Cable News Ratings--Liberals Jump Ship

Third quarter cable news viewing ratings are in, and FoxNews does better and better on a year-to-year basis, while CNN and MSNBC show declines in total viewing and demographics. Fox first: It's up 30% in primetime viewing and 27% in total day. CNN is down 6% in prime, but up 9% in total day, while MSNBC is up 7% in prime but down 31% in total day. CNN was helped in the last week of August by a vast upsurge in viewing around Teddy Kennedy's death and funeral.
The demographics were even worse: CNN lost 13% of its primetime 25-54 year olds, while Fox was up 47%. MSNBC was down 7%. In 18-49s, Fox gained 42%, CNN lost 16% and MSNBC lost 11%. Fox gains may be attributed the red meat that anti-healthcare conservatives are throwing into the pit, or by the enormous success of Glen Beck, who joined Fox this year.

Total day demographics were scarcely better: Fox was up 38% in 25-54 year olds, CNN was down 1%, and MSNBC lost 29%. In 18-49s, Fox was 32% up, CNN 3% down, and MSNBC 23% down.
I cannot understand why Democratic politicians and consultants have been so ineffective in producing news that will attract their supporters to television sets. They have permitted flawed, emotional arguments the health care debate, and they have launched no effective counterattacks. They seem unable to combat the irrationality of the right, and have offered no cohesive strategy to develop support for their healthcare and economic initiatives. They seem confused and timid at a time when precision and boldness is demanded.

So far, I am alone in my belief cable news viewing reflects public attitudes on political positions--in other words, who people vote for, but, if I am right, unless Democrats develop a clear and compelling message, they face a very tough time in the 2010 elections.

It seems as if the "news" is so tough for Democrats to watch, that they've turned off their TV sets. (Unless, of course, and this is my ego writing, they've switched to the Food Network, which is doing better than ever, and beats Fox in every demographic.)

 

 

Comments

[Paulianism]

It srikes me as odd that something as mundane and uncontroversial as Nielsen ratings becomes debatable when Fox News is involved. Schonfeld is obviously a fairly typical HuffPo contributer, as he brandishes the phrase "irrationality of the right" without any thought to logic, but his article in whole seems surprisingly factual. Comparing overall cable news viewing habits, which are by their very nature political, with general political thought in the country is entirely reasonable.

What I hope is that people have switched to watching Fox for the same reason as I have, they believe that Journalism should be objective but at the same time exist in an antagonistic relationship with the government. I avoided Fox like the plague when Bush was president since I knew they would be merely cheerleading his policy decisions and fowarding his P.R. announcements without dilligently challenging them, but now it is the MSM filling this role. I didn't study Journalism too terribly long ago, and even then anonymous sources were off limits except in extreme cases, yet now journalists use them continually, and as a result cannot ask the hard questions of the government in fear of losing their "source." If the media as a whole would reclaim their job as the Fourth Esate, and offer a real service to the public, we would be better off as a country, and maybe traditional media outlets would not be declaring bankrupcy at such an alarming rate.

[Emathome]

The liberal news stations turned me off because of all the name calling and hate that is spewed from just about every news caster. It's very obvious to me that this is the reason a lot of people are tuning them out.

[kathie2syr]

CNN putting out Time magazine stories on their website like, "Is Glen Beck Bad for America?" is why CNN and MSNBC are light years behind FOX. They are nothing more than arms of the Obama spin machine and have lost whatever credibiity they may have once had. It took Glen Beck to expose Van Jones and ACORN, where was the so-called mainstream media? Republicans have been calling for investigations into ACORN for years and certainly after the obvious voter registration frauds of last year's election. The Democrats responded by alotting them 8.5 billion of our tax dollars in the stimulus bill. Keep it up liberal media, you are why tens of thousands marched on Washington. You have made a mockery of your First Amendment protections.

[JayPhilosopher]

Actually, year to year comparisons are irrelevant because a network coming off a bad year will look better than one coming off a good year.
The truth is that Bill O''Reilly has been flat at about 3 million viewers over the last 5 years, on slow nights he dips to 2,000,000 and on big nights he gets close to 4 million.
The big news is the amazing growth of Keith Olbermann. In 2004, he was gettting 400,000 viewers a night, by 2006, he was getting 800,000 viewers a night. Now, it is not uncommon for him to get 1.2 million a night.
While we should not look for him to overtake O'Reilly anytime soon, it is possible that he could be getting up to 1.5 million by the end of the year. Since his audience is much better educated than O'Reilly's, it is possible that MSNBC will be making more money from his show than Murdoch makes from O'Reilly.
Also Rachel Maddow is now getting nearly a million viewers a night. That makes her the second most successful host in MSNBC history.
If NBC really got behind MSNBC and added five or six other intelligent shows, it could eventually surpass Fox in audience in a couple of years.

[Konnie]

lou dobbs
nancy grace
jane v.mitchell
campbell brown
lou dobbs
nancy grace
jane v mitchell
cambell brown
lou dobbs
nancy grace
jane v. mitchell
campbell brown
etc
etc
etc

vs

huffington post
daiy kos
crooks and liars
reality based community
scholars and roques
digby
bob geiger
talking points memo
skippy the bush kangaroo
jim hightower
altercation
firedoglake
brave new films
taylor marsh
glenn greenwald
center for american progress
msnbc
comedy central
etc
etc
etc


its spin and soundbites vs actual news w/ links and video - excellent writing
and a chance to talk back.

get the point?

[Reese Schonfeld - Huffpost Blogger]

Do you think only liberals are going to the Internet? How come Fox is doing so well without the interactivity?

[Konnie]

my guess: the audience of the old, the internet challenged, those w/o computers at all, and
that 20% of bottom dwellers.

and not being offset by the ones who are never counted at all - those with cell phones only vs a land line therefore not counting the younger generation and the few kewl elders included in that demographic. ..........­.

and don't forget who answers the
phone during the day - that would be the retirees - the unemployed. and the fact that fox
is still one of the broadcast stations - cnn and msnbc are cable. if you are unemployed
that is one of the first things cut.

stop jumping to conclusions. look at the numbers who voted for Obama
and the democratic leads in congress. those numbers should outweigh
who answers polls.

[CodeWorrier]

quote: So far, I am alone in my belief cable news viewing reflects public attitudes on political positions--in other words, who people vote for, but, if I am right, unless Democrats develop a clear and compelling message, they face a very tough time in the 2010 elections.

I only *wish* you were alone in this amazingly silly belief, given that it takes as an a priori assumption that everybody watches the same amount of television and that everybody watching television watches "the news".
Which, I gotta say, is a patently ludicrous idea. It is also useful to remember that TV Ratings are a mechanism for setting advertising rates, not an expression of the political aspirations of the electorate.
Because otherwise, what the hell--maybe FoodTV should be The President.

If we are going to infer anything from the Cable News Ratings, maybe it should be that the majority of folks to the left of Fox News (which happens to be the majority of folks, period) WATCH LESS TELEVISION.

[Reese Schonfeld - Huffpost Blogger]

Cable news ratings percentages accurately predicted the results of both the 2004 and 2008 national elections. Follow this blog in 2012, and we'll see how it works then.

[maddmatt]

Hey Reese you made the mistake of actually using facts!! People on Huffpo don't come to Huffpo to see facts they come to hear what they wan't to hear!! Do you know how many people on here don't even believe that FOX is #1 in the ratings they refuse to except it it is very sad.

[jkpolk]

Wait, what? Fox News has been kicking ass in cable news ratings for years. You can't be saying that FNC/MSNBC ratings data has a direct correlation with voting results, then McCain should've gotten something like 70% of the popular vote. Either you're just making stuff up, or you're using some other model.

[truindependent]

OK - a couple of fairly basic questions.­..

First of all - who did the poll? Where can I find the details of what you are reporting?

And second, but certainly not least, is how many people are we talking about in the poll and what percentage of the voting public do they represent??? 47% of 10 people is less than 5 people. Obviously, there were more than 10 polled, but I think you get my point. Even if it's 2 million, 47% is still only 940,000 which is a tiny blip compared to the total voting public. And, trust me, there are way more then 940,000 uneducated people in this country who get most of their 'news' from their email. And the bigger and more colorful the fonts, the more true it must be. Unfortunately, there are some highly educated people who fall into this as well. But most of them are just in it for the money. I have absolutely no problem with them all watching FIX 'News' to their hearts' content.

BTW - I TOTALLY agree with your comment about the Democratics being 'unable to combat the irrationality of the right'. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

[Reese Schonfeld - Huffpost Blogger]

First, it's not a poll. Nielsen measures the viewing habits of thousands of homes in America on people meters, placing them demographically and changing them regularly. The numbers are delivered every week to Nielsen subscribers, to advertisers, media providers (TV and cable) and some journalists. If you'd like to see a sample, send your address and we'll email a sample to you.

Secondly, I don't know the exact numbers, but I would estimate that at least half the population some cable news every week. CNN alone has a monthly "reach" of about 30%.

[truindependent]

Couldn't figure out how/where to get your email, so I'll reply here...

Sorry I used the wrong term - although I could certainly argue that Nielsen is 'polling' the people who have their set top boxes - but my points about percentages are still valid. Percentages can be VERY misleading if you don't know the underlying numbers, no matter where/who/how those percentages are calculated. Saying 'Fox was up 47%' is meaningless without the underlying numbers. As I stated before, 47% of 10 is a hugely smaller number than 47% of 2,000,000. But, again as I stated, 47% of 2,000,000 is still only 940,000. EVERY ONE of those 940,000 'people' can vote EXACTLY how FOX instructs them, and it makes NO difference in the outcome whatsoever.

And by the same token, your assertion that 'CNN was down 1%' doesn't mean anything either without the underlying numbers. If the total number of CNN viewers is 4,000,000 and they drop 1% of them, CNN still would have over 1 million additional viewers. And most of them actually know how to vote. Except maybe for those who watch Lou Dobbs who, by the way, is a total embarrassment to the network which I see in your bio you cofounded.­..

BTW - along those lines can you get HNN to go back to its old format where I could switch to it anytime to get the actual news???!!! NOBODY does that anymore on TV - that's one reason your viewers are going to the Internet.

[tm22]

Progressives, liberals, educated people have been turning off the TV more and more; there are no polls asking the question: have you turned off the TV to find news/information elsewhere? No. TV Media, like crumby car manufacturers, do not want "reality" making them face up to the fact that they are dinosaurs.

The TV has become nothing more than a tool for advertisers that have nothing of importance to sell or say, propaganda pushers of all walks of life who are looking to con/cull the brainless; there is very little content, art, intellect available, even though there are 800 channels.

Why don't you add Stewart and Colbert's rating of news into your little view rating box? Afraid? Yep, I thought so...good luck demographic news raters! Buh-bye...­oh and don't forget to blame the Democrats!

[Gewyne]

The truth can often be boring to talk about and debate. Factual stories can be moving and compeling, but compared to what you can make up they are like a small cupcake sat next to a monster cupcake with frosting.

Fox makes monster cupcakes because it does not have to keep to the factual ingredients of the recipe page, they can add whatever they want (well say whatever they want). Someone needs to come up with a decent channel or programmes for these people.I see on youtube

Young people are communicating on the internet - blogs and you tube http://www.youtube.com/user/lacigreen - this is where you win or lose the voters of tomorrow.

MSM just needs to change their medium, I love Rachael Maddow - yet each segment of her show is long and in depth with often a long trail to follow - younger people just are not willing to listen that long on one subject (unless its something they are passionate about). You tube generation -

[unitron]

Well, you can watch the Food Network or turn to the cable news channels and watch the food fights.