Collapsing this fast? I knew Fox was going to get hurt big time, but now third after the Election Night fiasco, while CNN is miles ahead?

[OldLady]

Check out these numbers. Almost unbelievable unless newsmax and other networks have taken most of Fox viewers. There is no way other than the Weasel Wallace viewers that Fox News viewers are switching to CNN.

This is a collapse of mammoth proportions. Maybe worse than what twitter is about to experience.

Man, when Americans get pissed and feel betrayed, they really let it be known.

Thursday, Jan. 7 Scoreboard: CNN Is the No. 1 Network, Led by Anderson Cooper

Cooper delivered 5.8 million viewers in the 8 p.m. hour, No. 1 on all of cable news. MSNBC ranked No. 2 across the board, both in total day and prime time among total viewers and adults 25-54.

www.adweek.com

Thursday, Jan. 7 Scoreboard: CNN Is the No. 1 Network, Led by Anderson Cooper



By A.J. Katz on Jan. 8, 2021 - 5:22 PMComment


25-54 Demographic (Live+SD x 1,000)
Total Day: FNC: 384 | CNN: 1.193 | MSNBC: 653
Prime: FNC: 521 | CNN: 1.630 | MSNBC: 907

	FNC:	CNN:	MSNBC:
4PM	Cavuto: 388	Tapper: 1.548	Wallace: 756
5PM	Five: 628	Blitzer: 1.581	Wallace: —
6PM	Baier: 491	Blitzer: 1.504	Melber: 693
7PM	MacCallum: 509	Burnett: 1.698	Reid: 748
8PM	Carlson: 665	Cooper: 1.830	Hayes: 755
9PM	Hannity: 496	Cuomo: 1.690	Maddow: 1.130
10PM	Ingraham: 401	Lemon: 1.371	O’Donnell: 836
11PM	Bream: 301	Lemon: 997	Williams: 722

Total Viewers (Live+SD x 1,000)
Total Day: FNC: 1.935 | CNN: 3.854 | MSNBC: 3.321
Prime: FNC: 2.965 | CNN: 5.049 | MSNBC: 4.543

	FNC	CNN	MSNBC:
4PM	Cavuto: 1.950	Tapper: 5.316	Wallace: 4.166
5PM	Five: 3.602	Blitzer: 5.116	Wallace: —-
6PM	Baier: 2.393	Blitzer: 4.540	Melber: 3.535
7PM	MacCallum: 2.186	Burnett: 4.875	Reid: 3.466
8PM	Carlson: 3.582	Cooper: 5.766	Hayes: 3.623
9PM	Hannity: 3.000	Cuomo: 5.209	Maddow: 5.398
10PM	Ingraham: 2.315	Lemon: 4.172	O’Donnell: 4.608
11PM	Bream: 1.427	Lemon: 2.915	Williams: 3.797

It's hard to beleve how fucking DENSE you are AFTER being schooled on this.

Broadcast "ratings" have ONE PURPOSE AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY, and that is to set advertising rates.

They show ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY and that is how many of what kind of people are watching/listening/reading.

THAT'S IT. FULL STOP.

THEY DO NOT, AND CAN NOT, MEASURE ANYTHING REMOTELY RELATED TO ANY KIND OF "FEEWINGS". UNDERSTAND? THEY MEASURE ATTENTION, NOT "ASSENT'. THEY ARE NOT "VOTES" ON CONTENT. NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE, NEVER CAN BE.

What does that mean for you and your pretentiously pathetic thread here Twinkles? It means that unless you're in the business of either buying or selling TV commercials, WHAT YOU HAVE HERE MEANS ABSOLUTE SQUAT.

FOR FUCK's SAKE YOUR OWN LINK COMES FROM AdWeek. What did that tell you??

It is giving us the ratings of people who watch the shows. Who cares about the purpose, the viewers aren't saying "hey man, I really want to increase CNNs ad revenue so maybe I will watch them now, and make them some more money!".

You suggesting that actual ratings of sports, news, TV Shows are not valid in understanding who is watching what? That's asinine.

I'm not concerned with the impact on rates they charge advertisers, I'm interested in the sets of eyes watching TV shows. They show what people are interested in, even where their ideology is leaning. You don't go from a couple of millions ahead of your closest rival to 3rd place and millions behind, without a good reason.

Tucker said CNN is trying to sink Fox News, and they may just succeed. I live in the world of data of numbers, not "agreement or disagreement".

It's got to be Newsmax and OAN taking the viewers, don't you think? Of course, being the day after the Trump Insurrection, it's possible people tuned in CNN because they do the Big Disasters better than anyone. I doubt if regular Fox viewers are going to switch to CNN. There's just too much daylight between those two.

 

[Pogo]

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

 

[Pogo]

Check out these numbers. Almost unbelievable unless newsmax and other networks have taken most of Fox viewers. There is no way other than the Weasel Wallace viewers that Fox News viewers are switching to CNN.

This is a collapse of mammoth proportions. Maybe worse than what twitter is about to experience.

Man, when Americans get pissed and feel betrayed, they really let it be known.

Thursday, Jan. 7 Scoreboard: CNN Is the No. 1 Network, Led by Anderson Cooper

Cooper delivered 5.8 million viewers in the 8 p.m. hour, No. 1 on all of cable news. MSNBC ranked No. 2 across the board, both in total day and prime time among total viewers and adults 25-54.

www.adweek.com

Thursday, Jan. 7 Scoreboard: CNN Is the No. 1 Network, Led by Anderson Cooper



By A.J. Katz on Jan. 8, 2021 - 5:22 PMComment


25-54 Demographic (Live+SD x 1,000)
Total Day: FNC: 384 | CNN: 1.193 | MSNBC: 653
Prime: FNC: 521 | CNN: 1.630 | MSNBC: 907

	FNC:	CNN:	MSNBC:
4PM	Cavuto: 388	Tapper: 1.548	Wallace: 756
5PM	Five: 628	Blitzer: 1.581	Wallace: —
6PM	Baier: 491	Blitzer: 1.504	Melber: 693
7PM	MacCallum: 509	Burnett: 1.698	Reid: 748
8PM	Carlson: 665	Cooper: 1.830	Hayes: 755
9PM	Hannity: 496	Cuomo: 1.690	Maddow: 1.130
10PM	Ingraham: 401	Lemon: 1.371	O’Donnell: 836
11PM	Bream: 301	Lemon: 997	Williams: 722

Total Viewers (Live+SD x 1,000)
Total Day: FNC: 1.935 | CNN: 3.854 | MSNBC: 3.321
Prime: FNC: 2.965 | CNN: 5.049 | MSNBC: 4.543

	FNC	CNN	MSNBC:
4PM	Cavuto: 1.950	Tapper: 5.316	Wallace: 4.166
5PM	Five: 3.602	Blitzer: 5.116	Wallace: —-
6PM	Baier: 2.393	Blitzer: 4.540	Melber: 3.535
7PM	MacCallum: 2.186	Burnett: 4.875	Reid: 3.466
8PM	Carlson: 3.582	Cooper: 5.766	Hayes: 3.623
9PM	Hannity: 3.000	Cuomo: 5.209	Maddow: 5.398
10PM	Ingraham: 2.315	Lemon: 4.172	O’Donnell: 4.608
11PM	Bream: 1.427	Lemon: 2.915	Williams: 3.797

It's hard to beleve how fucking DENSE you are AFTER being schooled on this.

Broadcast "ratings" have ONE PURPOSE AND ONE PURPOSE ONLY, and that is to set advertising rates.

They show ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY and that is how many of what kind of people are watching/listening/reading.

THAT'S IT. FULL STOP.

THEY DO NOT, AND CAN NOT, MEASURE ANYTHING REMOTELY RELATED TO ANY KIND OF "FEEWINGS". UNDERSTAND? THEY MEASURE ATTENTION, NOT "ASSENT'. THEY ARE NOT "VOTES" ON CONTENT. NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE, NEVER CAN BE.

What does that mean for you and your pretentiously pathetic thread here Twinkles? It means that unless you're in the business of either buying or selling TV commercials, WHAT YOU HAVE HERE MEANS ABSOLUTE SQUAT.

FOR FUCK's SAKE YOUR OWN LINK COMES FROM AdWeek. What did that tell you??

It is giving us the ratings of people who watch the shows. Who cares about the purpose, the viewers aren't saying "hey man, I really want to increase CNNs ad revenue so maybe I will watch them now, and make them some more money!".

You suggesting that actual ratings of sports, news, TV Shows are not valid in understanding who is watching what? That's asinine.

I'm not concerned with the impact on rates they charge advertisers, I'm interested in the sets of eyes watching TV shows. They show what people are interested in, even where their ideology is leaning. You don't go from a couple of millions ahead of your closest rival to 3rd place and millions behind, without a good reason.

Tucker said CNN is trying to sink Fox News, and they may just succeed. I live in the world of data of numbers, not "agreement or disagreement".

It's got to be Newsmax and OAN taking the viewers, don't you think? Of course, being the day after the Trump Insurrection, it's possible people tuned in CNN because they do the Big Disasters better than anyone. I doubt if regular Fox viewers are going to switch to CNN. There's just too much daylight between those two.

Those data don't show (and can't show) that the viewers in X table, came from the viewers in Y table. They can be entirely new viewers (or more accurately viewers who didn't show up in the last book -- viewers who were watching something else before the election and its ancillary dramas took center stage). Colder winter weather drives (all) ratings up, for one factor. Having an orange klown pump up a new channel in his zombiefeed drives curiosity too. New things always generate curiosity.

The OP's trying to extrapolate viewer-intention trends from a single ratings book, and that's just illogical. Even if we could call those intentions, we don't do it from a single book.

This is the same lame argument they try to trot in here about "oh look, NFL ratings going down" trying to tie it into national anthem posture in the pasture, completely leaving out the context that TV ratings for ALL sports have been going down for years (due to streaming), as well as the inconvenient fact that that national anthem song and dance isn't even ON TV in the first place. They're cherrypicking a set of data and trying to hammer a conclusional square peg into a round hole --- a conclusion of wishful thinking for which they have no evidence.

 

[Missourian]

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

It seems like we're saying the same thing.

Fewer people are watching Fox News.

They are feeling a backlash in the one place it counts...ad revenue.

So what are you arguing exactly?

That ratings aren't designed to tell us exactly why fewer people are watching?

Presidential approval ratings also don't tell us why the respondents disappove.

But we still use them as a metric.

Just as we use cable news ratings as a metric.

In this instance it would seem that the revolt against Fox News' coverage of the election and post-election has diminished their total viewers.

If you would like to tender a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This could be just another lie too.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, king of the carriage return or what. Umma fix that.

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

It seems like we're saying the same thing. Fewer people are watching Fox News. They are feeling a backlash in the one place it counts...ad revenue.

So what are you arguing exactly? That ratings aren't designed to tell us exactly why fewer people are watching?

Yes. Exactly.
And it goes back to the fact that ATTENTION is what gets ratings -- that's what ratings mean. Therefore in order to get high ratings, an entity has to gather ATTENTION. Not "assent", not "sympathy", not "agreement", not any kind of touchy-feely stuff ---- just ATTENTION. That's all it takes. And obviously they'll sink to any manner of visual sewage to get it ---- that's why TV was described as a "vast wasteland" --- and that was sixty years ago.

The fact is you'll sit and watch an ad for a truck that can tow and asteroid if you've just been teased about something you vehemently DISAGREE with. Doesn't matter. They have your ATTENTION either way. Emotional hooks. That's also why they just framed it as "when we come back we'll tell you how drinking water is bad for you" --- because they want you to sit through that commercial.

That's what it's entirely about, that's what it's ALWAYS been entirely about as long as there has been commercial advertising in broadcasting. It ain't about pushing this "position" or pushing back on that "position" ---- it's all about selling you shit you don't need. That's advertising, and that's where the money comes from. The basic reason commercial broadcasters EXIST AT ALL is simply so they can gather enough gullible ears or eyeballs together so that they can sell them shit they don't need and profit therefrom.

Presidential approval ratings also don't tell us why the respondents disappove. But we still use them as a metric.

Sure. As an approval poll. That's what an approval poll measures -- opinion.
IT DOES NOT MEASURE ATTENTION. Opinion ≠ attention.

Moreover, detailed approval polls DO tell us what respondents approve or disapprove of, to the extent they lay out those topics. Because they're opinion polls, not attention polls.

Just as we use cable news ratings as a metric.

No. Invalid comparison of apples and kumquats.
The valid comparator would be the head count at, say, a concert event. "How many people bought tickets" . That tells you how much money you made but it doesn't explain WHY those people came. If X bazillion people go to see a movie, you've been informed you have a "hit" movie but you haven't been informed WHY you have a "hit" movie.

In this instance it would seem that the revolt against Fox News' coverage of the election and post-election has diminished their total viewers.

If you would like to tender a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.

There is no basis for that yet-again emotional conclusion ("revolt"). Unless of course you have personally gone forth and surveyed millions of TV viewers about their opinion. But then, you have an opinion poll, not a ratings book.

As far as the OP and his errant nonsequitur conclusions, note that he also put the same emotional baggage into his own title here ("fiasco"). He's using his own wishful thinking to form a conclusion for which he has no basis.

 

[Missourian]

Wow, king of the carriage return or what. Umma fix that.

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

It seems like we're saying the same thing. Fewer people are watching Fox News. They are feeling a backlash in the one place it counts...ad revenue.

So what are you arguing exactly? That ratings aren't designed to tell us exactly why fewer people are watching?

Yes. Exactly.
And it goes back to the fact that ATTENTION is what gets ratings -- that's what ratings mean. Therefore in order to get high ratings, an entity has to gather ATTENTION. Not "assent", not "sympathy", not "agreement", not any kind of touchy-feely stuff ---- just ATTENTION. That's all it takes. And obviously they'll sink to any manner of visual sewage to get it ---- that's why TV was described as a "vast wasteland" --- and that was sixty years ago.

The fact is you'll sit and watch an ad for a truck that can tow and asteroid if you've just been teased about something you vehemently DISAGREE with. Doesn't matter. They have your ATTENTION either way. Emotional hooks. That's also why they just framed it as "when we come back we'll tell you how drinking water is bad for you" --- because they want you to sit through that commercial.

That's what it's entirely about, that's what it's ALWAYS been entirely about as long as there has been commercial advertising in broadcasting. It ain't about pushing this "position" or pushing back on that "position" ---- it's all about selling you shit you don't need. That's advertising, and that's where the money comes from. The basic reason commercial broadcasters EXIST AT ALL is simply so they can gather enough gullible ears or eyeballs together so that they can sell them shit they don't need and profit therefrom.

Presidential approval ratings also don't tell us why the respondents disappove. But we still use them as a metric.

Sure. As an approval poll. That's what an approval poll measures -- opinion.
IT DOES NOT MEASURE ATTENTION. Opinion ≠ attention.

Moreover, detailed approval polls DO tell us what respondents approve or disapprove of, to the extent they lay out those topics. Because they're opinion polls, not attention polls.

Just as we use cable news ratings as a metric.

No. Invalid comparison of apples and kumquats.
The valid comparator would be the head count at, say, a concert event. "How many people bought tickets" . That tells you how much money you made but it doesn't explain WHY those people came. If X bazillion people go to see a movie, you've been informed you have a "hit" movie but you haven't been informed WHY you have a "hit" movie.

In this instance it would seem that the revolt against Fox News' coverage of the election and post-election has diminished their total viewers.

If you would like to tender a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.

There is no basis for that yet-again emotional conclusion ("revolt"). Unless of course you have personally gone forth and surveyed millions of TV viewers about their opinion. But then, you have an opinion poll, not a ratings book

Ok...it don't disagree with what you are saying...but I don't agree that we cannot draw conclussions by applying some critical thinking.

If we went to a Dixie Chicks concert after their George Bush comments we could have easily correlated the drop in attendance to a backlash...could we not?

 

[Pogo]

Wow, king of the carriage return or what. Umma fix that.

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

It seems like we're saying the same thing. Fewer people are watching Fox News. They are feeling a backlash in the one place it counts...ad revenue.

So what are you arguing exactly? That ratings aren't designed to tell us exactly why fewer people are watching?

Yes. Exactly.
And it goes back to the fact that ATTENTION is what gets ratings -- that's what ratings mean. Therefore in order to get high ratings, an entity has to gather ATTENTION. Not "assent", not "sympathy", not "agreement", not any kind of touchy-feely stuff ---- just ATTENTION. That's all it takes. And obviously they'll sink to any manner of visual sewage to get it ---- that's why TV was described as a "vast wasteland" --- and that was sixty years ago.

The fact is you'll sit and watch an ad for a truck that can tow and asteroid if you've just been teased about something you vehemently DISAGREE with. Doesn't matter. They have your ATTENTION either way. Emotional hooks. That's also why they just framed it as "when we come back we'll tell you how drinking water is bad for you" --- because they want you to sit through that commercial.

That's what it's entirely about, that's what it's ALWAYS been entirely about as long as there has been commercial advertising in broadcasting. It ain't about pushing this "position" or pushing back on that "position" ---- it's all about selling you shit you don't need. That's advertising, and that's where the money comes from. The basic reason commercial broadcasters EXIST AT ALL is simply so they can gather enough gullible ears or eyeballs together so that they can sell them shit they don't need and profit therefrom.

Presidential approval ratings also don't tell us why the respondents disappove. But we still use them as a metric.

Sure. As an approval poll. That's what an approval poll measures -- opinion.
IT DOES NOT MEASURE ATTENTION. Opinion ≠ attention.

Moreover, detailed approval polls DO tell us what respondents approve or disapprove of, to the extent they lay out those topics. Because they're opinion polls, not attention polls.

Just as we use cable news ratings as a metric.

No. Invalid comparison of apples and kumquats.
The valid comparator would be the head count at, say, a concert event. "How many people bought tickets" . That tells you how much money you made but it doesn't explain WHY those people came. If X bazillion people go to see a movie, you've been informed you have a "hit" movie but you haven't been informed WHY you have a "hit" movie.

In this instance it would seem that the revolt against Fox News' coverage of the election and post-election has diminished their total viewers.

If you would like to tender a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.

There is no basis for that yet-again emotional conclusion ("revolt"). Unless of course you have personally gone forth and surveyed millions of TV viewers about their opinion. But then, you have an opinion poll, not a ratings book

Ok...it don't disagree with what you are saying...but I don't agree that we cannot draw conclussions by applying some critical thinking.

If we went to a Dixie Chicks concert after their George Bush comments we could have easily correlated the drop in attendance to a backlash...could we not?

The Dixie Chicks concert was in England. England, where they (England, Europe and the entire world) had just staged the largest world protest in the history of the planet, literally, against the coming invasion of Iraq. That's why Natalie Maines got cheers for her sympathetic comment in the moment. It was washed in the context of that protest. A protest, it's worth noting, see below, that got nary a whimper from the lamestream media HERE.

I don't know of any "drop in attendance" but there certainly was a corporate censorship campaign HERE --- certainly not in England or anywhere else, for speaking truth to power, directed at their recordings. Much like there was a movement -- I use the term loosely -- get it -- to stage community Beatle-burnings of their records.

 

[Missourian]

Wow, king of the carriage return or what. Umma fix that.

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

It seems like we're saying the same thing. Fewer people are watching Fox News. They are feeling a backlash in the one place it counts...ad revenue.

So what are you arguing exactly? That ratings aren't designed to tell us exactly why fewer people are watching?

Yes. Exactly.
And it goes back to the fact that ATTENTION is what gets ratings -- that's what ratings mean. Therefore in order to get high ratings, an entity has to gather ATTENTION. Not "assent", not "sympathy", not "agreement", not any kind of touchy-feely stuff ---- just ATTENTION. That's all it takes. And obviously they'll sink to any manner of visual sewage to get it ---- that's why TV was described as a "vast wasteland" --- and that was sixty years ago.

The fact is you'll sit and watch an ad for a truck that can tow and asteroid if you've just been teased about something you vehemently DISAGREE with. Doesn't matter. They have your ATTENTION either way. Emotional hooks. That's also why they just framed it as "when we come back we'll tell you how drinking water is bad for you" --- because they want you to sit through that commercial.

That's what it's entirely about, that's what it's ALWAYS been entirely about as long as there has been commercial advertising in broadcasting. It ain't about pushing this "position" or pushing back on that "position" ---- it's all about selling you shit you don't need. That's advertising, and that's where the money comes from. The basic reason commercial broadcasters EXIST AT ALL is simply so they can gather enough gullible ears or eyeballs together so that they can sell them shit they don't need and profit therefrom.

Presidential approval ratings also don't tell us why the respondents disappove. But we still use them as a metric.

Sure. As an approval poll. That's what an approval poll measures -- opinion.
IT DOES NOT MEASURE ATTENTION. Opinion ≠ attention.

Moreover, detailed approval polls DO tell us what respondents approve or disapprove of, to the extent they lay out those topics. Because they're opinion polls, not attention polls.

Just as we use cable news ratings as a metric.

No. Invalid comparison of apples and kumquats.
The valid comparator would be the head count at, say, a concert event. "How many people bought tickets" . That tells you how much money you made but it doesn't explain WHY those people came. If X bazillion people go to see a movie, you've been informed you have a "hit" movie but you haven't been informed WHY you have a "hit" movie.

In this instance it would seem that the revolt against Fox News' coverage of the election and post-election has diminished their total viewers.

If you would like to tender a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.

There is no basis for that yet-again emotional conclusion ("revolt"). Unless of course you have personally gone forth and surveyed millions of TV viewers about their opinion. But then, you have an opinion poll, not a ratings book

Ok...it don't disagree with what you are saying...but I don't agree that we cannot draw conclussions by applying some critical thinking.

If we went to a Dixie Chicks concert after their George Bush comments we could have easily correlated the drop in attendance to a backlash...could we not?

The Dixie Chicks concert was in England. England, where they (England, Europe and the entire world) had just staged the largest world protest in the history of the planet, literally, against the coming invasion of Iraq. That's why Natalie Maines got cheers for her sympathetic comment in the moment. It was washed in the context of that protest. A protest, it's worth noting, see below, that got nary a whimper from the lamestream media HERE.

I don't know of any "drop in attendance" but there certainly was a corporate censorship campaign HERE --- certainly not in England or anywhere else, for speaking truth to power, directed at their recordings. Much like there was a movement -- I use the term loosely -- get it -- to stage community Beatle-burnings of their records.

None of that is relevant to your analogy.

We know that ticket sales collapsed. And we know that collapse corresponded with a controversy.

While the number of tickets sold doesn't tell us specifically why less tickets were sold...as thinking human beings we can easily draw the conclusion that the two events are related.

"The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets."

The rest of your reply is obfuscation.

This is the relevant fact. Although the tickets sales aren't designed to analyse feelings...they can indeed be used as a metric to measure the publics reaction to a specific controversy...as can television ratings.

Now feel free to have the last word...but understand that you are wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, king of the carriage return or what. Umma fix that.

Nobody "desires" yuge tornadoes, just as nobody "agrees with" that tractor trailer engulfed in flames on the shoulder of the highway. BUT THEY ALL GRAB ATTENTION. And that's what ratings are measuring.... ATTENTION

Ok...I agree with that.

But...if Fox News was number one for years, and suddenly it is not...and a mass number of their views have flocked to Newsmax and OANN... coinciding with a huge post election backlash...we can extrapolate nothing from that?

Because it seems like we can...

Yes. We can extrapolate that Fox Noise will be making a bit less money from its commercials ---- this period --- whereas Spewsmax and MOANN presumably will have some base to begin selling marks. ('Marks" as in the target of a con man, i.e. the gullible audience who oozed in there). I'm presuming here that they had no advertising, or didn't even exist, before now.

On the larger scale we can extrapolate that all the run-up to, and extended counting of, and endless farting into the wind about fake "frauds" in, the election, not to mention the ongoing pandemic and its new vaccines as well as winter weather, have served to pump up everybody's TV ratings who dabbles in any kind of news. What we cannot extrapolate is "why" this one or that one rose or fell. Those sources may of course guess what they did that worked or didn't work to draw marks (and they will. they always do). But for us to sit on the sideline and declare those dynamics is just more farting into the wind. THEY don't even know.

Again ---- notice what the OP uses for his source for this rating sheet: Ad Week. That's what ratings exist for --- advertising. Advertisers don't need to know why they have this audience here and that audience there. All they need to know is "how much you got?". And that's all ratings tells them; that, and the particulars of who they are.

It seems like we're saying the same thing. Fewer people are watching Fox News. They are feeling a backlash in the one place it counts...ad revenue.

So what are you arguing exactly? That ratings aren't designed to tell us exactly why fewer people are watching?

Yes. Exactly.
And it goes back to the fact that ATTENTION is what gets ratings -- that's what ratings mean. Therefore in order to get high ratings, an entity has to gather ATTENTION. Not "assent", not "sympathy", not "agreement", not any kind of touchy-feely stuff ---- just ATTENTION. That's all it takes. And obviously they'll sink to any manner of visual sewage to get it ---- that's why TV was described as a "vast wasteland" --- and that was sixty years ago.

The fact is you'll sit and watch an ad for a truck that can tow and asteroid if you've just been teased about something you vehemently DISAGREE with. Doesn't matter. They have your ATTENTION either way. Emotional hooks. That's also why they just framed it as "when we come back we'll tell you how drinking water is bad for you" --- because they want you to sit through that commercial.

That's what it's entirely about, that's what it's ALWAYS been entirely about as long as there has been commercial advertising in broadcasting. It ain't about pushing this "position" or pushing back on that "position" ---- it's all about selling you shit you don't need. That's advertising, and that's where the money comes from. The basic reason commercial broadcasters EXIST AT ALL is simply so they can gather enough gullible ears or eyeballs together so that they can sell them shit they don't need and profit therefrom.

Presidential approval ratings also don't tell us why the respondents disappove. But we still use them as a metric.

Sure. As an approval poll. That's what an approval poll measures -- opinion.
IT DOES NOT MEASURE ATTENTION. Opinion ≠ attention.

Moreover, detailed approval polls DO tell us what respondents approve or disapprove of, to the extent they lay out those topics. Because they're opinion polls, not attention polls.

Just as we use cable news ratings as a metric.

No. Invalid comparison of apples and kumquats.
The valid comparator would be the head count at, say, a concert event. "How many people bought tickets" . That tells you how much money you made but it doesn't explain WHY those people came. If X bazillion people go to see a movie, you've been informed you have a "hit" movie but you haven't been informed WHY you have a "hit" movie.

In this instance it would seem that the revolt against Fox News' coverage of the election and post-election has diminished their total viewers.

If you would like to tender a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to consider it.

There is no basis for that yet-again emotional conclusion ("revolt"). Unless of course you have personally gone forth and surveyed millions of TV viewers about their opinion. But then, you have an opinion poll, not a ratings book

Ok...it don't disagree with what you are saying...but I don't agree that we cannot draw conclussions by applying some critical thinking.

If we went to a Dixie Chicks concert after their George Bush comments we could have easily correlated the drop in attendance to a backlash...could we not?

The Dixie Chicks concert was in England. England, where they (England, Europe and the entire world) had just staged the largest world protest in the history of the planet, literally, against the coming invasion of Iraq. That's why Natalie Maines got cheers for her sympathetic comment in the moment. It was washed in the context of that protest. A protest, it's worth noting, see below, that got nary a whimper from the lamestream media HERE.

I don't know of any "drop in attendance" but there certainly was a corporate censorship campaign HERE --- certainly not in England or anywhere else, for speaking truth to power, directed at their recordings. Much like there was a movement -- I use the term loosely -- get it -- to stage community Beatle-burnings of their records.

None of that is relevant to your analogy.

We know that ticket sales collapsed. And we know that collapse corresponded with a controversy.

While the number of tickets sold doesn't tell us specifically why less tickets were sold...as thinking human beings we can easily draw the conclusion that the two events are related.

"The backlash damaged sales of the Dixie Chicks' music and concert tickets."

The rest of your reply is obfuscation.

This is the relevant fact. Although the tickets sales aren't designed to analyse feelings...they can indeed be used as a metric to measure the publics reaction to a specific controversy...as can television ratings.

Now feel free to have the last word...but understand that you are wrong.

We can infer that if there was indeed such a dip, then it could be tied to the effect of the corporate censorship campaign, of course. That's the whole purpose of such a campaign. And the link's reference to "thousands of country music stations" doesn't exactly inspire credulity.

But that still tells us nothing about what the listeners of their music, think of the music.

 

[Circe]

Fox's ratings declined precipitously.

That is a fact.

Less people are watching...a 40% plunge I read somewhere.

Jeepers, there are some SERIOUS shifts going on very suddenly. I just read this morning that Twitter has just now lost MILLIONS of "customers." I don't know if it is true; seems impossible. If these sudden massive shifts are happening, I'd say something big is happening in American opinion.

Like ---------- "We don't have to take this anymore!"

 

[watchingfromafar]

When it comes to “political” news, you can get the best of the best on MSNBC from Monday to Friday. 5:00-9:00pm cst
-

 

[Circe]

We know that ticket sales collapsed. And we know that collapse corresponded with a controversy.

While the number of tickets sold doesn't tell us specifically why less tickets were sold...as thinking human beings we can easily draw the conclusion that the two events are related.

Yeah --- the Wall Street Journal has been assuming for many months that the continuing decline in NFL watching is because of the BLM stuff. Even now, when there aren't many games played because of coronavirus.

I am surprised and impressed at the massive swings lately in public opinion and boycott. That Goya business with that Brooklyn Barmaid complaining at the CEO; the head of that company, a spirited guy, handled it beautifully, doubled down on his support for the president AND awarded her their Employee of the Month award! And so everyone like me tells the family shopper -- be sure to get the Goya brand beans.

This business of major swings in what we watch and buy is very interesting -- and probably not a good sign about civic peace and tranquility.

 

[Circe]

When it comes to “political” news, you can get the best of the best on MSNBC from Monday to Friday. 5:00-9:00pm cst
-

Isn't that the one with the Growling Woman, Rachel something? I'm not watching that station unless they have her broadcasting from a cage. Something very wrong with her.

 

[Pogo]

We know that ticket sales collapsed. And we know that collapse corresponded with a controversy.

While the number of tickets sold doesn't tell us specifically why less tickets were sold...as thinking human beings we can easily draw the conclusion that the two events are related.

Yeah --- the Wall Street Journal has been assuming for many months that the continuing decline in NFL watching is because of the BLM stuff. Even now, when there aren't many games played because of coronavirus.

We actually touched on that a few posts back as a screaming example of errant conclusions. Even before the Corona this false equation between 'NFL ratings' and "taking a knee" was dumped all over this board, whereupon we pointed out that (a) "ratings" for literally EVERY sport, even pseudo-sports like golf and NASCAR, were already sliding for years because of live streaming and 'cutting the cable', and (b) that those national anthem moments were never part of the broadcast anyway, so there would have been nothing on TV to tune out.

Which also illustrates the power of social pressure or as I believe it's also called, "cancel culture", where drone-people erupt to boycott NFL telecasts or Dixie Chick CDs, simply because they're told to, and they obey. That's a distressing and Bernaysian phenomenon, and it's directly tied into the events of last Wednesday as well. Public Propaganda --- a much bigger and more onerous challenge than how much some TV entity can charge for their next commercial sells.

 

[Circe]

We actually touched on that a few posts back as a screaming example of errant conclusions. Even before the Corona this false equation between 'NFL ratings' and "taking a knee" was dumped all over this board,

I suppose since we're talking football it's okay to capitalize Corona. . . .

whereupon we pointed out that (a) "ratings" for literally EVERY sport, even pseudo-sports like golf and NASCAR, were already sliding for years because of live streaming and 'cutting the cable', and (b) that those national anthem moments were never part of the broadcast anyway, so there would have been nothing on TV to tune out.

Interesting, about the ratings slip. The pseudo-sports are all that's on anymore; Himself watched a game of Tag on ESPN (really!), and has become a fan of three-year-old Australian rugby. Comcast gave us a rebate because so many games have been cancelled; I kid you not.

As for the National Anthem kneeling, that's all *I* see anymore when football is even referenced on TV, and early on I saw them doing it live. Someone pointed out on this or another forum persuasively that it's just personal expression, like wearing a MAGA hat, no need to fly up in the air about it. I thought that was pretty good. However, I guess it's a sort of personal expression not to want to watch those types, too. We don't anymore.

Which also illustrates the power of social pressure or as I believe it's also called, "cancel culture", where drone-people erupt to boycott NFL telecasts or Dixie Chick CDs, simply because they're told to, and they obey.

Could be a harder pull to get me to obey-obey-obey than you think. I have this idea that I do it all on my own. Or don't.

And I don't think boycotts are the same thing as cancel culture. Boycotts are a collective expression of revulsion and it's remarkable to me how large and how fast they have become lately. Maybe a sign of national instability. To me, cancel culture means actual harm done to individuals deliberately, like getting them fired, like banning them from whatever, like getting Youtube to take down their videos, like making sure they don't get movie roles they used to get. Making real people invisible and harmed.

 

[Pogo]

We actually touched on that a few posts back as a screaming example of errant conclusions. Even before the Corona this false equation between 'NFL ratings' and "taking a knee" was dumped all over this board,

I suppose since we're talking football it's okay to capitalize Corona. . . .

whereupon we pointed out that (a) "ratings" for literally EVERY sport, even pseudo-sports like golf and NASCAR, were already sliding for years because of live streaming and 'cutting the cable', and (b) that those national anthem moments were never part of the broadcast anyway, so there would have been nothing on TV to tune out.

Interesting, about the ratings slip. The pseudo-sports are all that's on anymore; Himself watched a game of Tag on ESPN (really!), and has become a fan of three-year-old Australian rugby. Comcast gave us a rebate because so many games have been cancelled; I kid you not.

As for the National Anthem kneeling, that's all *I* see anymore when football is even referenced on TV, and early on I saw them doing it live. Someone pointed out on this or another forum persuasively that it's just personal expression, like wearing a MAGA hat, no need to fly up in the air about it. I thought that was pretty good. However, I guess it's a sort of personal expression not to want to watch those types, too. We don't anymore.

Which also illustrates the power of social pressure or as I believe it's also called, "cancel culture", where drone-people erupt to boycott NFL telecasts or Dixie Chick CDs, simply because they're told to, and they obey.

Could be a harder pull to get me to obey-obey-obey than you think. I have this idea that I do it all on my own. Or don't.

And I don't think boycotts are the same thing as cancel culture. Boycotts are a collective expression of revulsion and it's remarkable to me how large and how fast they have become lately. Maybe a sign of national instability. To me, cancel culture means actual harm done to individuals deliberately, like getting them fired, like banning them from whatever, like getting Youtube to take down their videos, like making sure they don't get movie roles they used to get. Making real people invisible and harmed.

I'm really not familiar with what "cancel culture" means so maybe that doesn't apply, but you see my point. It's about people boycotting simply because they're told to, as opposed to acting on their own original reasoning. You can't (in the example) be objecting to a scene you didn't see unless some outside entity tells you to object to it. Matter of fact where all this originated was with Colin Kapernick simply sitting out the anthem, silently, and for weeks nobody even noticed, until some activist photographer (who by the dictates of prescribed fetishism should have been worshiping the piece of cloth) had the temerity to snap his picture, and then the floodgates opened to the holier-than-thous who started climbing all over each other for fake-patriotism "points". Harrrumph.

But the fact is, the original act of noncompliance was just that, a single act that nobody noticed. Until they were ordered to notice, even though NFL telecasts begin with a kickoff, not with a national anthem.

I guess the point of all that is that there is a difference between trends the public takes of its own volition, and trends the public takes because some latter-day Bernays ordered them to. The Dixie Chicks' music didn't change.

 

[Slade3200]

So what's the ratio between an increase in CNN viewership, and a decrease in FOX? Were there actually more people watching CNN, or just fewer watching FOX?

That’s a great question. I bet a large part is fox viewers tuning out. Head in the sand syndrome is where most Trumpsters end up

 

[watchingfromafar]

Isn't that the one with the Growling Woman, Rachel something?

Isn't she beautiful

Rachel Maddow
-

 

[Circe]

Isn't that the one with the Growling Woman, Rachel something?

Isn't she beautiful
View attachment 440936
Rachel Maddow
-

There is something seriously male about her neck. Well, it's the thickness. Like those football players whose heads grow right out of their chest.