Fox Nabs Historic Ratings Victory!!!

[EconChick]

"Victory" here means they get to charge more for ad time.
I'm not sure why that matters to anyone here...

Crystal clear the lefty slop MSNBCs flingin' nightly has virtually zero appeal beyond the low-information-idiots wing of the dim party.

In a complete ass kicking in average primetime viewers, Fox creams the libby network by 1,240,000 folks. And pouring salt on their wounds, it's nice to see in the money category of the 25-54 age demo it was record quarterly lows for big hitters Hayes-Maddow-O'Donnell, likely because 21% of their former viewers developed chronic dry heaves and figured out why.

At Fox though their average 25-54 viewing audience grew by 12% to more than double MSNBCs, 313,000 vs. 150,000.

Note to the suits: Time to move race hustler Al Sharpton and that black woman on earlier in the day up to Prime Time nightly. Heck, how much worse could it get?

Again, television has nothing to do with "information", low or high.
Post 7 sums up what's being "sold".

Typical lib that lives in a black and white world. Clearly it's a COMBINATION of information and other.

To say no info is imparted at all is silly beyond belief.

 

[AquaAthena]

LOL, someone needs to tell Lakhota and NYCarb. Their heads are REALLY going to explode.

Why? Are they ad buyers?

"Ratings victory" means they can charge more for ad time than their competition can and so make more money.

I'm not clear on why that matters to anyone here.

LOL. They tried to diminish my BENGHAZI thread by first of all turning it into a FOX topic instead of the real topic by saying no one watched Fox.


Of course no one watches Fox. LOL.

The ratings say differently, but whatever. Unless you're buying or selling ads there, it's of no consequence. That's what ratings exist for.

 

[Pogo]

"Victory" here means they get to charge more for ad time.
I'm not sure why that matters to anyone here...

Crystal clear the lefty slop MSNBCs flingin' nightly has virtually zero appeal beyond the low-information-idiots wing of the dim party.

In a complete ass kicking in average primetime viewers, Fox creams the libby network by 1,240,000 folks. And pouring salt on their wounds, it's nice to see in the money category of the 25-54 age demo it was record quarterly lows for big hitters Hayes-Maddow-O'Donnell, likely because 21% of their former viewers developed chronic dry heaves and figured out why.

At Fox though their average 25-54 viewing audience grew by 12% to more than double MSNBCs, 313,000 vs. 150,000.

Note to the suits: Time to move race hustler Al Sharpton and that black woman on earlier in the day up to Prime Time nightly. Heck, how much worse could it get?

Again, television has nothing to do with "information", low or high.
Post 7 sums up what's being "sold".

Typical lib that lives in a black and white world. Clearly it's a COMBINATION of information and other.

To say no info is imparted at all is silly beyond belief.

You either impart information ---- or you get ratings. You can't do both.

Commercial broadcasters have known this as long as there's been commercial broadcasting, and before that they knew it from sleazy newspapers (which is btw the world Rupert Murdoch comes from so no one knows this maxim better than he). That's why TV was dubbed a "vast wasteland" --- over 50 years ago. Nothing new there.

So you can broadcast straight, neutral news (or you can try, since any image you put on the screen is going to be by definition emotionally charged) and subsidize its operation with the Beverly Hillbillies that you run later that night -- and that's exactly the way it used to be done. Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley and the rest of the alphabet news were always revenue-losing operations.

--Or you can take the modern approach and actually try to make money off the news itself, which is dicey. You have to play it up with stories of disasters and accidents and fires and car crashes and bombs and wars and scandals, because that's what sells, and if you don't sell you're not going to make your money. Nobody's going to watch how the House voted 182 tto 27 to pass a resolution. But put a picture of a shooting in some neighborhood you never heard of and you're hooked.

News is expensive to do. You need reporters flying around with crews and remote equipment and foreign bureaus. Sitting a talking head in a studio to talk ABOUT the news isn't expensive at all. And that's where you get the conspiracy theories and blown-up fake scandals and angry old men pounding the table, because that's what sells. Just as fake wrestling and onstage paternity tests and people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs sells.

And of course if you dress up that studio in garish colours and run suggestive screen crawls and teasers about how if you watch this commercial we'll be right back to tell you what's going to kill you tomorrow, you sell more, because no emotion sells like fear.

And for good measure you add the element in post 7. Bingo: ratings.
And ratings mean ad revenue and ad revenue means money. And money is entirely what it's all about.

Emotion sells; information doesn't.

 

[BlackFlag]

You mean the way partisan conservative media has been doing that to EVERY SINGLE media outlet for the last several decades?

 

[AquaAthena]

"Victory" here means they get to charge more for ad time.
I'm not sure why that matters to anyone here...

Crystal clear the lefty slop MSNBCs flingin' nightly has virtually zero appeal beyond the low-information-idiots wing of the dim party.

In a complete ass kicking in average primetime viewers, Fox creams the libby network by 1,240,000 folks. And pouring salt on their wounds, it's nice to see in the money category of the 25-54 age demo it was record quarterly lows for big hitters Hayes-Maddow-O'Donnell, likely because 21% of their former viewers developed chronic dry heaves and figured out why.

At Fox though their average 25-54 viewing audience grew by 12% to more than double MSNBCs, 313,000 vs. 150,000.

Note to the suits: Time to move race hustler Al Sharpton and that black woman on earlier in the day up to Prime Time nightly. Heck, how much worse could it get?

Again, television has nothing to do with "information", low or high.
Post 7 sums up what's being "sold".

Typical lib that lives in a black and white world. Clearly it's a COMBINATION of information and other.

To say no info is imparted at all is silly beyond belief.

You either impart information ---- or you get ratings. You can't do both.

Commercial broadcasters have known this as long as there's been commercial broadcasting, and before that they knew it from sleazy newspapers (which is btw the world Rupert Murdoch comes from so no one knows this maxim better than he). That's why TV was dubbed a "vast wasteland" --- over 50 years ago. Nothing new there.

So you can broadcast straight, neutral news (or you can try, since any image you put on the screen is going to be by definition emotionally charged) and subsidize its operation with the Beverly Hillbillies that you run later that night -- and that's exactly the way it used to be done. Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley and the rest of the alphabet news were always revenue-losing operations.

--Or you can take the modern approach and actually try to make money off the news, which is dicey. You have to play it up with stories of disasters and accidents and fires and car crashes and bombs and wars and scandals, because that's what sells, and if you don't sell you're not going to make your money.

News is expensive to do. You need reporters flying around with crews and remote equipment and foreign bureaus. Sitting a talking head in a studio to talk ABOUT the news isn't expensive at all. And that's where you get the conspiracy theories and blown-up fake scandals and angry old men pounding the table, because that's what sells. Just as fake wrestling and onstage paternity tests and people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs sells.

And of course if you dress up that studio in garish colours and run suggestive screen crawls and teasers about how if you watch this commercial we'll be right back to tell you what's going to kill you tomorrow, you sell more, because no emotion sells like fear. And for good measure you add the element in post 7. Bingo: ratings. And ratings mean ad revenue and ad revenue means money.

Emotion sells; information doesn't.

Pogo, I luvs ya honey, but if I had the time, I would really need to pick apart this post of yours.

If information doesn't sell, then why do books?

 

[Pogo]

"Victory" here means they get to charge more for ad time.
I'm not sure why that matters to anyone here...

Crystal clear the lefty slop MSNBCs flingin' nightly has virtually zero appeal beyond the low-information-idiots wing of the dim party.

In a complete ass kicking in average primetime viewers, Fox creams the libby network by 1,240,000 folks. And pouring salt on their wounds, it's nice to see in the money category of the 25-54 age demo it was record quarterly lows for big hitters Hayes-Maddow-O'Donnell, likely because 21% of their former viewers developed chronic dry heaves and figured out why.

At Fox though their average 25-54 viewing audience grew by 12% to more than double MSNBCs, 313,000 vs. 150,000.

Note to the suits: Time to move race hustler Al Sharpton and that black woman on earlier in the day up to Prime Time nightly. Heck, how much worse could it get?

Again, television has nothing to do with "information", low or high.
Post 7 sums up what's being "sold".

Typical lib that lives in a black and white world. Clearly it's a COMBINATION of information and other.

To say no info is imparted at all is silly beyond belief.

You either impart information ---- or you get ratings. You can't do both.

Commercial broadcasters have known this as long as there's been commercial broadcasting, and before that they knew it from sleazy newspapers (which is btw the world Rupert Murdoch comes from so no one knows this maxim better than he). That's why TV was dubbed a "vast wasteland" --- over 50 years ago. Nothing new there.

So you can broadcast straight, neutral news (or you can try, since any image you put on the screen is going to be by definition emotionally charged) and subsidize its operation with the Beverly Hillbillies that you run later that night -- and that's exactly the way it used to be done. Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley and the rest of the alphabet news were always revenue-losing operations.

--Or you can take the modern approach and actually try to make money off the news, which is dicey. You have to play it up with stories of disasters and accidents and fires and car crashes and bombs and wars and scandals, because that's what sells, and if you don't sell you're not going to make your money.

News is expensive to do. You need reporters flying around with crews and remote equipment and foreign bureaus. Sitting a talking head in a studio to talk ABOUT the news isn't expensive at all. And that's where you get the conspiracy theories and blown-up fake scandals and angry old men pounding the table, because that's what sells. Just as fake wrestling and onstage paternity tests and people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs sells.

And of course if you dress up that studio in garish colours and run suggestive screen crawls and teasers about how if you watch this commercial we'll be right back to tell you what's going to kill you tomorrow, you sell more, because no emotion sells like fear. And for good measure you add the element in post 7. Bingo: ratings. And ratings mean ad revenue and ad revenue means money.

Emotion sells; information doesn't.

Pogo, I luvs ya honey, but if I had the time, I would really need to pick apart this post of yours.

If information doesn't sell, they why do books?

Books represent an entirely, and vastly superior, medium. I speak there strictly in the context of television, which is by nature good at only one thing: injecting emotion into the brain for the purpose of selling advertising. I can't think of any other medium of which that's the case.

Most obviously a book allows time for reflection -- it's not going anywhere. The page will be exactly the same whether the reader resumes in ten seconds or ten years. TV by contrast, has already sat you down in a passive sponge position and is dictating ALL the senses, and fires images like a machine gun. There's no time to reflect at all, "you WILL ingest what I tell you"-- you WILL be assimilated".

There's a deep meaning to this image from a certain film:

​

The only thing television can do that's remotely honest is live sports -- because it can't lie about what's going on. It can come back later and overemphasize the importance of a Derek Jeter to the point of mythology, but it can't lie about what happened on that ground ball he booted. You'd think the weather could be an honest guess --- and meteorology is --- but take a look at what the Weather Channel runs every night. Is it information about tomorrow's temperatures? No, it's a fearmongering documentary on how the great Tornado Meteorite Tsunami Earthquake is going to kill you tomorrow. Once again -- fear sells. Ratings. Even in the weather.

I did 25 years in broadcasting; by now I know exactly what purpose ratings serve and how they're achieved. As I keep posting over and over until it sinks in, ratings represent attention. Attention is achieved in many ways but among those ways assent with some ideology is weak and remote. Visceral emotion by contrast is a slam dunk. That's the whole meaning of "if it bleeds it leads". It's simply how the psychology works and always has been.

Love you too QuaQua

 

[EconChick]

LOL, someone needs to tell Lakhota and NYCarb. Their heads are REALLY going to explode.

Why? Are they ad buyers?

"Ratings victory" means they can charge more for ad time than their competition can and so make more money.

I'm not clear on why that matters to anyone here.

LOL. They tried to diminish my BENGHAZI thread by first of all turning it into a FOX topic instead of the real topic by saying no one watched Fox.


Of course no one watches Fox. LOL.

The ratings say differently, but whatever. Unless you're buying or selling ads there, it's of no consequence. That's what ratings exist for.

Thanks, AA!!!! I keep forgetting. Hope you don't mind if I borrow that, LOL......

There are about 10 DESPERATE retarded libs on me like flies on white rice....it will be fun throwing Saul Alinsky at them. LOL

 

[Pogo]

Who the fuck is Saul Alinsky? Wasn't he a pitcher for the Angels?

 

[longknife]

Fox is actually more balanced than others with Brett Baer and Bill O'Reilly. John King on CNN is not bad from time to time. MSNBC is just crap. CNN has Mario Cuomo's kid on in the mornings.

John King keeps bringing on those who are left of Karl Marx

 

[longknife]

I proudly watch Fox – but not in prime time. Let's see the Libs explain this:


FNC: 1,797,000 viewers, up 12 percent (313,000 adults 25-54, up 12 percent)

CNN: 555,000 viewers, up 2 percent (186,000 adults 25-54, up 4 percent)

MSNBC: 557,000 viewers, down 2 percent (150 adults 25-54, down 21 percent)

HLN: 352,000 viewers, down 4 percent (120 adults 25-54, down 12 percent)

 

[Pogo]

I proudly watch Fox – but not in prime time. Let's see the Libs explain this:


FNC: 1,797,000 viewers, up 12 percent (313,000 adults 25-54, up 12 percent)

CNN: 555,000 viewers, up 2 percent (186,000 adults 25-54, up 4 percent)

MSNBC: 557,000 viewers, down 2 percent (150 adults 25-54, down 21 percent)

HLN: 352,000 viewers, down 4 percent (120 adults 25-54, down 12 percent)

"Explain"?

See post 7.

 

[mamooth]

Who the fuck is Saul Alinsky? Wasn't he a pitcher for the Angels?

He's probably the biggest modern hero of the American right. They're constantly quoting him and using his tactics. Nobody else pays any attention to the guy.

A far as FOX goes, their ratings climb followed directly after their lowest ratings in 13 years. They had nowhere to go except up. Historically, their ratings still stink, but at least they stink less. And it only took months of "Those negroes are coming to get you, and ISIS will chop your head off, and you'll get ebola, but your parental figures here will protect you if you keep watching!" scare stories to do it.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. A couple of months ago the tax exempt propaganda network, Media Matters and it's clone "news hounds" (we watch Fox so you don't have to) funded by George Soros convinced low information lefties that Rush Limbaugh was on his way out and Fox was in a decline in ratings.

 

[Rozman]

And MSNBC is in the toilet....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/b...rd-msnbc-loses-ground-to-rival-cnn-.html?_r=0

 

[blastoff]

Pogo's convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt he could tune in Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or any other news show and not be informed about anything.

 

[Papageorgio]

Fox News Nabs Historic Cable Ratings Victory - Hollywood Reporter

Geez.......this is gonna make the heads of the lefties explode!!!

What? Oldest average viewing population?

Viewers between 24-54, MSNBC is down 3%, FOXNews is up 12%.

In fact reruns of Shark Tank on CNBC has higher ratings than any show on MSNBC.

 

[Papageorgio]

Who the fuck is Saul Alinsky? Wasn't he a pitcher for the Angels?

He's probably the biggest modern hero of the American right. They're constantly quoting him and using his tactics. Nobody else pays any attention to the guy.

A far as FOX goes, their ratings climb followed directly after their lowest ratings in 13 years. They had nowhere to go except up. Historically, their ratings still stink, but at least they stink less. And it only took months of "Those negroes are coming to get you, and ISIS will chop your head off, and you'll get ebola, but your parental figures here will protect you if you keep watching!" scare stories to do it.

I can tell you didn't read the article.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Papageorgio]

LOL, someone needs to tell Lakhota and NYCarb. Their heads are REALLY going to explode.

Why? Are they ad buyers?

"Ratings victory" means they can charge more for ad time than their competition can and so make more money.

I'm not clear on why that matters to anyone here.

It seems to matter to you.

 

[Mojo2]

Fox News Nabs Historic Cable Ratings Victory - Hollywood Reporter

Geez.......this is gonna make the heads of the lefties explode!!!

This part was really the cherry on top for me.

The wondrous anomaly of Shark Tank encores also continues. With the ABC reality competition in heavy off-net rotation on CBNBC, those repeats are outperforming much of cable news and ranking No. 14 in primetime where adults 25-54 are concerned — besting every telecast on MSNBC.

In other words, more people would rather watch RE-RUNS of some rich capitalists deciding whose invention or business venture to invest in.

Over ANY MSNBC show!

 

[skookerasbil]

W0W......on Drudge right now near the top of the page......MSNBC ratings in the shitter >>>

EpiC sPirAL >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/b...rd-msnbc-loses-ground-to-rival-cnn-.html?_r=0

Nobody watches that network anymore except the committed nutters.



I love coming into this forum for a cup of coffee every so often........all the k00ks can respond with is some lame post about FOX which is dominating!!!