• 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

Is CBS Evening News Number One in the Ratings?

M

Mark Giardina

CBS is promoting itself as the most watched network. In that promo the network claims that the CBS Evening News is also number one. Can anyone find out if this claim is true or just some PR stunt by CBS.
 
I think NBC is
 
CBS Evening News is third in both total viewers and adults 25-54. They could theoretically be #1 in some other demo, but that seems unlikely. It is likely that CBS Evening News is first in year-over-year growth under Pelley.
 
^I understand this is a message board about national television and many users have assumed other users would know which broadcasters they reference even if the first references to them are only their last names, but I wish users such as yourself would refer to broadcasters by both the first names and last names in the first references to them at the very least.
 
I think you're talking about the latest promo that's been running about the CBS Evening News becoming the fastest-growing network newscast.

Translation: More and more people are turning off Brian and Diane and turned on Scott Pelley.
 
Mario-500 said:
^I understand this is a message board about national television and many users have assumed other users would know which broadcasters they reference even if the first references to them are only their last names, but I wish users such as yourself would refer to broadcasters by both the first names and last names in the first references to them at the very least.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And what's with referring to the network as CBS?? Anyone who finds this website in the year 5513 will be traumatized by all this cryptic talk.

From here on out, it is to be referred to by its full, original name, The Columbia Broadcasting System. Other networks should also be spelled out as such. And don't forget to include a bullet-pointed history any time you so much as refer to them.

We as an semi-evolved peoples really should be more mindful of the stupidity of future generations.

/sarcasm

--Russell
 
I am still trying to understand the logic that assumes that these message-board scribbles survive for a future generation, but Wikipedia somehow doesn't. ???
 
Mario-500 said:
^I understand this is a message board about national television and many users have assumed other users would know which broadcasters they reference even if the first references to them are only their last names, but I wish users such as yourself would refer to broadcasters by both the first names and last names in the first references to them at the very least.
Click to expand...

Is criticizing other users' English usage the only reason your account exists now?
 
It used to be typical for competing local TV news to imply they were "number 1" in some way in their promotions and teasers. So you'd have:

"Number one at 6:00"
"Number one at 11:00"
"The <name of market's> most watched news"
"The fastest growing news in <name of market>." etc., etc.

It seemed like every station could find some way to imply they were the most popular, depending on what statistic was being used.

I wouldn't take it seriously.
 
It's the best of the three IMO.

I have to believe the national ratings still suffer from the stations they lost as affiliates in 1994. In Detroit, CBS is on WWJ, an O&O, but this station produces no local news (as of 12/28/12) and has never had an evening newscast. No local lead in in major markets must hurt the national rating.
 
What I like about CBS is that Scott Pelley just delivers the news without adding cutesy-pie remarks after each story like Diane Sawyer does.
 
In Phoenix the CBS Evening News is the only national news program to air beginning at 6PM. ABC and NBC both begin theirs at 5:30 local. CBS does have a local news lead-in but I don't know how many people hang around to watch CBS - they might just be getting the late commuters.
 
Not trying to derail the thread, but I MUCH prefer the 'CBS Morning News' over what 'Today' has become. For me, the Peacock in the morning is unwatchable, for a number of reasons.

What about the local news for the CBS stations as lead-ins that account for the weakness in the 'CBS Evening News's' numbers? In the Wheeling, WV/Steubenville, Ohio market, Channel 7's newscasts may have ONE-TENTH the viewers of the local NBC affiliate's news (which runs 90 minutes), if one believes the Nielsen numbers. That NBC COMPLETELY slobbernockers the CBS offering in EVERY daypart. Channel 7 could film a monkeys on hot rocks and probably get better numbers. It's a shame, as I grew up watching that station, which is now a faint shadow of its glory days.
 
Greg Goodfellow said:
Not trying to derail the thread, but I MUCH prefer the 'CBS Morning News' over what 'Today' has become. For me, the Peacock in the morning is unwatchable, for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
I think you mean "CBS This Morning", which unlike Today or GMA doesn't have a bunch of idiots standing outside the studio or a summer concert series just to attract thousands more. I do watch when I get the chance; otherwise, I sleep through Morning Edition on NPR.

But I think at one time in the mid-'90s, CBS This Morning had a live studio audience (somebody on the TV News Talk board recalls them trying the audience experiment before in the early '80s, but there is no YouTube evidence to back that claim).
 
When CBS talks about the "most watched news program" I think they're actually making that claim on the basis of 60 Minutes, not the evening newscast.

That's actually true, since unlike other news-related shows 60 Minutes actually ranks in the Nielsen prime time top 10 most of the time. NO network's dinner hour newscast would get even close.
 
Russell W. said:
From here on out, it is to be referred to by its full, original name, The Columbia Broadcasting System.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was United Independent Broadcasters, then the Columbia Phonographic Broadcasting System until Paley - er, I mean William S. Paley - took over the network after a year or so, and dropped the "Phonographic."

It was usually announced on-air as being "The Columbia Chain" until World War II. But calling it "CBS" is perfectly OK with 99.999999% of the population. ;D
 
I believe that the Columbia Broadcasting System does not exists anymore. I think that CBS is the legal term.
 
johnnya2k6 said:
Greg Goodfellow said:
Not trying to derail the thread, but I MUCH prefer the 'CBS Morning News' over what 'Today' has become. For me, the Peacock in the morning is unwatchable, for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
I think you mean "CBS This Morning", which unlike Today or GMA doesn't have a bunch of idiots standing outside the studio or a summer concert series just to attract thousands more. I do watch when I get the chance; otherwise, I sleep through Morning Edition on NPR.

But I think at one time in the mid-'90s, CBS This Morning had a live studio audience (somebody on the TV News Talk board recalls them trying the audience experiment before in the early '80s, but there is no YouTube evidence to back that claim).
Click to expand...

The initial audience experiment was in 1987, when the entertainment division at CBS took over 7:30-9:00 to bring us "The Morning Program" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-rRhSUrwg

And yes, "CBS This Morning" tried it again in 1996: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHtVCsfrfOA
 
I think Denver is more or less THE EXCEPTION rather than the rule of what happened to CBS in the 1990s. I say this because they went from a then-CRAPPY KMGH 7 (Which is now one of ABC's best performing affiliates) to KCNC 4 (Whom they bought from NBC). The result was a ratings IMPROVEMENT here whereas in places like (For example) Detroit, their new location had been nothing short of DISASTEROUS

That said though, time is beginning to take its toll on KCNC as the ceiling they've laid down has been showing signs of cracking from weakness & the other stations know it (This was brought out the night when news of the Aurora Theatre Shooting spread. KCNC was NEXT TO LAST to go on the air with it)

NBC for its part went from owning KCNC 4 to equally-performing KUSA 9 who hasn't suffered much despite NBC's PATHETICALLY lackluster performance nationally

As for Fox affiliate KDVR 31, all they've done is shed their O&O status with Fox & SWALLOW CW affiliate KWGN 2 as if they had just taken an aspirin for a headache. The end result was a merged news department & the 9:00 PM news on KWGN moved to the GOD-AWFUL hour (For a newscast in these neck of the woods) of 7:00 PM in favor of the one on KDVR 31

That's the report from here.....Back to you guys.....

Cheers ;D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom