2016 elections - because it's never too early

[CountDeMoney]

It has a lot to do with the way FOX got into the broadcast game in the mid-90s...they gobbled up a lot of non-affiliated stations that didn't have broadcast relationships with the "Big Three" at the time.  Back when FOX was promoting prime-time programming, they got heir hooks into any regional station with an antenna in non-cable America ("Channel 27: Serving the Whatever Valley!"). 
That's a lot of rural America, in a lot of red states.  And old people in 1995 = less likely to have cable, more likely to have a TV antenna. Especially when that was all that was available.

[Barrister]

It has a lot to do with the way FOX got into the broadcast game in the mid-90s...they gobbled up a lot of non-affiliated stations that didn't have broadcast relationships with the "Big Three" at the time.  Back when FOX was promoting prime-time programming, they got heir hooks into any regional station with an antenna in non-cable America ("Channel 27: Serving the Whatever Valley!"). 
That's a lot of rural America, in a lot of red states.  And old people in 1995 = less likely to have cable, more likely to have a TV antenna. Especially when that was all that was available.

But what does that have to do with Fox News, which is cable-only?

[FunkMonk]

Fox had Married with Children so it was ok with me

[Savonarola]

Even though they're the most watched US cable news channel; Fox News's viewership really isn't that high.  At prime time they have about 2 million viewers MSNBC has about a million and CNN has about 700,000.  By means of comparison Dancing with the stars has a viewership of about 10 million. 

[alfred russel]

Even though they're the most watched US cable news channel; Fox News's viewership really isn't that high.  At prime time they have about 2 million viewers MSNBC has about a million and CNN has about 700,000.  By means of comparison Dancing with the stars has a viewership of about 10 million.

I read that pornhub has 25 million unique visitors with US IPs each day.

[derspiess]

It has a lot to do with the way FOX got into the broadcast game in the mid-90s...they gobbled up a lot of non-affiliated stations that didn't have broadcast relationships with the "Big Three" at the time.  Back when FOX was promoting prime-time programming, they got heir hooks into any regional station with an antenna in non-cable America ("Channel 27: Serving the Whatever Valley!"). 
That's a lot of rural America, in a lot of red states.  And old people in 1995 = less likely to have cable, more likely to have a TV antenna. Especially when that was all that was available.

But what does that have to do with Fox News, which is cable-only?

Pretty much nothing

[derspiess]

Every old person I know has it on nonstop at their house.

What a surprise that you know terrible old people.

What's even worse: none of them voted for Hillary

[Savonarola]

It has a lot to do with the way FOX got into the broadcast game in the mid-90s...they gobbled up a lot of non-affiliated stations that didn't have broadcast relationships with the "Big Three" at the time.  Back when FOX was promoting prime-time programming, they got heir hooks into any regional station with an antenna in non-cable America ("Channel 27: Serving the Whatever Valley!"). 
That's a lot of rural America, in a lot of red states.  And old people in 1995 = less likely to have cable, more likely to have a TV antenna. Especially when that was all that was available.

So Rupert Murdoch hooked the old people with "21 Jump Street"? 

[Eddie Teach]

 

[CountDeMoney]

It has a lot to do with the way FOX got into the broadcast game in the mid-90s...they gobbled up a lot of non-affiliated stations that didn't have broadcast relationships with the "Big Three" at the time.  Back when FOX was promoting prime-time programming, they got heir hooks into any regional station with an antenna in non-cable America ("Channel 27: Serving the Whatever Valley!"). 
That's a lot of rural America, in a lot of red states.  And old people in 1995 = less likely to have cable, more likely to have a TV antenna. Especially when that was all that was available.

But what does that have to do with Fox News, which is cable-only?

Pretty much nothing

That's right; Fox Broadcast Television Network had absolutely nothing to with the evolution of Fox News Channel  or other aspects of its corporate syndication model.

[Barrister]

It has a lot to do with the way FOX got into the broadcast game in the mid-90s...they gobbled up a lot of non-affiliated stations that didn't have broadcast relationships with the "Big Three" at the time.  Back when FOX was promoting prime-time programming, they got heir hooks into any regional station with an antenna in non-cable America ("Channel 27: Serving the Whatever Valley!"). 
That's a lot of rural America, in a lot of red states.  And old people in 1995 = less likely to have cable, more likely to have a TV antenna. Especially when that was all that was available.

But what does that have to do with Fox News, which is cable-only?

Pretty much nothing

That's right; Fox Broadcast Television Network had absolutely nothing to with the evolution of Fox News Channel  or other aspects of its corporate syndication model.

Well I for one don't see the connection, so why don't you spell it out for us?

[derspiess]

Seedy: just cut bait on this one.

[CountDeMoney]

I guess I was the only one watching TV in the 1990s.
Yi was, but he was stoned and had Pop-Tart crumbs on his chest, couldn't be bothered to reach for the remote.

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy: just cut bait on this one.

One day, you'll come to better appreciate the brainwashing that local news at 10 does on your average senior citizen.  1 hour earlier to bed, and it's "get off my lawn."

[The Minsky Moment]

But what does that have to do with Fox News, which is cable-only?

branding