[ziddoap]

>60% of Republicans turn to Fox News for political news and 53% of Democrats turn to CNN

It'd be nice to see comparisons of all the news networks, but if you're going to start somewhere it seems like the two which have the majority of viewers seems appropriate.

[timbit42]

It's interesting that CNN's website has more than double the website visits as FoxNews's website does.

* CNN.com: 524 million

* NYtimes.com: 449.9m

* FoxNews.com: 263m

* WashingtonPost.com: 156.9m

* CNBC.com: 144.5m

* NYPost.com: 119.6m

* Forbes.com: 85.7m

* USAToday.com: 85.5m

* BusinessInsider.com: 80.7m

* NPR.org: 76.6m

Source: SimilarWeb.com

[wdr1]

On the other hand, more people watch Fox News than CNN & MSNBC combined.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/week-of-june-27-basic-cable-...

[raydev]

I'll make a wild guess and say that Fox News's audience trends much older.

And as sibling comment says, CNN is well known internationally.

[chrismeller]

Well CNN has quite a viewership internationally - Fox not so much.

[tenpies]

Indeed, the relative numbers are a complete misrepresentation of the image. You need to see nominal viewers to understand just how absolutely crushing Fox News' dominance has been, not just of CNN, but of all the Leftist media. The second most viewed news source (and most viewed Leftist one) isn't even CNN any more, it's been MSNBC for a while now:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-networ...

And it has continued to get worst for the Leftist mainstream media.

[ziddoap]

If there's something important in that link, can you write it out? I cannot view "premium" statistics.

>You need to see nominal viewers to understand just how absolutely crushing Fox News' dominance has been

Nominal viewers does seem really important to determine dominance. I'm not sure it's as important in the context of the project here, though. The numbers I quoted only seem to matter with respect to how the news sources were initially selected, not the actual analysis being done. I guess that stat does suggest they should compare Fox to MSNBC rather than CNN.

[BeetleB]

It doesn't provide much useful info. That one item is much crappier than another crappy item is not very helpful information.

[ziddoap]

>That one item is much crappier than another crappy item is not very helpful information.

How is it not? If my options are crap, crappy, super crap and super-extra-duper crap... It seems helpful to know which one is the least crappy.

As an aside, are you willing to share which news station you don't put in the crap bucket?

[BeetleB]

> How is it not? If my options are crap, crappy, super crap and super-extra-duper crap... It seems helpful to know which one is the least crappy.

It's also helpful to know that they are all crappy, which this didn't show.

This is a relative study. If instead they set up some reasonable objective criteria and ranked each news sources according to it, that would be useful. I may see that CNN scores only 20%, and Fox News scores only 10%. Yes, CNN would be better, but it would also tell me not to waste time on either.

> As an aside, are you willing to share which news station you don't put in the crap bucket?

I was a news junkie a decade ago, and weaned myself off of it. Things have likely changed since those years so it would be hard to suggest some now - I've heard sources like The Guardian have gone downhill, for example.

In general, print sources are way better. Even a mediocre print source tends to be better than almost all video/TV news. Radio is somewhere in between.

McClatchy DC[1] was one resource I would recommend in those days. It's a "general purpose" news organization and one of the few mainstream publications that often covered items neglected by the rest. Most hadn't heard of it, but the parent organization owns several well known print newspapers.

I see they filed for bankruptcy in 2020. I don't know if they've been able to maintain the quality.

As much as I dislike the NY Times, it's still way ahead of CNN/Fox/MSNBC.

[1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/