• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Fox News Channel Beats CNN & MSNBC Combined in April Ratings

4

4UH8SIMBKAGN

Guest
Total viewers and in-demo (25-54). Total day. All hours. Incredible gains especially for Glenn Beck up 212% in-demo and Neil Cavuto up 102% in-demo. Strong increases for all time periods across the board both in-demo and total viewers.

Fox News Channel is also now the #2 Cable Network of ALL Cable Networks as far as viewers (including all sports and entertainment cable channels).

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...s_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp
 
And this means.....what? A bunch of sore losers are commiserating by watching a bunch of fellow sore losers grumble and gripe about the current administration. Never mind they are getting spin and butchery on the actual "news" stories.

And....word I've heard from watchers of Faux Noise on another forum is the T & A is better there than on bonafide news services. PhD's can't usually compete with silicone.

Real news services do exist out there in TV land (not to be confused with TVLand). Faux Noise isn't one of them.
 
It means exactly what it says: Fox News is beating CNN and MSNBC. I can't stand the content of any of the cable "news" channels. They are all talk with very little actual news. CNN and MSNBC are trying to copy Fox and are both failing miserably. They would do well to get rid of the talk shows and put up some actual news programs to compete. I'm not talking about the garbage they pass off as news with Anderson Cooper or Campbell Brown. I mean real news with reporters in the field who know what they're doing and anchors with some credibility.
 
landtuna said:
And this means.....what? A bunch of sore losers are commiserating by watching a bunch of fellow sore losers grumble and gripe about the current administration. Never mind they are getting spin and butchery on the actual "news" stories.

And....word I've heard from watchers of Faux Noise on another forum is the T & A is better there than on bonafide news services. PhD's can't usually compete with silicone.

Real news services do exist out there in TV land (not to be confused with TVLand). Faux Noise isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

By this reckoning, MSNBC should be soaring in the ratings with champagne corks popping since November. Why aren't they? Ummmm, it's called content. If any of these channels takes on a particularly nasty edge with their talk programming it's MSNBC. I mean, the "tea bagging" stuff and that Jeanne Garofalo interview? Really classless.

It's interesting because Fox News is the one cable 'news' channel that actually provides a different point of view. Whatever happened to "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY" anyway? Or is that only certain kinds of diversity. Because the way that the news is slanted on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, CNN, etc., etc. ranges from gently to decidedly left - leaving basically only FNC and The Wall Street Journal to represent 48.5% of public opinion. Yet they attract all of the vitriol.

It's interesting how nobody gets upset when CNN's Anderson Cooper makes nasty double entendre remarks about "tea bagging" protesters ("it's hard to talk when you're tea bagging" - AC would know, by the way) with regard to a right-wing protest, yet God help us if an even slightly snide remark came out of FNC about one of the thousands of leftist protests. Oh no, that's not the least bit biased. Real phd level stuff.

Please mull this over, landtuna, along with the tone of your comment: who really is the sore loser here? Because the original poster just repeated a simple fact and you felt the need to go negative. Like it or not, Fox News is good at what it does and it's reaping the benefits of that programming. 'nuff said.

PS: The T & A isn't bad at all. Sure beats watching Rachael Maddow!!!! :eek: ;D :eek:
 
BRNout said:
landtuna said:
And this means.....what? A bunch of sore losers are commiserating by watching a bunch of fellow sore losers grumble and gripe about the current administration. Never mind they are getting spin and butchery on the actual "news" stories.

And....word I've heard from watchers of Faux Noise on another forum is the T & A is better there than on bonafide news services. PhD's can't usually compete with silicone.

Real news services do exist out there in TV land (not to be confused with TVLand). Faux Noise isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

By this reckoning, MSNBC should be soaring in the ratings with champagne corks popping since November. Why aren't they? Ummmm, it's called content. If any of these channels takes on a particularly nasty edge with their talk programming it's MSNBC. I mean, the "tea bagging" stuff and that Jeanne Garofalo interview? Really classless.

It's interesting because Fox News is the one cable 'news' channel that actually provides a different point of view. Whatever happened to "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY" anyway? Or is that only certain kinds of diversity. Because the way that the news is slanted on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, CNN, etc., etc. ranges from gently to decidedly left - leaving basically only FNC and The Wall Street Journal to represent 48.5% of public opinion. Yet they attract all of the vitriol.

It's interesting how nobody gets upset when CNN's Anderson Cooper makes nasty double entendre remarks about "tea bagging" protesters ("it's hard to talk when you're tea bagging" - AC would know, by the way) with regard to a right-wing protest, yet God help us if an even slightly snide remark came out of FNC about one of the thousands of leftist protests. Oh no, that's not the least bit biased. Real phd level stuff.

Please mull this over, landtuna, along with the tone of your comment: who really is the sore loser here? Because the original poster just repeated a simple fact and you felt the need to go negative. Like it or not, Fox News is good at what it does and it's reaping the benefits of that programming. 'nuff said.

PS: The T & A isn't bad at all. Sure beats watching Rachael Maddow!!!! :eek: ;D :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised by this at all. I'll repeat what I said on another board when the subject was the rumored "death" of right-wing talk radio. Being in the opposition to the powers that be HELPS your ratings. So Fox News and right-wing talk radio will soar during the Obama Administration.

When did conservative talk radio get really big? The Clinton administration. People who hated Bubba had a place to go to express their frustrations and hear the views they wanted to hear. Same thing with Fox News - conservatives will tune in even more than before to hear Hannity, O'Reilly and the others hold forth on the evils of Obama and "socialism."

The opposite is true of shows like The Daily Show and Bill Maher. They were flying high when they had Bush and Cheney to kick around. Now, all they can do is trash the minority Republicans. Jon Stewart spends most of his time running wacko clips from Fox News so he can ridicule them. It's still a funny show, but I think I think it has lost its edge now that it supports the party in power.
 
BRNout said:
Please mull this over, landtuna, along with the tone of your comment: who really is the sore loser here? Because the original poster just repeated a simple fact and you felt the need to go negative. Like it or not, Fox News is good at what it does and it's reaping the benefits of that programming. 'nuff said.
Click to expand...

Neither Faux Noise nor MSNBC are particularly good at reporting straight news. And their respective talk shows, with a few exceptions, are not news but opinions. Attracting beer-swilling knuckle-draggers with pin-up talking heads isn't journalism and everybody watching Faux knows it but then they are not watching for the content, right?

BRNout said:
PS: The T & A isn't bad at all. Sure beats watching Rachael Maddow!!!!
Click to expand...

I suppose if you prefer soft porn and stupidity over content Faux is the place to be.
 
tested said:
It means exactly what it says: Fox News is beating CNN and MSNBC. I can't stand the content of any of the cable "news" channels. They are all talk with very little actual news. CNN and MSNBC are trying to copy Fox and are both failing miserably. They would do well to get rid of the talk shows and put up some actual news programs to compete. I'm not talking about the garbage they pass off as news with Anderson Cooper or Campbell Brown. I mean real news with reporters in the field who know what they're doing and anchors with some credibility.
Click to expand...

Sentiments agreed. It's a cruel irony that I re-discover my love of newspapers and newsweeklies like Time and Newsweek right about the time that they're at the worst health.

Anybody ever notice that its a little harder for Jon Stewart to mock a piece of newsprint? In the endless pursuit of filling airtime with partisan banter and inane speculation, cable news has de-evolved into Glenn Beck throwing 'gasoline' on someone. And Keith Olbermann, who's show I admit to enjoying, wishing for Sean Hannity to be waterboarded. As sexy a sight as that would be, Olbermann's challenge still crossed a line.

The local TV news has done much of the same, choosing to cover what's cheap and needle-moving instead of what's real and substantive. It's no longer about news, its about putting on a live show that will sell commercials.
 
BRNout said:
It's interesting because Fox News is the one cable 'news' channel that actually provides a different point of view. Whatever happened to "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY" anyway? Or is that only certain kinds of diversity. Because the way that the news is slanted on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, CNN, etc., etc. ranges from gently to decidedly left - leaving basically only FNC and The Wall Street Journal to represent 48.5% of public opinion. Yet they attract all of the vitriol.
Click to expand...

Probably because that's where public perception lies:
Pew Research: "Fox News Stands Out as 'Too Critical' of Obama"

http://people-press.org/report/508/fox-news-stands-out-seen-as-too-critical-of-obama


Also, I remember in another thread that you intimated that FNC wasn't biased at all--that folks just weren't used to the alleged liberal filter the other media outlets had. So which is it? Are they really 'fair and balanced', or do they have the conservative voice you yourself just noted? As a point of reference, I have yet to see CBS News or any non-Fox outlet pimp its opinion blog or insert itself into a partisan protest.
 
Lkeller said:
When did conservative talk radio get really big? The Clinton administration. People who hated Bubba had a place to go to express their frustrations and hear the views they wanted to hear. Same thing with Fox News - conservatives will tune in even more than before to hear Hannity, O'Reilly and the others hold forth on the evils of Obama and "socialism."

The opposite is true of shows like The Daily Show and Bill Maher. They were flying high when they had Bush and Cheney to kick around. Now, all they can do is trash the minority Republicans. Jon Stewart spends most of his time running wacko clips from Fox News so he can ridicule them. It's still a funny show, but I think I think it has lost its edge now that it supports the party in power.
Click to expand...

Nate Wesley said:
Anybody ever notice that its a little harder for Jon Stewart to mock a piece of newsprint? In the endless pursuit of filling airtime with partisan banter and inane speculation, cable news has de-evolved into Glenn Beck throwing 'gasoline' on someone. And Keith Olbermann, who's show I admit to enjoying, wishing for Sean Hannity to be waterboarded. As sexy a sight as that would be, Olbermann's challenge still crossed a line.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, "Countdown" still manages to report on stories, not all of which slam Republicans. In this medium, in regards to progressive commentators, you could say Keith is the "Rush Limbaugh" of the left (I'm not sure how he would warm up to that statement, lol) but his years in journalism and lengthy resume certainly back him up. And don't forget, even Rush started his career playing records.
 
DToTheJ said:
And don't forget, even Rush started his career playing records.
Click to expand...

Which, I guess, serves as the explanation of why Olbermann could easily make the jump from SportsCenter to political commentary. ::)
 
Nate Wesley said:
Probably because that's where public perception lies:
Pew Research: "Fox News Stands Out as 'Too Critical' of Obama"

http://people-press.org/report/508/fox-news-stands-out-seen-as-too-critical-of-obama


Also, I remember in another thread that you intimated that FNC wasn't biased at all--that folks just weren't used to the alleged liberal filter the other media outlets had. So which is it? Are they really 'fair and balanced', or do they have the conservative voice you yourself just noted? As a point of reference, I have yet to see CBS News or any non-Fox outlet pimp its opinion blog or insert itself into a partisan protest.
Click to expand...

Ummm, it is actually refreshing to see some objective/critical reporting on Obama, versus the fawning and overt butt kissing offered by the others. Honestly, I see more objective reporting in Venezuela when it comes to Chavez than I do here (aside from Fox) on Obama. And that's under Chavez' looming threat of imprisonment for airing stories "offensive to the presidency." Unless, of course, you're one of those who believe that His Highness BHO can do no wrong.

Wow, it was sooooo cool when all of the networks were critical of Bush (and everyone certainly was - even FNC). So, yes I would offer that up as an example of "fair and balanced" in that at least SOMEONE is asking questions. Versus acting as a mouthpiece of the administration like most of the media are doing.

All you have to do is compare the media's treatment of BHO's first 100 days to that of GWB. The tone is decidedly different. Perhaps they'll pass out palm leaves to wave at him tonight. To the extent that Fox News doesn't go for that stuff, I say GOOD. No president deserves a free pass from the media.

And, better still that it is working out for them financially.

By the way, don't get confused between opinion programming (like Hannity) and actual news segments. There is a difference. Brit Hume and Bill Hemmer for example, play it pretty straight down the middle and Shepard Smith leans a little left - if anything. All of the news anchors at MSNBC sound every bit as biased to the left as Olbermann and Maddow. That also is a distinction between the two channels (that and the ratings).

By the way, even during W's administration, FNC still whipped MSNBC pretty hard in the ratings. BHO's presence certainly helps FNC's ratings, but is far from the only reason for their success.
 
landtuna said:
Real news services do exist out there in TV land.
Click to expand...

Which ones?

Last year's campaign was an eye-opener for me. I used to rely on the 3 networks for news until I saw firsthand the treatment Sarah Palin got from Charles Gibson and Katie Couric... compared to Brian Williams' interview with Barack Obama. His toughest question had to do with why he wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin.

That convinced me that the media doesn't report the news; they create the news.
 
Otto Maddock said:
Last year's campaign was an eye-opener for me. I used to rely on the 3 networks for news until I saw firsthand the treatment Sarah Palin got from Charles Gibson and Katie Couric... compared to Brian Williams' interview with Barack Obama. His toughest question had to do with why he wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin.

That convinced me that the media doesn't report the news; they create the news.
Click to expand...

The 'media' created nothing. Palin did herself in by opening her mouth and spewing gibberish. The 'media' called her on it as is their duty.

As for the lapel pin controversy....all the Reichwing pundits aired breathlessly about Obama's apparent lack of patriotism due to his lack of a lapel pin. The 'media' has every right to ask him directly why or why not. Again, the 'media' created nothing.
 
4UH8SIMBKAGN said:
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC has lost 65% of her in-demo audience since October 2008 http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/oreilly_ratings_cnn_msnbc/2009/04/29/208733.html
Click to expand...

I had not listened to Rachel before she went on TV but have become a frequent viewer since. She doesn't yell, scream or interrupt her guests. She will host guests from both left and right. She doesn't wave her finger in the air and is at all times polite. She backs up what she says and doesn't bombast. And, she is a hell of a lot prettier than Billo.

Better isn't necessarily bigger. Me? I'll go for the quality every time.
 
Typical FNC Viewer: My 86 year old uncle actually believes he is watching a news show when he watches Bill O'Reilly!

This is their target demo.
 
b344077 said:
Typical FNC Viewer: My 86 year old uncle actually believes he is watching a news show when he watches Bill O'Reilly!

This is their target demo.
Click to expand...

The ratings indicate that you are incorrect sir! They do quite well in 25-54.

landtuna said:
I had not listened to Rachel before she went on TV but have become a frequent viewer since. She doesn't yell, scream or interrupt her guests. She will host guests from both left and right. She doesn't wave her finger in the air and is at all times polite. She backs up what she says and doesn't bombast. And, she is a hell of a lot prettier than Billo.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll give you some of this. Not that Maddow is so great, but that O'Reilly is too bombastic and rude for my taste too. Hannity isn't always the most polite either. Both make me uncomfortable at times when they are yelling and cutting people off. Even if I agree with what they're saying. Particularly O'Reilly; he's tough to watch sometimes. Personally, I think it's more of a New Yorker thing than something having to do with being "conservative" (quotes are for O'Reilly - because I wonder).

She's not prettier than O'R though! :D

Maddow's show isn't all that interesting, but at least she's not overtly rude. Passive aggressive is more like it. It's Olberdouche who gets my vote for "worst person in the world" though.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom