O'Reilley-CNN-Olberrman flap

[Don62]

What does eveyrone think of this?

I personally think it's much ado over nothing.

I didn't hear the original broadcast, but heard the out-of-context snippets quoted on the cabe shows.
I also heard O'Reilly play the discussion in context, with black Juan Williams.

I do think the bully Media Matters is once again trying to inject its political fist into public discussions again. Much as it did with Imus, that hate group is trying to attack another prominent political opponent.

It's interesting how CNN and MSNBC (Keith Olberrman, primarily) attacks Bill-Oh-RYE-Lee, he reciprocates, then it continues. Seems like a big fued.

 

[robbbc]

What does eveyrone think of this?

I personally think it's much ado over nothing.

I didn't hear the original broadcast, but heard the out-of-context snippets quoted on the cabe shows.
I also heard O'Reilly play the discussion in context, with black Juan Williams.

I do think the bully Media Matters is once again trying to inject its political fist into public discussions again. Much as it did with Imus, that hate group is trying to attack another prominent political opponent.

It's interesting how CNN and MSNBC (Keith Olberrman, primarily) attacks Bill-Oh-RYE-Lee, he reciprocates, then it continues. Seems like a big fued.

Media Matters is the bully? More like a little ant. Thankfully you put it in bold so that you could start a flame war- too bad the folks here are a bit more savvy. Anyhoo, I would be about as shocked to find out that the herald or journal were up in a snit about something a democrat said- and they are way bigger players than that bully little non-profit you mentioned... Typically I find the media matters website to have detailed (in context) information. The "out of context" claptrap is merely opinion. Make your own decisions.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709210007

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Forgive me, Don, but I don't recall Media Matters being the subject of a Congressional resolution any time recently. Wasn't that some other little-known group named....MoveOn.org?

 

[Don62]

[size=10pt][size=10pt]

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Media Matters is the bully? More like a little ant. Thankfully you put it in bold so that you could start a flame war- too bad the folks here are a bit more savvy

[/size][/size].

[
An ant? Flame war?

That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

So Media Matters had nothing to do with visciously attacking and (groundlessly) chasing Don Imus off the air?

Aren't these clowns also a mouthpiece of Soros, the billionaire tryiing to interfere in elections?

What kind of weed are you guys smokin'?

 

[SeanMGilbow]

I'm sure my co-workers with the Ohio State Highway Patrol would be very amused with that "weed" comment.

 

[robbbc]

[size=10pt][size=10pt]

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Media Matters is the bully? More like a little ant. Thankfully you put it in bold so that you could start a flame war- too bad the folks here are a bit more savvy

[/size][/size].

[
An ant? Flame war?

That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

So Media Matters had nothing to do with visciously attacking and (groundlessly) chasing Don Imus off the air?

Aren't these clowns also a mouthpiece of Soros, the billionaire tryiing to interfere in elections?

What kind of weed are you guys smokin'?

Don Imus used a racial slur on the air amd media matters reported and condemned it. Everyone else did too. Imus was fired by CBS and NBC, not Media Matters. I would say CBS and NBC had "grounds" to fire Imus (I couldn't say something like that at work, how come Imus can?). As for hounding and Soros, who cares? If a billionaire wants to spend their money going after liberals and democrats who is to stop them? The WSJ/Post mouthpeices of foreign billionaire Rupert Murdoch interfere in US elections more than Soros (and the website and groups he has supported over the years) ever could or has. As for the weed, not into it.

 

[Don62]

Okay. Both of you make good points.

 

[Don62]

Let me apologize for the "weed" comment I errantly made earlier.
I didn't think before posting that. I didn't intend to imply literal drug use.

 

[dampier]

What does eveyrone think of this?

I personally think it's much ado over nothing.

I didn't hear the original broadcast, but heard the out-of-context snippets quoted on the cabe shows.
I also heard O'Reilly play the discussion in context, with black Juan Williams.

I do think the bully Media Matters is once again trying to inject its political fist into public discussions again. Much as it did with Imus, that hate group is trying to attack another prominent political opponent.

It's interesting how CNN and MSNBC (Keith Olberrman, primarily) attacks Bill-Oh-RYE-Lee, he reciprocates, then it continues. Seems like a big fued.

Someone has been eating their morning talking points straight off of Fox News. I dunno, to the average American, hearing O'Reilly act shocked, shocked, that black people can run and visit restaurants that look and act just like white restaurants is STUNNING. His add-on that nobody was screaming "M'fer, bring me more iced tea" just frosted the cake.

Instead of taking the easy way out of just absorbing O'Reilly's talking points about Media Matters, let's study why this is even an issue.

O'Reilly's main obsession with the African-American community has been over violent and sexist rappers. He's done nearly 100 shows about this topic or containing segments about it. He's convinced that the black community is being run by these rappers in cahoots with Jesse and Al, and he feeds this ignorance to his audience night after night, for at least three years now. Now, is some magnanimous moment, he wants to tell us about his Wild Kingdom-like adventure to Sylvia's and then inform his audience that, no, their preconceptions about black people and black restaurants are all wrong - Sylvia's was well-behaved and so were the patrons.

When he was called on this, his immediate reaction wasn't to clarify his clumsy remarks. It was to attack the usual suspects for even bringing the issue up (which he himself can and has done for at least a week's worth of shows now). If I had a dime everytime O'Reilly claims to have been taken out of context (and just what positive things can come from his "M'fer" remark?), I'd own Fox News. If O'Reilly was caught robbing a bank, he would have claimed he was taken out of context.

Media Matters and O'Reilly (and Olbermann) have now got a great synergy going to all of their benefits. Media Matters just takes down the exact words the show hosts say, publishes EXTENSIVE transcripts, and then alerts the public to those things that would otherwise be lost in the general blather of talk radio. Media Matters didn't invent this concept. Conservative groups did with their own media "watchdog" groups. But when the usual trash talk of talk radio gets a light shone on it, people are astonished, and talkshow hosts who went too far start squirming and spinning. They're not funded by Soros (despite the endless claims on Fox News with are provably wrong), nor are they "smear merchants." Some hosts are better than others about not putting their foot in their mouths. Limbaugh and O'Reilly aren't actually worst. That would be reserved for the always mediocre Glenn Beck.

Regardless of what Media Matters is saying, the right wing talkshow hosts LOVE to hate them. I'd say Media Matters gets a whole mess of traffic just from O'Reilly's nearly-nightly-rants about them. O'Reilly gets to run against them, they cash in on contributions from people who love any group that needles O'Reilly and everyone is happy. Olbermann loves to needle O'Reilly just because it literally drives Bill'O nuts, and Keith gets a great kick out of it.

Media Matters a hate group? Hardly. It's just a demonstration of the pushback that is long overdue from those who don't feel every right wing talking point and outrage-on-the-airwaves deserves a free pass. But since everyone is getting what they want out of this, why worry about it.

 

[jcolletta275]

I've been saying it for years: O'Reilly is a blowhard who doesn't belong on the air. As I posted elsewhere on this topic, even in the context of the argument he was attempting to make, what he said was still racially-charged and ignorantly so! There's no getting around it, that's just the way it is.

Now I know the arguing about firing him or some other form of punishment has pretty much ended, and the point is moot anyway, because neither FNC nor Westwood 1 are going to fire him. But should he be fired? That's not my decision to make, nor is it anyone else's other than Westwood 1 and FOX News Channel. Not even Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have a say in this, nor should they have had a say in the Imus situation (though, pathetically, Sharpton did). However, if I were his boss, yes, I would fire him, but it would have happened long before now for the fact that he's a misinformed blowhard who constantly seems surrounded in controversy because of his stupidity, and I wouldn't want to take that on my company's shoulders. This wouldn't have happened if I were O'Reilly's boss, because I would have terminated his employment ages ago. So that being said, I wouldn't blame either company for firing him, and I believe he should be, but I'm not going to call for it, because I'm not the one to make that decision.

 

[dampier]

I've been saying it for years: O'Reilly is a blowhard who doesn't belong on the air. As I posted elsewhere on this topic, even in the context of the argument he was attempting to make, what he said was still racially-charged and ignorantly so! There's no getting around it, that's just the way it is.

O'Reilly on radio is not a ratings winner, and that is increasingly becoming more and more true. Most of the non-Fox News/Talk format stations already treat him as a second tier host, and in a lot of markets the dominant conservative talker doesn't even run his show. Instead, you'll find him and Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Medved, Reagan, and brother of watermelon smasher on the 1kw rimshot AM station running the leftovers.

On television, typically far fewer than a million people watch his show on Fox News. More people channel flip past the CBS Evening News with Katie than watch anything on Fox News, and a lot of radio talkshows have better ratings and more listeners than Fox has viewers. But for Fox's core audience, old white guys living in the heartland, Bill and Sean are the Fox darlings. It's hardly a demo advertisers want, but it gives Bill boasting power and there is nothing that he could do to get him canceled on Fox News. He could burn a cross on the set and it still wouldn't get him off the air. Unlike Imus who was on a mainstream radio network and on an NBC-owned cable network, you already know what you are going to get on an operation run by a former Republican party consultant like Roger Ailes. No one need be surprised.

I predict O'Reilly will eventually give up the radio show. Outside of Sean Hannity (who is not even a part of the Fox News Radio operation), there is no great clamoring for any of the Fox News personalities doing radio shows in the first place. John Gibson anyone?

Not even Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have a say in this, nor should they have had a say in the Imus situation (though, pathetically, Sharpton did).

Indirectly, Fox News did manage to prove a long-held contention by the critics of Al and Jesse when they managed to prove both are more interested in media exposure and publicity than actually holding true to their rhetoric. That Sharpton would be hanging around O'Reilly and then kid-gloved him on his show after the scandal erupted with lame claims of not "seeing the show" proved that Sharpton cares more about getting face time on any TV outlet than being ideologically consistent. After all, not having all of the information never stopped Sharpton before, and that's been true since Tawana Brawley forward.

Jesse's appearance was no better, and this was his big shot to shoulder his way past Sharpton, who has been winning the rhetoric war as of late, and he didn't take it.

However, if I were his boss, yes, I would fire him, but it would have happened long before now for the fact that he's a misinformed blowhard who constantly seems surrounded in controversy because of his stupidity, and I wouldn't want to take that on my company's shoulders. This wouldn't have happened if I were O'Reilly's boss, because I would have terminated his employment ages ago. So that being said, I wouldn't blame either company for firing him, and I believe he should be, but I'm not going to call for it, because I'm not the one to make that decision.

Uh, this is Fox News and Roger Ailes. Why would they fire him? Usually Fox News is the place to go when you want a nice paycheck and don't mind selling your news credentials down the river for it. I've been enjoying watching Bill Hemmer sell his as he sits there and plays Fox anchor, feigning outrage over the usual talking point of the day Ailes sends down in the morning coverage memo. He's realized he's a loooooong way from CNN and any concept of real news reporting. Some adopt to the batty Fox News values (John Gibson, Brit Hume), while others just sort of keep their heads down and try to stay out of the worst excesses (Shepherd Smith).

 

[TSBench]

On television, typically far fewer than a million people watch his show on Fox News

Errr...not to put too fine a point on it, but this is just wrong.

O'Reilly routinely does twice that number, and, on hot news days, treble it. O'Reilly at 8pm has a larger audience than all the other cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC) combined. His rerun at 11pm pulls a larger audience than any of the competitors do at 8.

This information is so well known, and so easy to find, that misstating it can only be intentional.

Regards,
TSB

 

[Don62]

Someone has been eating their morning talking points straight off of Fox News. ...

Instead of taking the easy way out of just absorbing O'Reilly's talking points about Media Matters, let's study why this is even an issue.

I think you have your facts wrong. How would you know my TV viewing preferences?

My order of cable news viewing is thus:
1) CNN (mornings, especially, afternoons with The Situation Room)
2) MSNC (evenings primarily)
3) Fox (no mornings since that show is too chatty, much like GMA and Today). I'll watch O'Reilly ocaisionally but very little Hannity and Colmes, if at all.

I'm independent, not a die-hard libertal nor conservative, though I used to be a die-hard of the latter.

I like talk radio of all stripes, but am getting tired of the predictability of the likes of Stephanie Miller and Rhandi Rhodes. Their schtick seems to be beating up on their much more listened to competitors.
Try listening to Steph's show and see how long she can go without taking a shot at Bill O'Reilly.
Her show isn't necessarily the fountain of viewers or objectivity, either.

I have previously posted my disagreements and angst over the "all conservative, all the time" nature of talk radio, so don't anyone accuse me of being a lapdog for either side.

 

[robbbc]

On television, typically far fewer than a million people watch his show on Fox News

Errr...not to put too fine a point on it, but this is just wrong.

O'Reilly routinely does twice that number, and, on hot news days, treble it. O'Reilly at 8pm has a larger audience than all the other cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC) combined. His rerun at 11pm pulls a larger audience than any of the competitors do at 8.

This information is so well known, and so easy to find, that misstating it can only be intentional.

Regards,
TSB

Isn't there some discussion of "unique Viewers" versus people who sit and watch the whole thing twice in one night? His age 25-54 is less than half a million while his overall ratings is 2 million. So most (3/4) of his viewers are over 54? Doesn't seem right. It's all pretty easy to spin in whatever direction you want. The most important stat none of us want to discuss is that no news channel has anything showing up in Neilsons top 15 for cable, a sign that cable news is really just a marginal player at best and mostly a tabloid brand- Fox being the biggest brand of an overall crappy segment. More Americans get their news from somewhere else and that is probably their local TV station.

 

[dampier]

On television, typically far fewer than a million people watch his show on Fox News

Errr...not to put too fine a point on it, but this is just wrong.

O'Reilly routinely does twice that number, and, on hot news days, treble it. O'Reilly at 8pm has a larger audience than all the other cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC, HLN, CNBC) combined. His rerun at 11pm pulls a larger audience than any of the competitors do at 8.

This information is so well known, and so easy to find, that misstating it can only be intentional.

I don't usually talk about "total viewers" because advertisers (the ones that matter) don't care about that. They want the 25-54 ratings where the eyeballs are for the ads that make the programs possible. It's the equivalent of the 12+ radio ratings given away for free because they have such little value to those that ultimately decide what airs and what doesn't. That being said, I apologize for not making this more clear up front. His total viewers are obviously higher, but if that's all that mattered in this business, we'd still be watching first run episodes of Murder, She Wrote. As far as how their competitors are doing in the ratings that matter, the suggestion that O'Reilly's ratings are higher than all of the others combined hasn't been true for a long time.

Here are two days from TVNewer's quoted ratings - O'Reilly's worst and best ratings since 9/28 (not including CNBC which they don't consider a classic cable news outlet):

9/28 - O'Reilly 8pm (25-54) 376 - CNN+HN+MSNBC 574
10/2 - O'Reilly 8pm (25-54) 596 - CNN+HN+MSNBC 690

The 11pm rerun performs more poorly than his live showing. MSNBC's Countdown is the most improving in the ratings that matter. Fox News' demo is by far the oldest of all cable news outlets. While that may be great to sell people scooters, disability insurance, and pharma, it's not exactly the glory zone of Madison Avenue bliss. On 10/2, it was a trifecta of Bill Joy - more saber-rattling over the "smear merchants," plus the use of the GamCam on the shapely legs and figures of Megyn Kelly and Lis Wiehl, and the magical world of mediocrity that Steve Doocy always brings to any panel in a "culture quiz" that was hardly Jeopardy. But they love Steve in Ottumwa. That gave him his best numbers for three months.

Compared to any broadcast network newscast, cable news and personality talk shows still reach just a small percentage of what lowest rated CBS does on any night of the week.

 

[TSBench]

I don't usually talk about "total viewers" because advertisers

I guess it wasn't my day to read minds, so I just responded to what you actually posted. And O'Reilly clobbers everyone, except for the occasional CNN documentary, when you look at 25-54s.

(the ones that matter) don't care about that. They want the 25-54 ratings where the eyeballs are for the ads that make the programs possible.

This is also just untrue. The biggest increases in advertising money has come from companies looking for older audiences. This is the money that makes all these programs possible. Entire categories that didn't exist 20 years ago have been developed from scratch to take advantage of the older demos, and the cheaper targeted audiences. And, truth be told, the dividing line between the advertising on cable news and that on the broadcast nets news programs, is blurring more every day.

It's the equivalent of the 12+ radio ratings given away for free because they have such little value to those that ultimately decide what airs and what doesn't.

Thanks for the heads-up, 25 years in the biz and I never knew that. But, this is just a straw man, because nobody I know (with the possible exception of Wrigley's Gum, and that was twenty years ago) buys based on free 12+ info, and it has no bearing on this discussion.

That being said, I apologize for not making this more clear up front. His total viewers are obviously higher, but if that's all that mattered in this business, we'd still be watching first run episodes of Murder, She Wrote. As far as how their competitors are doing in the ratings that matter, the suggestion that O'Reilly's ratings are higher than all of the others combined hasn't been true for a long time.

Here the three days worth of numbers from last week, compliments of Inside Cable News,

Tuesday
O'Reilly 2,700.00
Everyone else 2,400.00

Wednesday
O'Reilly 2,282,000
Everyone else 1,893.00

Thursday
O'Reilly 2,094,000
Everyone else 1,993,000

I guess I could keep going back, but this is representative enough to make the point. And, I left in CNBC. which still didn't really change the final analysis.

The 11pm rerun performs more poorly than his live showing.

Huh? This is surprising? The rerun runs 2 hours after the live show. The real surprise would be if it did better than the live show. And, it still does better than the competition.

MSNBC's Countdown is the most improving in the ratings that matter.

Yes, Countdown has almost gotten to the point where it would be renewed if it ran on FNC.

Fox News' demo is by far the oldest of all cable news outlets.

And it still delivers more 25-54s

While that may be great to sell people scooters, disability insurance, and pharma, it's not exactly the glory zone of Madison Avenue bliss.

As I understand it, the money received from those advertisers spends just like money received for Heineken ads. A lot of folks think Fidelity, Schwab, AIG. UBS, and Berkshire Hathaway are pretty decent clients. The problem with those so-called 'glory' accounts is that every time the auto industry burps, all the network suits get indigestion.

Actually, playing the 'my account is sexier than your account' is just a red herring. Usually used by folks to whom the fact that Fox eats every other cable news net's lunch is just to distasteful to swallow.

And, since this discussion is about cable news, it should be noted that folks looking for 25-54s are finding them in the network, and cable, entertainment programs, not on either's news and information shows.

Compared to any broadcast network newscast, cable news and personality talk shows still reach just a small percentage of what lowest rated CBS does on any night of the week.

As can be said for any broadcast programming, news or entertainment. The most successful cable entertainment program couldn't make the schedule of any broadcast net based on numbers. But, broadcast news has been in an audience free-fall for 25+ years. And, those older demos are about the only ones the alphabet nets can count on, since the under 30 audience for traditional media has vanished. Nobody has bought network news looking for younger eyeballs in years.

Regards,
TSB

 

[justareporter]

Let's look at the extremes (thanks to TVNewser.com)

Monday 10-1-07 (25-54) 8p

FNC 484
MSNBC 300

Friday 9-28-07 8p

FNC 376
MSNBC 231



That is target demo 25-54. For laughs assume that NO-ONE outside of the top ten markets watches TV. No one. That would (if shared equally) mean that in BOSTON or CHICAGO or NYC on any given day only 48,000 would be watching FNC and even less for MSNBC.

If a local station in the top ten markets got those kind of numbers 25-54 they would close.

Conculsion? Cable is the sideshow. The real impact is still on the networks. ABC/CBS & NBC combined still have 60+ million viewers.

The question not asked and clearly not answered is how do we get people to make news an appointment and a reason for their time. Clearly appointment viewing may go....but we have to remain as a destination.

 

[robbbc]

Conculsion? Cable is the sideshow. The real impact is still on the networks. ABC/CBS & NBC combined still have 60+ million viewers.

The question not asked and clearly not answered is how do we get people to make news an appointment and a reason for their time. Clearly appointment viewing may go....but we have to remain as a destination.

I checked 60 minutes ratings and it is still in the top 20 (with lots more viewers than Billo) so there is good evidence that people are interested in news magazines. NPR's Morning Edition trounces all the networks' morning shows which in turn trounce the cable news morning shows. Obviously 60 minutes and NPR are doing something right, why copy Fox News?

 

[justareporter]

There is no reason to copy Fox ...except when it comes to some of their graphics which are actually pretty good. Problem is almost all of their talent is not as good as their graphics.