Cable News Viewership

[BrentAllen 10]

CABLE NEWS RACE

MONDAY, JULY 24

VIEWERS

 

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,693,000

FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000

FNC BRIT HUME 1,648,000

FNC SHEP SMITH 1,559,000

FNC GRETA 1,491,000

CNN COOPER 1,128,000

CNN KING 1,097,000

CNN ZAHN 890,000

CNN DOBBS 784,000

CNNHN GRACE 460,000

MSNBC HARDBALL 369,000

MSNBC OLBERMANN 365,000

 

I guess if I was Olbermann, I might be tempted to use an O'Reilly mask to get some viewers as well.

 

[scoutingagain 20]

So where does Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert fit in?

 

SA

[SR540Beaver 116]

The sad thing is that they are all lumped together for ratings. Only about half of those programs are actual NEWS programs like Shep or Cooper. The other half are opinion/entertainment. That is why O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are at the top of the list. They can take liberties with the format to sensationalize the program and attract viewers. Olberman is newer in their market, it will take him time to catch up with their antics.

[scoutldr 732]

Stewart and Colbert are comedians (and poor ones at that). Not journalists.

[scoutldr 732]

Stewart and Colbert are vulgar comedians (and poor ones at that). Not journalists.

[scoutingagain 20]

That's why I asked why they weren't in the same category as O'Rielly and company.

 

SA

[SR540Beaver 116]

Two of my favorites tactics are O'Reilly calling people cowards for not coming on his show to be browbeat by him and Hannity's, "do you still beat your wife, answer yes or no only" questions. but hey, Bill is "looking out for you" and Hannity offers the "most comprehensive news" available.

 

I prefer to get NEWS from a variety of sources and draw my own conclusions instead of having it fed to me by guys with an agenda......and yes that includes all the wannabes on CNN and MSNBC too. There are far more entertaining things to watch on TV than Jerry Springer style political "debates".

[BrentAllen 10]

Yeah, O'Reilly isn't a real journalist, like, say - Dan Rather? You know, that REAL journalist who used forged documents to try to take down Bush 43 during an election. The same Dan Rather who was forced to apologize to Bush 41 after interviewing him, for being rude and obnoxious. But Dan didn't have an agenda at all - right?

 

The reason I posted those numbers, other than showing what a total loser Olberman is, was to show how "Faux News", as some here like to refer to the channel, is kicking the snot out of CNN. For Fox to be so bad, they sure are drawing the viewers. So, maybe who is out of touch with mainstream America?

[Trevorum 24]

I'd rather know how many people watch "Animal Planet" or "The History Channel" ...

[SR540Beaver 116]

I don't recall retired Rather's name being mentioned here or anyone defending him.

 

The Roman's found that feeding Christians to the lions draw larger crowds than chariot races, that didn't make feeding people to lions better....just more attractive. People will always rubberneck at a car wreck.

 

Since you want to compare Rather and O'Reilly, here is something to consider. Rather worked for a broadcast network on airwaves owned by the public and the network had a government required obligation to provide news reporting to the public at large. O'Reilly works for a pay cable network and comments on current events in a confrontational style to garner ratings in order to sell more doormats, books and coffee mugs. He is laughing all the way to the bank. Apples and oranges. One was a public service and the other is a commercial venture.

[BrentAllen 10]

Other than the month before major elections, or when something big happens (tsunami), I rarely watch any news. When I do, it is mostly Fox. Count me in for the History Channel in the evening, and Animal Planet in the morning when the kids are getting ready for school. The only show I seek out regularly is UFC.

 

I get most of my news from the internet.

[BrentAllen 10]

Beaver,

You made my point for me. Rather was supposed to be a "real" unbiased journalist, as opposed to O'Reilly, who everyone claims is just entertainment or an activist for Republicans.

 

As you said, Rather was supposed to be a neutral journalist. He was anything but. He and all the mainstream media will tell you they are not biased. Lefties see the MSM as neutral, because the reporting fits with their political view. Those of us on the right see it as slanted. Survey after survey of journalists show they overwhelmingly vote democrat. Yes, this has all been rehashed a million times...

 

So FNC is the equivalent of feeding Christians to lions and car wrecks... I guess it would be too hard to admit they are just doing a better job...

[packsaddle 753]

I read...mostly the Economist, and books. My students for some reason think that all they need can be found online. Some don't even know what a citation index is, much less how to use it. I suppose that sound bites are marginally different from bumper stickers but for depth of analysis, none of the sources listed in the original post offer much. For that matter (I shudder to think that I am in agreement with something Spiro Agnew said), television (as well as its bastard child, the internet) continues mostly to represent a vast wasteland for news. OK, I'll make a huge exception for Oprah.

[SR540Beaver 116]

"So FNC is the equivalent of feeding Christians to lions and car wrecks... I guess it would be too hard to admit they are just doing a better job..."

 

It depends on whether you are talking about NEWS or entertainment. News is what Shepherd Smith does and Britt Hume for the first 40 minutes of his show. Entertainment is what O'Reilly and Hannity do and gets the biggest ratings. Calling people cowards and pinheads or asking them carefully worded yes or no answers designed to make your advesary bad is not news. It is entertainment that rates up there with "reality" TV. Yes, they do the entertainment side on cable news better by having more outrageous fare and attracting a larger audience. It isn't news though. It is just telling people what they want to hear. All the cable news channels do it, Fox just does it best.

 

You now what the difference is between the mainstream media and the new improved media. Accountability. Rather had a distinguished 40 year career and it was brought down by one bad story. Newspapers, magazines and network news have editorial staffs that check the content and sources before they report. Sometimes they mess up and heads roll like Jason Blain and Dan Rather. That is due to not only having standards, but having high standards. O'Reilly and Hannity have been busted so many times with inaccuracies and bending the truth without once ever retracting what they say or being held accountable by their employers. It is just apples and oranges. News and entertainment. Matt Drude's claim to fame was breaking the Monica Lewinsky story on the internet and beating the MSM getting it out. What people tend to forget was when he tried to accuse John Kerry during the election of having an affair with a young intern. The story turned out to be false. No retraction. No I'm sorry. No head rolling. Sorry, I like jounalistic standards and the editorial process of the MSM. They get it right more than they get it wrong and they self police and fire people who go out of bounds. The "news" you get on the internet usually isn't worth the electrons it is floating on. Most of it is more agenda driven than the MSM.

[Zahnada 11]

Brent, do you consider Fox News to be fair and balanced?

 

Don't worry, I'm not going to defend CNN, MSNBC, or any of the net work news. The personal views of the producers and the anchors will always influence the coverage.

 

But what is your impression of Fox?