MSNBC Reaches New Low.Averaging 55,000 Viewers.Can Anyone Explain This Liberal Dilemma?

[RandomVariable]

Just a bit deja vu how Dan Rather got burned in 2004 and Brian Williams gets burned in 2015.

(Thanks for the heads up, jon_berzerk. )

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Watching WG is like watching all these leftist twats desperately seek excuses for BW. I felt the same feeling watching that as I do reading some of these moronic posts.

 

[hipeter924]

And remember when we were all laughing at MSNBC when their average share of nightly viewers were around 300,000 while Fox was always over 2 Million? You have to wonder what it costs to air a 30 second ad by this point. Then again, who would want to advertise on MSNBC when no one with any real intelligence is watching. Maybe it's because they have the most bigoted/imbecilic/doltish band of democrats working the evening shift spewing lies about conservatives. And to think they haven't fired Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz by now. MSNBC: Night Of The Living Turkeys.

Found this earlier today:

Crowd of 54 347 makes case for Allen-Pearland to be national record for high school football attendance Dallas Morning News

A single high school football game nearly outdrew the average evening veiw of that crappy network.

HOLY CRAP BATMAN!

MSNBC doesn't even run real news and just sucks up to the government:

Nearly 7 in 10 reporters and journalist say that the Obama Administration has been spying or collected data on them, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Some are saying that the fear and threat of spying has effected how they write stories, handle sensitive information or pursue a source, with some leaving the field of investigative journalism, says RT’s Lindsay France.

What use is MSNBC if it won't hold the government to account, and we have to rely on a Russian funded media organization that spins propaganda to get decent news stories.

Yes let's make a point about MSNBC by posting a video from RT lol.

Pointing out that their content is more interesting and often more intelligent in discussion than on MSNBC. Trashy celebrity gossip and making big stories over superbowl equipment, doesn't stimulate the mind.

 

[hipeter924]

And remember when we were all laughing at MSNBC when their average share of nightly viewers were around 300,000 while Fox was always over 2 Million? You have to wonder what it costs to air a 30 second ad by this point. Then again, who would want to advertise on MSNBC when no one with any real intelligence is watching. Maybe it's because they have the most bigoted/imbecilic/doltish band of democrats working the evening shift spewing lies about conservatives. And to think they haven't fired Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz by now. MSNBC: Night Of The Living Turkeys.

To the topic (finally) - I don't know if the audience number is accurate (I doubt it but there's no link), but whatever they are, if they're down it's not a "liberal" dilemma; it's a "commercial" dilemma.
.
TV channels don't sell ideologies; they sell ads. Unless you're either buying or selling ad time, ratings are irrelevant.

Well, at least MSNBC can point at Al-Jazeera America (formerly Current TV) and feel good about themselves. A-J America's ratings are so low that the station has been described as irrelevant.

I never got to see Al Jazeera - not the channel anyway. Got rid of TV before it came online.
I liked some of the stuff I've seen on RT an NHK but I only see them in hotel rooms. They don't get offered in home cable. Other than that it's still a vast wasteland so I don't miss it.

Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

I have watched MSNBC and the low ratings are well deserved. Terrible content, hate, negativity, I sometimes will watch a segment or two, once in awhile. It can be tough to stomach.

Basically hours and hours of rhetoric, trashy gossip, and stupid stories. A year or so back I could handle MSNBC content, but now it is worse than on Fox news when they get into partisan mode.

 

[HenryBHough]

Heartbroken liberals deserting NBC for silencing their favourite liar!

Now watch the ratings tumble!

 

[Pogo]

MSNBC is definitely losing out to internet based media, and I would be far more likely to watch RT (which despite the propaganda runs better stories).

Agreed, on all counts. I think TV in general is losing out to internet media. Sure hope so. That's why I got rid of my TV -- anything it offers is online, and way more.

 

[Pogo]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

 

[Vigilante]

A really easy answer to the op, proven with Brian Williams....

 

[SAYIT]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

 

[Synthaholic]

Besides this helicopter incident? Name them. Make sure you do your assigned reading first.

Off the top of my head:

1. Helicoptor hit by the RPG.
2. Dead body floating down the French Quarter (dry high ground).
3. Saving a puppy from a burning fire.
4. Having dysentery from accidentally drinking flood water.
5* He even possibly lied in his apology making it sound like the copter shot at was nearby them when they landed an hour apart. (Putting an asterisk next to this one b/c I'm hearing conflicting accounts).
6. During the apology, he talked about two harrowing nights in the desert (that never happened). They landed same day. It's sad that he lied during a premeditated apology about lying. It's like he can't help himself.
7. Williams likely lied about being robbed at gunpoint while selling Christmas trees for a church in a sleepy town.
8. Having learned the value of a sympathy, 'harrowing' lie, Williams claimed to have conflated and misremembered the rpg incident in his apology. But he claimed in 07 of the 03 incident that he 'looked down the barrel of the RPG'
9. Apparently Lyin' Bryan claimed to have witnessed a suicide at the Superdome. In another account, he said he heard reports of it.
10. Williams reported that he was rescued from gangs in his hotel by a young police officer and that they are still friends to this day. And yet, Mr. newsman decided not to report the story and give this alleged heroic policeman his due? Nah, another obvious lie.


DROPS THE MIC!

All of these "examples" have been proven to be lies?

If you say so.

10. Was verified by the hotel manager. But if you want to be on Team Liar, I don't care; nothing new.

I don't say so. You are saying so.

But are these "tall tales" (lies), as you claim, or are you the liar?

Am I to take it that you don't believe Bryan Williams is a liar?

I'm starting to take it that you are a liar, since you are now deflecting instead of answering whether all of your examples are indeed "tall tales" (lies).

 

[Pogo]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure?? I could look up numbers, you could look up numbers... what do they MEAN? Aye, there's the rub.

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Off the top of my head:

1. Helicoptor hit by the RPG.
2. Dead body floating down the French Quarter (dry high ground).
3. Saving a puppy from a burning fire.
4. Having dysentery from accidentally drinking flood water.
5* He even possibly lied in his apology making it sound like the copter shot at was nearby them when they landed an hour apart. (Putting an asterisk next to this one b/c I'm hearing conflicting accounts).
6. During the apology, he talked about two harrowing nights in the desert (that never happened). They landed same day. It's sad that he lied during a premeditated apology about lying. It's like he can't help himself.
7. Williams likely lied about being robbed at gunpoint while selling Christmas trees for a church in a sleepy town.
8. Having learned the value of a sympathy, 'harrowing' lie, Williams claimed to have conflated and misremembered the rpg incident in his apology. But he claimed in 07 of the 03 incident that he 'looked down the barrel of the RPG'
9. Apparently Lyin' Bryan claimed to have witnessed a suicide at the Superdome. In another account, he said he heard reports of it.
10. Williams reported that he was rescued from gangs in his hotel by a young police officer and that they are still friends to this day. And yet, Mr. newsman decided not to report the story and give this alleged heroic policeman his due? Nah, another obvious lie.


DROPS THE MIC!

All of these "examples" have been proven to be lies?

If you say so.

10. Was verified by the hotel manager. But if you want to be on Team Liar, I don't care; nothing new.

I don't say so. You are saying so.

But are these "tall tales" (lies), as you claim, or are you the liar?

Am I to take it that you don't believe Bryan Williams is a liar?

I'm starting to take it that you are a liar, since you are now deflecting instead of answering whether all of your examples are indeed "tall tales" (lies).

I'm 'starting to take it that you are a very lazy poster. I don't care about your broad sweeping baseless allegations. Go fishing somewhere else.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure??

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

We get it. You don't watch TV and TV's evil. Then STFU if it doesn't matter to you in the end. Your schtick gets old and ultimately has little to no relevance upon the matters at hand.

 

[Pop23]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure??

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

So poor that a dang high school football game damn near beat the average night of the piss poor network.

Think about that. A single high school football game came within a few hundred people of beating MSNBC.

Dude, that's a hoot.

Crowd of 54 347 makes case for Allen-Pearland to be national record for high school football attendance Dallas Morning News

 

[Pogo]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure??

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

We get it. You don't watch TV and TV's evil. Then STFU if it doesn't matter to you in the end. Your schtick gets old and ultimately has little to no relevance upon the matters at hand.

"Waaah! They're teling the truth again!! Make them stop!!​

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

A really easy answer to the op, proven with Brian Williams....

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure??

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

We get it. You don't watch TV and TV's evil. Then STFU if it doesn't matter to you in the end. Your schtick gets old and ultimately has little to no relevance upon the matters at hand.

"Waaah! They're teling the truth again!! Make them stop!!​

What truth; that TV is all just an illusion and we thusly shouldn't care about this matter? Well, if you really believe that, then stop being a hypocrite and stop posting on the subject.

 

[Pop23]

At least two college football teams had SCRIMMAGE GAMES that drew crowds larger then the average MSNBC nightly viewers.

SCRIMMAGE GAMES!

PRACTICES OUTDRAW MSNBC?

Ladies and gentlemen, that's plain ass sad!

2014 spring game attendance rankings Alabama Penn State Auburn lead the way - SBNation.com

 

[Pogo]

A really easy answer to the op, proven with Brian Williams....

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure??

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

We get it. You don't watch TV and TV's evil. Then STFU if it doesn't matter to you in the end. Your schtick gets old and ultimately has little to no relevance upon the matters at hand.

"Waaah! They're teling the truth again!! Make them stop!!​

What truth; that TV is all just an illusion and we thusly shouldn't care about this matter? Well, if you really believe that, then stop being a hypocrite and stop posting on the subject.

If you ever break out of the Illiterarium it'll dawn on you that all of that above is about ratings. Not about the psychology of TV manipulation.

Ratings IS what the topic in this thread is, is it not?

What, you think it's supposed to be your own personal monologue?

Authoritarian freak job.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

A really easy answer to the op, proven with Brian Williams....

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what? What kind of numbers do they need? I don't know and you don't know. You have it would seem a fundamental black hole of knowledge about what it is we're even talking about.

So --- "poor" by what measure??

What I just laid out was, in part, what ratings mean and how ad revenue works. If you have some kind of theory that works another way, well it seems you're incapable of articulating it.

We get it. You don't watch TV and TV's evil. Then STFU if it doesn't matter to you in the end. Your schtick gets old and ultimately has little to no relevance upon the matters at hand.

"Waaah! They're teling the truth again!! Make them stop!!​

What truth; that TV is all just an illusion and we thusly shouldn't care about this matter? Well, if you really believe that, then stop being a hypocrite and stop posting on the subject.

If you ever break out of the Illiterarium it'll dawn on you that all of that above is about ratings. Not about the psychology of TV manipulation.

Ratings IS what the topic in this thread is, is it not?

What, you think it's supposed to be your own personal monologue?

Authoritarian freak job.

I'm actually gonna give you that, at least in part. I redact my previous post.

 

[SAYIT]

...Al Jazeera is news, right? Low ratings in a news channel isn't necessarily bad. Not that they indicate it's well done, but high ratings tend to indicate it's not well done. There's a certain degree of inverse relationship.

And if you squint juuuust right you can see pigs fly. There is no need to always twist reality to fit your prism, Pogo. I assure you A-J America would rather have ratings that would attract advertisers and thereby allow them to pay their employees and keep the lights on. They recently replaced some of their American feed with A-J English shows, meaning those who signed on less than 2 years ago are being squeezed out. I wonder who will hire a talking head with A-J America on their resume?

SMH - you two have no clue how broadcast ratings work.

I don't know what Jazeera's ratings are (since I don't traffic in advertising) but again, you don't need to "lead" in the ratings to pay the bills. If the ratings of channels A, B, C, D and E fall in that order, they're all making money, even if E isn't making as much as A. They're all paying their bills because they're all selling ads --- that is, assuming selling ads is how they generate income, which is certainly not the only way. The only difference is A has more money left over than E does. So what? It's not some kind of sports event.

Can't comment on programming changes either but program changes happen for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily money or ratings.

I sense that summa y'all STILL haven't gotten over this idea that broadcast ratings measure some kind of "approval" vote. They don't. They measure attention, and that's a different animal.

---- which is why I point out that high ratings on a "news" channel are likely to be a red flag. News is neutral; it simply is what it is. If those hypothetical channels A through E above are doing straight accurate news (all thing being equal) their ratings should all be exactly the same. But if they're in a position to compete with each other, well that's a different story. Now you've got to start sweetening, tweaking and manipulating the news. Because you've got to do something that sets your channel apart from the others. And since you can't just manufacture news, you have to twist what's available. And the more you do that, the less objective you are.

In the old daze when "news" meant the 6pm alphabet network report, you got pretty much straight news. There wasn't the concept of "selling" news; it wasn't there for that purpose. It was there in fact to look good for the FCC that you were providing a public service. Nobody made money on it; those Huntley-Brinkleys and Douglas Edwardses and their ilk were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and Mister Eds that came on after them.

That's why it's so hilarious when Brian Williams goes on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight show and says, "every night I'm down in the studio doing the broadcast that pays for your little hobby here", because the reality is the opposite.

Once again, Pogo, you lead with your monumental ignorance - and with studied verbosity - as though the number of words could hide your ignorance. A simple search of A-J America's ratings - a search that would have taken far less time than your response - reveals numbers so poor they make MSNBC look great, that A-J has recently made drastic cost-cutting moves and that one analyst described the station as an "irrelevant" news outlet. Rather than squirting your predictable silliness and wasting precious bandwidth please consider gathering a bit of info BEFORE you post.

Why would I give a shit what anybody's ratings are? Once again for the slow-eyed, I. Do. NOT. Buy. Or. Sell. Advertising. It's literally the only thing in broadcasting I've never done. It has no relevance what AJ's ratings are. What the hell would I do with that info anyway?

"Numbers so poor" -- compared to what...

Compared to what? Perhaps you didn't notice but you've been posting on the MSNBC Measly Ratings Thread and yet even their PATHETIC ratings are many times those of A-J America. Jeez ... you must love listening to the sound of your voice, even if it's only in your otherwise empty head. A news station can't get much lamer than "irrelevant."