You cover shows. However can you focus on one participant of a multi person show. Over time? I know you cover repetitive diatribes of shows and who delivers them. But my point is that each person makes the same 2 or 3 points day after day. So that a list of 3 or 4 points really covers 50 or 60 or 160 shows. They are automatons / robots. So you could do predictive coding. Panelist X WILL likely say A,B and C. Then retrospectively Did say a, b, and c. It's not only not news. It's just daily propaganda, a script, which could be delivered by a robot. Hence the ANTITHESIS of news. You sort of do this but I think focus on one panelist over multiple shows would be more vivid. Imho. J.
The shows don't always have the same cast. "The Five" changes constantly. This week there were substitute hosts on every show except for Jesse Watters Primetime. What also happens is if some big news story drops the network will immediately pivot. So Fox starts out with a plan and will drop it in an instant if they think they can get more traction with the new line of attack. There is always a very unpredictable nature to news even fake news on Fox. If they think they are going to heavily cover Hunter Biden for a given week and a hurricane hits or something unexpected happens they pivot quite dramatically. They sometimes focus on the new event or they will try to pull focus from a major news story.
Thank you! Yes. Different people and real news periodically. BUT variation in people not that great. Absent the occasional fire, flood or Republican Sen brain freeze, there is a lot of repetition of the same things from the same people. True same propaganda from different people, which you cover so well, but my point is that when the same people are on, albeit intermittently, they are robotic, repetitive, and predictable in style and substance. Not all but most. To elaborate, you say "this week Dana said xy and z." My point "this week, predictive coding for Dana was 90% of her go to epithets / comments." You do note the repetition and different people make same points. But they are largely prescipted automatons. Prospective analysis vs retrospective. Other stations
do the same empty calories sort of thing. THANKS for your response. Jim
I know you have marching orders. However I also like scores: probably false, egregiously false, creative doublespeak, pants on fire double speak
You cover shows. However can you focus on one participant of a multi person show. Over time? I know you cover repetitive diatribes of shows and who delivers them. But my point is that each person makes the same 2 or 3 points day after day. So that a list of 3 or 4 points really covers 50 or 60 or 160 shows. They are automatons / robots. So you could do predictive coding. Panelist X WILL likely say A,B and C. Then retrospectively Did say a, b, and c. It's not only not news. It's just daily propaganda, a script, which could be delivered by a robot. Hence the ANTITHESIS of news. You sort of do this but I think focus on one panelist over multiple shows would be more vivid. Imho. J.
The shows don't always have the same cast. "The Five" changes constantly. This week there were substitute hosts on every show except for Jesse Watters Primetime. What also happens is if some big news story drops the network will immediately pivot. So Fox starts out with a plan and will drop it in an instant if they think they can get more traction with the new line of attack. There is always a very unpredictable nature to news even fake news on Fox. If they think they are going to heavily cover Hunter Biden for a given week and a hurricane hits or something unexpected happens they pivot quite dramatically. They sometimes focus on the new event or they will try to pull focus from a major news story.
Thank you! Yes. Different people and real news periodically. BUT variation in people not that great. Absent the occasional fire, flood or Republican Sen brain freeze, there is a lot of repetition of the same things from the same people. True same propaganda from different people, which you cover so well, but my point is that when the same people are on, albeit intermittently, they are robotic, repetitive, and predictable in style and substance. Not all but most. To elaborate, you say "this week Dana said xy and z." My point "this week, predictive coding for Dana was 90% of her go to epithets / comments." You do note the repetition and different people make same points. But they are largely prescipted automatons. Prospective analysis vs retrospective. Other stations
do the same empty calories sort of thing. THANKS for your response. Jim