fox news ratings tank

[Pogo]

whomever on earth are you talking too

are you.... free versing? burning the midnight strawman?

Um-- see your name in the quote? I start there, then I riff on for anyone reading. And it's sunny afternoon here, so it's not me who's at the midnight hour... ergo we may be forced to file this post under 'non sequitur'

thats becasue instead of asking, you assume, or it certainly appears you have...am I wrong? .


in the event of the former, let me help you, I never ever have denied fox is slanted. ever.

so, as long as you apply same to cbs abc nbc et al I have no qualms with your post in this quote. my experience tells me they don't.

I think bernie ( goldberg) has it exactly right- he ( and I ) don't think there is a grand conspiracy amongst the truth ministry ( ) they just all have the same world view, so they all see things basically the same way, fox is no different in that context, thats why they are slanted.

but , when you ask them, or have this argument with folks of that mindset ( it appears to me) , they think that fox is slanted yet, they are not. they shoot from some special high ground wherein they really are the middle of the road folks ( see: dan rather) and tell the news straight up, while fox is slanted.

when you compare the population at fox vis a vis cons to libs, you'll find the same skew, a preponderance of cons ergo their slant is con...well no shit, BUT- see, at cbs abc et al, even though their skew leans just as heavy the other way? no not them, they are not slanted......just becasue 8 or 9 of 10 of their team is lib ( like fox is con) they don't slant, but fox does.Its a hypocrisy I find especially galling.

A translation of this post into coherent English being unavailable, I'll try to muddle through what I can gather it means... basically I started (three weeks ago (?)) with a general comment which was addressed to the general reader. That comment was based on your previous comment about the topic of Fox ratings, which, again, as near as I could suss it, implied some sort of relationship between television ratings and television "value". So I then went into an explanation of what ratings mean and what they don't mean. That's what I do over and over when that particular fallacy comes up, because it's what I know.

I just did the same thing again today. Perhaps we can discuss it in three weeks time.

It's quite possible that I guessed wrong on your meaning originally (again I'm finding your posts near incomprehensible) and was addressing a point you did not make, but I figured it was probably a point that needed making regardless. And judging by today's bumps, that seems correct. But none of it was about anybody's slant or bias; it was about the psychology of how TV works and what the ratings mean; and how they are achieved by a broadcaster. And the only reason I keep explaining that is because various posters keep bringing in lists of TV ratings --which, again, have no value to anyone here unless we are buying advertising time. Assuming no one is here for that purpose, we must also assume that these ratings sheets are therefore being brought in on some other belief of what they represent. So I clarify.

I think you're talking here about ideologies. I'm not. I was talking about technicalities of the general media industry. Apples and aardvarks. Ideologies, well we can do them another time.

 

[Trajan]

And while Fox is inflicting such ratings carnage on competitor MSNBC and others, the lefty nutjobs find one ratings report in which Fox did not dominate in one particular demographic group, and it's time - once again!!! - to bang the drum about how bad Fox is doing in the ratings overall. For them it's a gift they know their low information doorknobs will lap up, misconstruing it that Fox is really really in trouble this time. Wonder if Truthmatters and that ilk will ever figure it out?

Fox has been in decline in an overall pattern. Again it's got nothing to do with "low or high information", since information is not the business they're in. The overall pattern prolly has a lot to do with its demographics... old white men. The oldest audience on cable TV; they're literally dying off. In a microcosm they have the same fade-to-irrelevance problem the RP encountered in the last election ...when they both floundered and tried to bail out a sinking ship with Rovian math.

Um-- see your name in the quote? I start there, then I riff on for anyone reading. And it's sunny afternoon here, so it's not me who's at the midnight hour... ergo we may be forced to file this post under 'non sequitur'

thats becasue instead of asking, you assume, or it certainly appears you have...am I wrong? .


in the event of the former, let me help you, I never ever have denied fox is slanted. ever.

so, as long as you apply same to cbs abc nbc et al I have no qualms with your post in this quote. my experience tells me they don't.

I think bernie ( goldberg) has it exactly right- he ( and I ) don't think there is a grand conspiracy amongst the truth ministry ( ) they just all have the same world view, so they all see things basically the same way, fox is no different in that context, thats why they are slanted.

but , when you ask them, or have this argument with folks of that mindset ( it appears to me) , they think that fox is slanted yet, they are not. they shoot from some special high ground wherein they really are the middle of the road folks ( see: dan rather) and tell the news straight up, while fox is slanted.

when you compare the population at fox vis a vis cons to libs, you'll find the same skew, a preponderance of cons ergo their slant is con...well no shit, BUT- see, at cbs abc et al, even though their skew leans just as heavy the other way? no not them, they are not slanted......just becasue 8 or 9 of 10 of their team is lib ( like fox is con) they don't slant, but fox does.Its a hypocrisy I find especially galling.

A translation of this post into coherent English being unavailable, I'll try to muddle through what I can gather it means... basically I started (three weeks ago (?)) with a general comment which was addressed to the general reader. That comment was based on your previous comment about the topic of Fox ratings, which, again, as near as I could suss it, implied some sort of relationship between television ratings and television "value". So I then went into an explanation of what ratings mean and what they don't mean. That's what I do over and over when that particular fallacy comes up, because it's what I know.

I just did the same thing again today. Perhaps we can discuss it in three weeks time.

It's quite possible that I guessed wrong on your meaning originally (again I'm finding your posts near incomprehensible) and was addressing a point you did not make, but I figured it was probably a point that needed making regardless. And judging by today's bumps, that seems correct. But none of it was about anybody's slant or bias; it was about the psychology of how TV works and what the ratings mean; and how they are achieved by a broadcaster. And the only reason I keep explaining that is because various posters keep bringing in lists of TV ratings --which, again, have no value to anyone here unless we are buying advertising time. Assuming no one is here for that purpose, we must also assume that these ratings sheets are therefore being brought in on some other belief of what they represent. So I clarify.

I think you're talking here about ideologies. I'm not. I was talking about technicalities of the general media industry. Apples and aardvarks. Ideologies, well we can do them another time.

I made the point way back on page 2-3, if you followed your own past comments then it would have been plain too.

they are all in the same biz. its not about slant or bias? I don't know what to say to that really, forest meet trees.
people think they are getting information, they watch to feed their own particular viewpoints, thats why advertisers choose particular venues to buy time on, yes? t


and, did you not post this?

Fox has been in decline in an overall pattern. Again it's got nothing to do with "low or high information", since information is not the business they're in. The overall pattern prolly has a lot to do with its demographics... old white men.


The oldest audience on cable TV; they're literally dying off. In a microcosm they have the same fade-to-irrelevance problem the RP encountered in the last election ...when they both floundered and tried to bail out a sinking ship with Rovian math.

Ideologies, well we can do them another time

...

another time? you already have...

 

[Pogo]

LOL, FOX beats CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined!

I'm at a loss to understand why people keep posting these numbers --- are we all buying ad time on TV? Because that's the only use these numbers have...?

I'm sure not buying it.

Of coruse you're not buying it. You're well educated, bright, and perceptive, but you are a liberal and it is therefore mandatory to declare even Nielsen unreliable if it reports numbers you don't want to accept. And yet everybody knows--including you way down deep where you keep your concepts of reality and honesty--know that if the numbers showed Fox News to be way behind the others, you and other liberals would post them gleefully as FACT!!!

The FACT is that Fox News does a better and more reliable job of reporting the news and providing reliable analysis of the news than does any other cable network. And THAT is why they beat the pants off ALL the others, more often than not, all the others combined.

You have two choices. 1) Admit that Fox draws the larger audiences on merit, or 2) Admit that liberals aren't much interested in being informed anywhere.

Foxy, sorry, I somehow missed this post altogether until now. Let me get my bib on because I'm drooling...

Have to say this is not one of your best posts. You've got assumptions labeled "facts" and vice versa.

First assumption converted to fact: I have yet to even read any of these ratings numbers that keep getting posted here, so I don't know what channel is "kicking" what channel's "ass". Since I'm not an ad buyer, it's meaningless. All I had to do was note that people were posting those ratings, and then wonder why -- and I'm off to the races. I don't need any charts to tell me what I already know about broadcasting.

Fact 2: this thread is not about ideology in any way. It's about ratings. Two unrelated things.

Now here's the part that makes me wonder if somebody else wrote your post:

And yet everybody knows--including you way down deep where you keep your concepts of reality and honesty--know that if the numbers showed Fox News to be way behind the others, you and other liberals would post them gleefully as FACT!!!

-- Count the fallacies, starting right off with "everybody knows" (argumentum ad populum; "everybody" knows no such thing) and then straight off to "what you would do if". I don't need to tell you that's a strawman eating a red herring. You can't just make up scenaria and declare what some other person "would do" -- that's preposterous.

And I'm actually insulted, after all I've posted about what ratings mean, that you could suggest I'd turn around and abandon what I already know to be true and repeatedly stated publicly. That would be utterly dishonest. Apparently you don't know me as well as we both thought. Did you really write that??

Next fallacy:
The FACT is that Fox News does a better and more reliable job of reporting the news and providing reliable analysis of the news than does any other cable network.

Again obviously, you've made a comparative value judgement ("better/more reliable"), therefore this is not at all a "fact", even if you do write it in majuscule. It's an opinion. Your claim to have worked in media rings suspicious if you can't see this glaring flaw.

Final fallacy:
You have two choices. 1) Admit that Fox draws the larger audiences on merit, or 2) Admit that liberals aren't much interested in being informed anywhere.

This really does not sound like you either, because it's utter bullshit.

Number one, I'm already on record, and proudly so, as declaring that ratings have no such meritorious meaning; I've been posting and writing that, consistently and loquaciously, for years, and will continue to, because I know how broadcasting works.

And number two, (a) your number two is in no way a parallel to your number one; (b) I would never presume to speak for, or analyze, "the liberals" or "the conservatives" or any other superficial label as I'm also on record, and proudly so, of being anti-label, and any such attempt would be a blanket statement generalization anyway (and you have never seen me do it); and (c) the premise of your choice #2 gives no basis for itself whatsoever; once again, this is not a thread about ideology; it's a thread about broadcast ratings.

This may be the most fallacy-ridden post I've ever seen with your name on it. Please tell me somebody hacked into your account.

Btw when I say "I'm not buying it" I'm talking about advertising time. Ce n'était rien qu'un double entendre.

 

[Samson]

Fox News Ratings Hit 12-Year Demo Lows In January Cable News Figures

Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show

 

[Pogo]

Sheesh Trajan, you've melded together posts from different places here as if they're in the same conversation. Are you trying to make this even more incomprehensible?

OK I'll try to address, one piece at a time..

And while Fox is inflicting such ratings carnage on competitor MSNBC and others, the lefty nutjobs find one ratings report in which Fox did not dominate in one particular demographic group, and it's time - once again!!! - to bang the drum about how bad Fox is doing in the ratings overall. For them it's a gift they know their low information doorknobs will lap up, misconstruing it that Fox is really really in trouble this time. Wonder if Truthmatters and that ilk will ever figure it out?

Fox has been in decline in an overall pattern. Again it's got nothing to do with "low or high information", since information is not the business they're in. The overall pattern prolly has a lot to do with its demographics... old white men. The oldest audience on cable TV; they're literally dying off. In a microcosm they have the same fade-to-irrelevance problem the RP encountered in the last election ...when they both floundered and tried to bail out a sinking ship with Rovian math.

A translation of this post into coherent English being unavailable, I'll try to muddle through what I can gather it means... basically I started (three weeks ago (?)) with a general comment which was addressed to the general reader. That comment was based on your previous comment about the topic of Fox ratings, which, again, as near as I could suss it, implied some sort of relationship between television ratings and television "value". So I then went into an explanation of what ratings mean and what they don't mean. That's what I do over and over when that particular fallacy comes up, because it's what I know.

I just did the same thing again today. Perhaps we can discuss it in three weeks time.

It's quite possible that I guessed wrong on your meaning originally (again I'm finding your posts near incomprehensible) and was addressing a point you did not make, but I figured it was probably a point that needed making regardless. And judging by today's bumps, that seems correct. But none of it was about anybody's slant or bias; it was about the psychology of how TV works and what the ratings mean; and how they are achieved by a broadcaster. And the only reason I keep explaining that is because various posters keep bringing in lists of TV ratings --which, again, have no value to anyone here unless we are buying advertising time. Assuming no one is here for that purpose, we must also assume that these ratings sheets are therefore being brought in on some other belief of what they represent. So I clarify.

I think you're talking here about ideologies. I'm not. I was talking about technicalities of the general media industry. Apples and aardvarks. Ideologies, well we can do them another time.

I made the point way back on page 2-3, if you followed your own past comments then it would have been plain too.

I know -- I had to page back there to find it and review. Just not used to following up on a conversation from three weeks ago, nomsayin'?

they are all in the same biz. its not about slant or bias? I don't know what to say to that really, forest meet trees.
people think they are getting formation, they watch to feed their own particular viewpoints, thats why advertisers choose particular venues to buy time on, yes? t

No. And if that's what you're reading out of my posts as far as why people watch what they watch, then you haven't heard a word I've said, because none of it was about ideology or information or viewpoints. As far as the dynamics I'm talking about all of that is irrelevant. That's the whole point here.

and, did you not post this?

Fox has been in decline in an overall pattern. Again it's got nothing to do with "low or high information", since information is not the business they're in. The overall pattern prolly has a lot to do with its demographics... old white men.


The oldest audience on cable TV; they're literally dying off. In a microcosm they have the same fade-to-irrelevance problem the RP encountered in the last election ...when they both floundered and tried to bail out a sinking ship with Rovian math.

I do recognize my writing there. Although I'm not sure where or what topic you dragged it in from. So I would say not only did I post that, but I got negged by two different posters (or more likely the same one with two accounts) on a charge of "racism" for revealing that the Fox News audience is white (unbelievable but true) so I do remember that passage specifically.

-- So what? It's another analysis of why Fox's ratings might be "tanking" -- demographics. Another analysis which, as before, has nothing to do with ideology. I believe I also noted that the observation that their ratings "tanked" were probably premature and probably related to the election and subsequent inauguration, which were in the time period of that ratings sweep.

Again -- what's your point?

Ideologies, well we can do them another time

...

another time? you already have...

.
Not here we haven't, at least I haven't. It would be off topic here, and I just don't have the time right now anyway. But yes, another time another thread.

May I ask, what is your first language?

 

[Sherry]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

 

[Pogo]

Fox News Ratings Hit 12-Year Demo Lows In January Cable News Figures

Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show

.................. and?

 

[American_Jihad]

this lame hypcrasy is delectable,

there's a thread in this forum with commmnets lauding Chris Wallace of FOX news Sunday for smacking around the NRA CEO from the very same folks who have posted here in this one.

Actually that was me. I started that thread all by myself. Pretty impressive huh?

So -- what's yer point? Other than your spell checker doesn't work?

woooow the ole spelling mistake one oneupmanship. man, you're on it bro...

That's part of their MO when they got nothing, typical progressive/liberal...

 

[Pogo]

Actually that was me. I started that thread all by myself. Pretty impressive huh?

So -- what's yer point? Other than your spell checker doesn't work?

woooow the ole spelling mistake one oneupmanship. man, you're on it bro...

That's part of their MO when they got nothing, typical progressive/liberal...

"Got nothing"?? After all I contributed to this thread??
--- you didn't read a damn word of it, did you? Prefer to stay ignorant?

Look, the guy's posts are atrocious. "Commmnets"? Is that how you write in Knuckledraggistan too? Don't think so. It's just common courtesy to respect your reader enough to respect their language, so he deserved that little dig.

He's got an excuse, English is clearly not his mother tongue. You OTOH.... well, just read your own post.

 

[Trajan]

Sheesh Trajan, you've melded together posts from different places here as if they're in the same conversation. Are you trying to make this even more incomprehensible?

OK I'll try to address, one piece at a time..

Fox has been in decline in an overall pattern. Again it's got nothing to do with "low or high information", since information is not the business they're in. The overall pattern prolly has a lot to do with its demographics... old white men. The oldest audience on cable TV; they're literally dying off. In a microcosm they have the same fade-to-irrelevance problem the RP encountered in the last election ...when they both floundered and tried to bail out a sinking ship with Rovian math.

I made the point way back on page 2-3, if you followed your own past comments then it would have been plain too.

I know -- I had to page back there to find it and review. Just not used to following up on a conversation from three weeks ago, nomsayin'?



No. And if that's what you're reading out of my posts as far as why people watch what they watch, then you haven't heard a word I've said, because none of it was about ideology or information or viewpoints. As far as the dynamics I'm talking about all of that is irrelevant. That's the whole point here.



I do recognize my writing there. Although I'm not sure where or what topic you dragged it in from. So I would say not only did I post that, but I got negged by two different posters (or more likely the same one with two accounts) on a charge of "racism" for revealing that the Fox News audience is white (unbelievable but true) so I do remember that passage specifically.

-- So what? It's another analysis of why Fox's ratings might be "tanking" -- demographics. Another analysis which, as before, has nothing to do with ideology. I believe I also noted that the observation that their ratings "tanked" were probably premature and probably related to the election and subsequent inauguration, which were in the time period of that ratings sweep.

Again -- what's your point?

Ideologies, well we can do them another time

...

another time? you already have...

.
Not here we haven't, at least I haven't. It would be off topic here, and I just don't have the time right now anyway. But yes, another time another thread.

May I ask, what is your first language?

the comments of yours quoted above are all from this thread.

May I ask, Alzheimer meds, prescribed? you taking them as scheduled?

Thats the second time you've mentioned this '3 weeks' ago thang, I don't see what difference 3 weeks or, 3 months ago makes, the thread is, well, the thread, its what? 4 whole pages?

It hasn't been edited. I would think before you T off on me for 'incoherent' posts, maybe you, not being able to recognizance (rebuttals) to comments you have made IN THIS thread, should go back and review it?

 

[TNHarley]

I saw somewhere that the top news, at any time(just general amountof viewers) and various Fox shows had the top 4(?) spots. The next 2 were liberal comedy shows.. Daily show and Letterman(Ithink)
LOL what does that tell you? And that was from Monday

 

[Trajan]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

I just think the election was tiring, I know I am tired, and being on the losing end is even more tiresome. I would guess its both audiences, the victors feel they can rest, the losers just fade out for a while......

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox News Ratings Hit 12-Year Demo Lows In January Cable News Figures

Fox News still had nine out of the top 10 programs. It has spent 11 consecutive years as the top-rated cable news channel. Its 6 a.m. show drew almost double the ratings of CNN's top-ranking prime time show

.................. and?

........and the Left is STILL desperate to believe that Fox News is somehow on its death bed drawing its last breaths.

I suppose there are conservatives who obsess over the pro-Obama, anti-anything conservative, unabashedly biased and dishonest MSNBC. Certainly threads are started re the more outrageous commentary or comments by MSNBC people. But I don't see rightwingers posting thread after thread after thread jubilant that MSNBC has lost ratings or is in decline or is losing market share.

The obsession of leftists with Fox News, with conservative publications and think tanks, with conservative talk radio, etc. is constructive I think. In order for modern American liberalism to thrive and spread, free speech and diversity of opinion and thought must be suppressed as much as possible. The whole truth of anything must never be allowed free expression. And those who do not embrace modern American liberalism must be diminished, marginalized, demonized, and thus silenced.

From all appearances, the fact that the left has been unsuccessful in marginzating, demonizing, and diminishing Fox News is driving them nuts.

 

[Bigfoot]

FOX News makes Liberals foam at the mouth, I find it humorous.

 

[Pogo]

Sheesh Trajan, you've melded together posts from different places here as if they're in the same conversation. Are you trying to make this even more incomprehensible?

OK I'll try to address, one piece at a time..

I made the point way back on page 2-3, if you followed your own past comments then it would have been plain too.

I know -- I had to page back there to find it and review. Just not used to following up on a conversation from three weeks ago, nomsayin'?



No. And if that's what you're reading out of my posts as far as why people watch what they watch, then you haven't heard a word I've said, because none of it was about ideology or information or viewpoints. As far as the dynamics I'm talking about all of that is irrelevant. That's the whole point here.



I do recognize my writing there. Although I'm not sure where or what topic you dragged it in from. So I would say not only did I post that, but I got negged by two different posters (or more likely the same one with two accounts) on a charge of "racism" for revealing that the Fox News audience is white (unbelievable but true) so I do remember that passage specifically.

-- So what? It's another analysis of why Fox's ratings might be "tanking" -- demographics. Another analysis which, as before, has nothing to do with ideology. I believe I also noted that the observation that their ratings "tanked" were probably premature and probably related to the election and subsequent inauguration, which were in the time period of that ratings sweep.

Again -- what's your point?

...

another time? you already have...

.
Not here we haven't, at least I haven't. It would be off topic here, and I just don't have the time right now anyway. But yes, another time another thread.

May I ask, what is your first language?

the comments of yours quoted above are all from this thread.

May I ask, Alzheimer meds, prescribed? you taking them as scheduled?

Thats the second time you've mentioned this '3 weeks' ago thang, I don't see what difference 3 weeks or, 3 months ago makes, the thread is, well, the thread, its what? 4 whole pages?

It hasn't been edited. I would think before you T off on me for 'incoherent' posts, maybe you, not being able to recognizance (rebuttals) to comments you have made IN THIS thread, should go back and review it?

Sorry Trajan but I just have a real hard time deciphering your writing -- this one is much better but there are lines up there in the older posts that I still have no idea what they mean at all. And on the other side you don't seem to have understood anything I've posted either, which is why I asked what your native language is, in case we may have another one in common. So on the whole I'm not sure we've conversed at all here.

The three weeks thing-- it was just a quick insignificant quip that I used to wax poetic on the significance of ratings, relevant to the topic, and that has since been eclipsed and developed further, so I'm not sure why we're going back to rehash the beginning thereof. It doesn't seem we've communicated here, at least I'm not seeing it. We don't even know what each other is talking about.

And PS I do not have Alzheimer's although having watched my father deteriorate over a period of ten years from Parkinson's, I do not appreciate the parallel. Maybe you should make more of an effort to uderstand. Nobody else seem unclear. Just sayin'.

 

[Foxfyre]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

I just think the election was tiring, I know I am tired, and being on the losing end is even more tiresome. I would guess its both audiences, the victors feel they can rest, the losers just fade out for a while......

Almost certainly there was higher viewership of ALL television news media during the months leading up to the election when people were interested in the election. After the election was over, a lot of that interest no longer existed and viewership of all television news media almost certainly fell off. (I didn't make that a statement of certainty because I frankly don't care enought to check all the ratings for all those weeks/months.)

And yes, after being immersed in politics almost 24/7 for weeks and weeks, people often do reach the saturation point. I certainly do. So Fox isn't getting nearly as much ratings out of my television viewing as it did a few months ago. I watch enough to see what they're covering, but don't stay with it hour by hour while the same stuff is rehashed over and over and over. I would rather watch Survivor or American Idol or The Amazing Race or a good movie if I am going to watch anything. I'm guessing that is the case with fans of other cable news too.

But that is true of all other media too. I still scan the headlines at Drudge and Breitbart and Huffington Post to see what the news of the day is, and still read enough from various sources to keep up with the current issues. Right now it is all focused on sequester and the ramifications of that. So I inform myself best that I can re those ramifications, but am not interested in hearing the same opinions expressed by commentator after commentator at any source.

So in slow news periods, Fox News, and everybody else, is going to have lower ratings. And if something really special or profound happens, you'll see their ratings, and everybody else's, spike.

 

[Spoonman]

Fox News Ratings Hit 12-Year Demo Lows In January Cable News Figures

yet still larger than all of its competitors combined

Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC 1,233 252 495
CNN 328 90 147
MSNBC 464 125 211
CNBC 180 47 84
FBN 59 10 31
HLN 354 122 190

Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 2,158 373 735
CNN 481 121 243
MSNBC 962 236 474
CNBC 218 66 103
FBN 54 5 17
HLN 568 213 312

 

[Pogo]

I saw somewhere that the top news, at any time(just general amountof viewers) and various Fox shows had the top 4(?) spots. The've next 2 were liberal comedy shows.. Daily show and Letterman(Ithink)
LOL what does that tell you? And that was from Monday

Beats me. What does it tell you?

As far as ideologies and media, I've toyed with the question of whether there's a reason the media that tends to work for the "right" tends to be based on confrontation (e.g. Limbaugh, O'Reilly) while what works for the "left" tends to be based on comedy and satire (as above). That thought came up in talk radio comparisons.

Think about the reverse -- do we know a left-leaning media production based on confrontation that works? Or a right-leaning one based on comedy? Why would this be?

Just a thought for contemplation.

 

[Trajan]

Sheesh Trajan, you've melded together posts from different places here as if they're in the same conversation. Are you trying to make this even more incomprehensible?

OK I'll try to address, one piece at a time..



I know -- I had to page back there to find it and review. Just not used to following up on a conversation from three weeks ago, nomsayin'?



No. And if that's what you're reading out of my posts as far as why people watch what they watch, then you haven't heard a word I've said, because none of it was about ideology or information or viewpoints. As far as the dynamics I'm talking about all of that is irrelevant. That's the whole point here.



I do recognize my writing there. Although I'm not sure where or what topic you dragged it in from. So I would say not only did I post that, but I got negged by two different posters (or more likely the same one with two accounts) on a charge of "racism" for revealing that the Fox News audience is white (unbelievable but true) so I do remember that passage specifically.

-- So what? It's another analysis of why Fox's ratings might be "tanking" -- demographics. Another analysis which, as before, has nothing to do with ideology. I believe I also noted that the observation that their ratings "tanked" were probably premature and probably related to the election and subsequent inauguration, which were in the time period of that ratings sweep.

Again -- what's your point?



.
Not here we haven't, at least I haven't. It would be off topic here, and I just don't have the time right now anyway. But yes, another time another thread.

May I ask, what is your first language?

the comments of yours quoted above are all from this thread.

May I ask, Alzheimer meds, prescribed? you taking them as scheduled?

Thats the second time you've mentioned this '3 weeks' ago thang, I don't see what difference 3 weeks or, 3 months ago makes, the thread is, well, the thread, its what? 4 whole pages?

It hasn't been edited. I would think before you T off on me for 'incoherent' posts, maybe you, not being able to recognizance (rebuttals) to comments you have made IN THIS thread, should go back and review it?

Sorry Trajan but I just have a real hard time deciphering your writing -- this one is much better but there are lines up there in the older posts that I still have no idea what they mean at all. And on the other side you don't seem to have understood anything I've posted either, which is why I asked what your native language is, in case we may have another one in common. So on the whole I'm not sure we've conversed at all here.

The three weeks thing-- it was just a quick insignificant quip that I used to wax poetic on the significance of ratings, relevant to the topic, and that has since been eclipsed and developed further, so I'm not sure why we're going back to rehash the beginning thereof. It doesn't seem we've communicated here, at least I'm not seeing it. We don't even know what each other is talking about.

And PS I do not have Alzheimer's although having watched my father deteriorate over a period of ten years from Parkinson's, I do not appreciate the parallel. Maybe you should make more of an effort to uderstand. Nobody else seem unclear. Just sayin'.

oh for gods sake.

 

[Pogo]

With the election over, the looney left doesn't feel compelled to tune into FOX and obsessively hang on to their every word...FOX is gonna miss yo crazy asses.

Indeed....ands I agree , I think there is a certain exhaustion that has set in as well.

(Though it appears, some ascribe the death of white males as a probable cause, but are now busy papering that over because their mask slipped ).

Once again -- wtf does that mean in English? I don't even know if he's talking about me. Anyone?