I confess that I struggle like an inept cultural anthropologist to understand the mindset of the typical Fox News viewer, but I wonder if there will be a difference in how the male and female fans of that network react to the revelations that the female bombshells Fox employs were treated as nothing more than sex toys by Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and senior management.
For many of the men, I imagine this doesn’t overly disturb them. It may even titillate them, as they imagine themselves having that kind of power over beautiful women. I just can’t shake the suspicion, however, that female viewers will find this is as a very disturbing betrayal.
The latest news on this front is coming from a lawsuit filed by Andrea Tantaros. Ms. Tantaros makes a variety of sensational allegations, including some damaging accusations against O’Reilly, actor Dean Cain, former Senator Scott Brown, and Fox News executive Bill Shine.
Cain and Brown touched Tantaros inappropriately on the set, and in the case of Sen. Brown, a promise not to book him in the future was broken. O’Reilly crudely propositioned her and stopped booking her on his show after he was turned down. Mr. Shine advised Tantaros that Roger Ailes is a very powerful man and that she should drop any complaints about his sexual harassment. She alleges that she was forced out of the network shortly after raising questions with Shine. And, of course, Shine retained his position and was promoted when Ailes left the network in disgrace.
The complaint goes into a lot of detail about what it’s like for an attractive woman to interact with Roger Ailes. For example, Ailes made the following comments, allegedly, in a single conversation with Tantoros:
I imagine that list there is causing some consternation at Fox headquarters today, but I’m more interested in how it makes women who watch Fox feel about what they’ve been seeing on the air all these years, and how they might feel about watching Fox in the future.
As for Bill O’Reilly, he seems to have come through the falafel incident fairly well, but sometimes these things reach a tipping point. Will he see a dip in his ratings?
“Will Fox See a Female Viewer Backlash?”
Nope a lot of the women I know who routinely watch Fox are middle aged to older white women.
And antecdotally they all have the same antiquated ideas of women in a workplace that some chauvanistic dudes do…
I can’t see them automatically siding with the women…
besides they don’t watch Fox News cause of the women themselves, just that these women spout the rhetoric they feel comfortable with.
Your’re right and yet totally wrong. The women you refer to do, for the most part have the the same ideas BUT from a totally different source.
In my opinion, the situation is similar to comparing the loaded meanings of linguistic phrases. Comparing “he passed on” to the phrase “he kicked the bucket”, the surface meaning is pretty much the same: someone has died. The underlying meaning and linguistic deep structures, however are so totally different as to have almost come from different languages. The former implies a regret and a sense of respect for the deceased(assuming no sarcasm). The latter shows severe disrespect for the deceased or for the act of dying.
Regular male viewers of O’Reilly (and by extension, Fox News) could care less about sexual peccadillos (and yes, for many of them, blackmail sex IS a minor offence). As long as the talking head is saying what they want to hear all is good.
All US females, however, have been exposed to blackmail sex before. I doubt you could find ANY female in this country who has not encountered this in the first or second degree (happened to me or to someone I know well). They will not consider the offence minor — even if they do not immediately consider if rape. It will take time to reverberate thru the congnitive dissonance but it will get there. When it does, these women will stop watching.
Whether or not there will be a “backlash” in the sense that occurred with Rush Limbaugh is more problematic. Just because the women viewers of Fox News stop regarding Fox News as the end all and be all of information, does not mean they will change their minds about their worldview. However, with any change of viewing habits (including not watching ANYTHING) will come the realization that something is rotten in Denmark. Which COULD cause a change in worldview.
To quote a ruler of the only country in SE Asia to declare war on the US: ‘Tis a puzzlement.
I’m going to guess that the truth will be somewhere in the middle. Women who have been watching Fox for years will consciously assume that these accusation are not true, and will claim that they don’t care at all. But over time, female viewership will slowly decline. If asked, the women will say it had nothing to do with this. They’re just busy, you know? Or maybe Judge Judy is on at the same time. It will make a difference, but I doubt they’ll ever admit it.
Yes,
All networks need to replenish their ‘supply’ of viewers. So..how does Fox do this?
Everything adds up, a slow bleed of viewers won’t be replaced by other viewers as they age, they will be repelled by this, and the other overt mysogynistic behavior.
This is one reason why I believe Fox will not be the same place five years from now. Once the kids take permanent control they will change the business model to something sustainable. IMO it’s already started with the Ailes departure.
It’s not unlike the situation the Republican Party finds itself in. They also need to replenish their ‘supply’. They have also managed to repell the youngsters they need.
They also will need to change in order to stay relevant.
.
Exactly. Fox didn’t sound completely insane when it started. They worked their way up to it, slowly brainwashing their audience as they went. So now their audience consists of old people who didn’t realize what was happening to them, and middle aged people who were raised on it. But it’s nearly impossible to get new viewers because anyone who wasn’t along for the ride sees them for what they are. They have to change or they’re finished.
Way too optimistic.
Yup.
I want to clarify something. When I said ‘when the kids take permanent control’ I meant the Murdoch kids. I think what Fox is going through right now is the kids cleaning house, in the only way it was possible. It’s already touching the other executives besides Ailes.
Both Fox and the Republicans are in a hard spot. Before they come back, it’s going to get rough for them.
.
My admittedly limited knowledge of female Fox viewers (but I do know quite a few) leads me to believe that this won’t make any difference to them. Absolutely none of them were upset with the Bill O’Reilly stuff; they simply didn’t care (I guess).
Look, female Fox viewers are entranced by a network that’s overtly sexist from the get-go. Why should this bother their beautiful minds?
My bet? Not much will happen. The show will go on as before.
cease your struggles Boo.
lf the overt misogyny hasn’t already sent them running for the exit, this surely won’t.
nothing to see here…iokiyar.
Women who watch Fox will not care.
OT: Ex-Aide Suggests Black Communities Not ‘Safe Environment’ For Trump Rallies
By TIERNEY SNEED
Published AUGUST 23, 2016, 11:35 AM EDT
Donald Trump’s ex-campaign manager on Monday defended his former boss’ choice to deliver speeches supposedly aimed at black voters while in largely white communities, explaining that the last time Trump tried to give a speech in a black neighborhood it was “overrun” and “not a safe environment.”
“You know what ‘ amazing to me is that no one remembers that Donald Trump went to go have a rally in Chicago at the university,” Corey Lewandowski said on CNN. “And do you remember what happened? It was so chaotic and it was so out of control that Secret Service and the Chicago Police Department told him, you could not get in and out of that facility safely, and that rally was canceled.”
In March, the Trump campaign canceled a rally planned at the University of Illinois in Chicago because of protests outside of the venue.
“And you showed the footage many times of the individuals who attended that rally. Donald Trump had that rally booked,” Lewandowski added.
The other panelists pressed Lewandowksi on what that event had to do with the current scrutiny of Trump’s comments to black voters.
“That is a black community. He went to the heart of Chicago to go and give a speech to the University of Chicago in a campus, which is predominantly African-American, to make that argument,” Lewandowski said, mistaking the name of the university where the speech was supposed to take place. “And you know what happened? The campus was overrun and it was not a safe environment.”
…………………………………..
First of all, it was the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that neighborhood has been gentrified, and his ass was run off because folks weren’t taking his nonsense.
I saw that. What a maroon he and his surrogates are. Won’t matter to the White Supremacists who’ll vote for him, of course.
Trump also told Billo that he learned super secret ways of stopping crime cold from “top people” in the Chicago PD, who, apparently, know some super secret ways of stopping all crime forever. Guess Chicago’s black ops torture place isn’t the answer, so one can only wonder what the secret sauce actually is.
Maroons. Utter buffoons.
Concur. ” University of Illinois at Chicago” and “University of Chicago” a VAST difference in reputation.
If those comments represent the ‘smoking gun,’ then no. They won’t see a significant backlash. Everyone here could cobble together the official Fox defense for those. He said the same thing about men. It’s office gossip. PC gone mad! You can’t even tell a woman she’d be fun to go to a nightclub with anymore! You can’t compliment her tits–I mean, her figure–I mean, her fashion sense. Liberals ruin everything.
The other argument, First Prize: She was asking for it!
Second prize goes for: Look at the way those women dress!!1! What do they expect1!!?
Fox women won’t give on iota of a sh*t about this, nor will it change their viewing habits. They’re probably all still mad at Megan Kelly for lobbing hard ball questions at Don the Con. After Sainted Sister Sarah of the Tundra Trash, everyone knows you only lob the softest of soft balls at R candidates.
Aack! Of course, you’re right. I failed to sink -quite- low enough …
Seem to recall similar comments from Democratic women in the late 1990s. Partisanship does seem to trump sisterhood.
About whom? Fox-host women? Other GOP women (as “partisanship does seem to trump sisterhood” might be taken to imply)?
“similar”? Similar how? And HOW similar?
Can you tell my skepticism is evoked by your statement? In part because I DON’T seem to recall that.
In fact, it looks suspiciously like a knee-jerk both-siderist reflex, whereby any evidence of wrongdoing/bad behavior by a GOPer (or, as in this case, GOP flack/propagandist) MUST elicit some counter-balancing condemnation of some Dem somewhere for SOMEthing.
Guess you missed it. Wish I had.
Anyone else getting autoplay video ads? They’re really messing with my browser.
Seem to be the add between the story and the comments that’s the culprit but I’m not sure
Yes. I have that problem sometimes. Most annoying.
booman might not like to see such a recommendation in his comments.
OTOH, I am spared the annoyance you mention. I see no ad between the story and the comments. Nor do I wait through it loading and autoplaying.
If they don’t want me to block them, they (and/or booman, though I don’t know how much say he has in what ads get put up here) shouldn’t autoplay.
I know I’ve seen atrios repeatedly rail against them (and how they make many sites basically intolerable if you try to access something on them), and state that he removes them if/when he finds them on his site.
I don’t use adblock because I can’t really donate to a lot of these sites so I figure the least I can do is see and click on some of the ads
your nobility (or both!) exceeds mine. And good on ya for that.
same as he writes, I don’t adblock [new verb, evolution of language]. and do click on some ads, I like some of the ads actually
In terms of cable news viewers, Fox is large. But the total audience for cable news is very small. 2014
While it seems to be known that Fox viewers skew “conservative,” not much else can be said about them as a group. The women viewers possibly have more complicated opinions about the Fox women presenters than men do. Wouldn’t have escaped their notice that these women were held up as being news professionals while also groomed to look like eye-candy. Apparently that didn’t offend them or they would have changed the channel. And in general, women aren’t too sympathetic towards other women who are fine using their T&A as long as the money is good and only squeal when things stop being as promising.
I.e., both that “The women viewers possibly have more complicated opinions about the Fox women presenters than men do” and that “in general, women aren’t too sympathetic towards other women who are fine using their T&A as long as the money is good and only squeal when things stop being as promising.”
Though when it comes to what women (Fox viewers or not!) think and/or want, I am limited by being an “outside” observer.
I don’t think it’ll change their viewing habits, but I like to think they’ll understand it’s a source of huge embarrassment for Fox News and with good reason. They may be defensive about that, but they’ll know it doesn’t reflect well on the network.
I doubt that they care about how it “looks” as a network. If they have any thoughts about it somehow looking bad, they’ll blame it on the intensely and immensely liberal media being mean to Fox and all conservatives yet again. Not snark.
Rachel Maddow’s show has been gaining ground in viewership. Part of the larger picture of people in general tuning out Fox?
Ex Breitbart fellow in Maddow’s show last night said that Steve Bannon watches her show every night ‘because she leaves marks’.
Yeah, I saw that on the Maddow show last night. It was hilarious to watch Rachel shake her head ruefully as her guest shared that quote from Bannon. Gobsmacked, she was.
Trump “Left Nothing But Ruins Everywhere He’s Gone”
Published on Aug 23, 2016
Paul Friel’s dad was “living the American Dream.” His family cabinet-making business had grown, and Donald Trump hired it to make all the cabinetry in his new Trump Plaza in Atlantic City. But after the job was done, Trump refused to pay the full amount of what was owed. Friel’s father filed a lawsuit, but his lawyer advised him the legal fees would outweigh the cost of the cabinet work. Friel decided to cut his losses and drop the suit — but Trump blacklisted Friel’s company anyway. Friel eventually had to lay off many of his workers, who had become his family. “Donald Trump thinks he can make America great again, but he’s left nothing but ruins everywhere he’s gone,” Paul says.
I don’t think current viewers will tune out anytime soon.
But given that it’s an older demographic their ratings are very likely to go in secular decline because they won’t be getting enough younger viewers to replace them.
Plus Ailes was a talented guy and he’s gone. He built late night CNBC decades ago and that was based on a different branding principle. Even if he was sexually harassing the talent and the guests everywhere he went.
Faux News has probably peaked but not solely for these escapades.
They very likely need to get someone with an entirely different vision to morph it into something completely different. MTV doesn’t even show music videos anymore – but it still appeals to young adults. That’s the kind of makeover Faux News needs to complete in the next 5 years or so. Their male headliners are old, their management is old, their audience is old. Being the Lawrence Welk show of cable news was only going to last so long anyway.
Based on limited local conversation the range of comments by women:
“It’s a common occurrence. Almost every one of my workplaces there’s at least one boss like Ailes.”
“Didn’t they know the score. They could find another job.”
“How much were they being paid?”
“Glad Ailes finally got it.”
These are from older women rouoghly our age, some of whom tend toward “ain’t it awful” sessions in which was just one of many bad news stories passed on.
Other than those, there’s not been a lot of conversation in our circles about FoxNews. Part of it is self-censorship of contentious political topics. No defenses of Ailes or FoxNews; no connection of FoxNews to what is happening with the Trump campaign.
“…no connection of FoxNews to what is happening with the Trump campaign.”
Sigh. That’s what is saddest and most aggravating.
My fundie rightwing sibs – all in their “golden years” – despise Trump and claim they won’t vote for him. Excessively unlikely to vote for Clinton. My guess is they’ll leave the ballot blank for POTUS and vote down ballot.
But they’re all addicted to Fox/Rush/Glenn, and they see abso-effen-lutely NO connection between their fact-free, inflaming rightwing media and the rise of Trump. None. They absolutely LOVE Rudi Ghouliani. LOVE him.
We never discuss politics, and when I visit, I have to the leave the room when Fox comes on. I have tried, over the years, to watch it when I’m visiting them – just to see what’s on – but, for the life of me, I simply cannot bear it. It’s just too awful and totally one lie after another. And so negative. Yuck.
There might be a generation gap (dividing line at age 45 to 50) as well. While there may not have been many women in professional positions when they were young, their numbers increased significantly during the ’70s and ’80s. Sexual harassment did exist before and during that period — hence instituting it as illegal — but the workplace cultures did much to minimize it. Men may not have been so clear as to when they crossed the line, but most women knew how to put them in their place when they did. Who cares if ultimately the law was on a woman’s side if she had to suffer years of harassment before getting her day in court? In everyday encounters of such bad behavior what the new laws did was to empower women to say, knock it off, and men couldn’t as easily dismiss that message as it now came with the power of law.
Why so many women rallied to Anita Hills defense is that in manner and dress she clearly hadn’t in any way contributed to the boorishness of Thomas. Women easily recognized that Hill was too demure to tell Thomas to shove it and she was exactly the sort of woman that most needed anti-sexual harassment policies and laws. What was shocking was how weak (non-existent?) the application of such policies were at the EEOC.