The news media gives its viewers what they seem to want. CNN tilts to the left and FOX tilts to the right in their presentations (evening news, e.g., not their numerous and sometimes rabid commentators' shows). However, these companies are beginning to lose many of their viewers. It appears that audiences are tiring of combative and demeaning dialogue. ABC, NBC, and CBS don't seem to be caught up in this audience decline.

ego triggers media click bait

so they cater to ego with schisms. to trigger you into clicking

Everything has its pluses and minuses.

To lower the bar for goodness would mean a deluge of false positives.

To raise the bar for the same would result in plenty of false negatives.

I guess we should take a medical approach:

Screening test: High sensitivity (False positives).

Diagnostic test: High specificity (True positives).

Is there anything to this approach, other than just advertising? — jasonm

You mean, when someone is trying to sell you something, whether a product or a point of view, they'll do whatever they can to persuade you? Well, of course they would.

However, these companies are beginning to lose many of their viewers. It appears that audiences are tiring of combative and demeaning dialogue. — jgill

I think it's just polarization. Fox viewers aren't getting tired of Fox and CNN viewers aren't getting tired of CNN. But Fox gets few CNN viewers and CNN gets few Fox viewers. It's a tradeoff between loyalty and reach.

Fox News is just one example, but CNN is probably just as guilty. — jasonm

Truly, you cannot tell the difference between CNN news and Fox "entertainment"? That says you cannot tell truth from lie even when they're clearly labeled. Remember? Fox is the outfit that defends themselves from lawsuits by arguing that no sensible person could or should take their masthead commentators seriously.

Is there anything to this approach, other than just advertising? My question for you... — jasonm

There are, amongst others, two mutually invertible paths to advocate. You can present a pimped-up version of what or who you advocate for, or paint an exaggerated picture of what you consider bad qualities of the subject you advocate against.

You can show the glorious burger. Like the nazis showed the glorious image of "the Arian". You can also show the image of the not so glorious burger of McShitty. Like the nazis showed the distorted images of the Jew", thereby implicitly communicating that they are truly existing persons or burgers.

As you have found out, and could have known, the perfect burger is far from the truth. Which is the case with all "the" subjects advocated for or against by demeanor.

Advocating by demeanor is mainly directed to "the" competing subject. Leaving out specifics of what you advocate for. It exacerbates inexorably the opposing subject by using the same tricks as used on the glorifying path.

So basically the two paths lie on the same side of a two-lane highway. The two lanes on the other side are occupied by the opponents or challengers competing with you.

The scary part is that the pictures presented in both kinds of propaganda are taken for real. The realities presented are assumed to be walking around in the jungle of life, be they burgers, people, or ideas. Thereby creating fear, aversion, or immoderate admiration without measure, which can result in correspondingly action.

Now in the case with burgers this is usually no problem. I think most people know that the burger to be expected will not have its sesame seeds as perfect in place as in the commercial, and they probably know too that McShitty's burger is not as bad as the flattened burger you found in your bag. I think that not much action is undertaken to get rid of a certain kind of burger, though I'm sure both McDonalds and McShitty want to put poison in each other's burgers.

It's getting problematic if one considers people and ideas. In this realm actions are taken almost routinely because of their very nature. People and ideas can oppose your own. Instead of taking the challenge of real people and real ideas, it is much easier to paint a charicature of them and corresponding actions to get rid of them.

But Fox gets few CNN viewers and CNN gets few Fox viewers — SophistiCat

Then why are they still, sometimes rabidly (Fox excells), ridiculing each other? To drive away the few still looking? What then will be left to do if no one they ridicule is looking anymore? What use is ridiculing if there is no one left to ridicule? Are they ridiculing people for their own clans? To give them a mouthpiece to be heard all over the world? What if no one in the world listens to the ridicule anymore? Will we be left with two clans ridiculing each other without a trace of real contact left? Which a fine condition for inhumane action to follow, as the action will be directed against an imaginary entity nowhere to be met in reality. The people against whom action is taken are very real though.

However, these companies are beginning to lose many of their viewers. It appears that audiences are tiring of combative and demeaning dialogue. — jgill

I think it's just polarization. Fox viewers aren't getting tired of Fox and CNN viewers aren't getting tired of CNN. But Fox gets few CNN viewers and CNN gets few Fox viewers. It's a tradeoff between loyalty and reach. — SophistiCat

From Forbes (1 Dec 2021):

Overall, the cable news networks saw ratings drop significantly from the same month one year ago, as the coronavirus pandemic coincided with the presidential election, driving heavy viewership. CNN experienced the most dramatic decline, dropping 77 percent from one year ago in prime, followed by MSNBC (down 59 percent) and Fox News (down 35 percent). The drop-offs were even bigger in the key demo, with CNN experiencing a year-over-year decline of fully 84 percent in prime time. MSNBC’s decline was 74 percent, and Fox News had the smallest year-over-year drop, down 49 percent.

CNN leaning left is a bit like saying The Washington Post attacks Bezos frequently.

https://web.media.mit.edu:

Just like the American average, our survey and the published surveys we studied show the
majority of CNN’s audience identifies itself as Democratic. The largely leftist audience has
probably had a significant influence on CNN’s reputation as being a left- leaning news
organization.

How is identifying as a Democrat equal to CNN being left? They always endorse the "centrist candidate", Obama, Clinton, Biden etc., which would be called "moderate Republicans" by the early 1990's standards.

They (CNN, MSNBC) loathe Sanders and AOC and other leftists, meaning economic leftist which is where power really belongs. If a person is pro-choice or for legalizing drugs, OK.

Democrats today would easily be to the right of most right wing parties in big European counties in economic policy.

Now, if you mention Democracy Now! or TYT or some other non corporate news, then I'd agree.

The largely leftist audience has probably had a significant influence on CNN’s reputation as being a left-leaning news organization.

The operative word here being "news." The discussion might have some substance if Fox could be said to be a news organization. But it isn't.

How is identifying as a Democrat equal to CNN being left? — Manuel

Ask the researchers at MIT, I suppose. Makes no difference to me.