Catholic". Sean Hannity looks troubled, like he's about to cry.

But anyway, the picture is a good example as to how some of the stuff on cable news can be a waste of time, and its almost more about interesting or entertaining random nonsense than anything important. I would just disagree to the extent that cable news is categorically dismissed. Sometimes there's good stuff on there, like when elected representatives go on and make their pitches.

The great hope when 24-hour news began was to be more broadly informed. Somehow, the reverse occurred. Instead, the same story is repeated ad infinitum, and into minutiae that is clearly pointless.

When I lived in the US, I was sad that I never knew what was going on, and others were surprised by that too, but watching the news is intolerable. Then I managed to get Canadian channels. What a lifesaver!

Marshabar,
What does "Alinsky left" mean?

SirWellington, I think he means radicals who dress like investment bankers.

I suspect the nameless manufacturer of a popular obesity beverage would settle for a cover story extolling the previously unpublicized benefits of its product. To wit, lower life expectancy will help lower Social Security payments in the long run. Big Pharma can develop and sell more medications to treat diabetes and related ailments. Dentists can sell more teeth whiting procedures, etc. I can see no similar corollary benefits to cable news.
Disparaging this world wide product is not appropriate. Well said bampbs.
If the Economist won't run it, perhaps The Onion will do it.

Marshabar, add those numbers up and you get roughly 5 million.

House MD averages 14 million American viewers.
30 million Americans watch American Idol per week.
Over 100 million watch the Super Bowl.

Cable news reaches an audience equivalent to 1/3 of the average House episode, 1/6 of the average American Idol episode, and 1/20 of the average Super Bowl.

Put another way, out of the 300 million Americans, cable news reaches less than 2%.

billatcrea,
Alinsky-left means something like secret Marxist revolution agitator and he implies it about the writer. It's got to be hands down the worst slur I've seen thrown around here.

Coca Cola is good for headaches, nausea and for keeping you up all night...but it would probably work better with the cocaine in it...which also might solve the issue with it causing obesity...