Print

[Baby Hitler]

If Fox loses 30% of its viewers and another network loses 45% of its viewers, then suddenly that 30% doesn't look as bad. However, if Fox loses 30% of its viewers, and another network only loses 5%, then 30% seems really bad.

Fox News saw its numbers drop by double digits in primetime, total day and A25-54 viewers compared to 2010. This isn't totally surprising, since that was a major election year, but the drops were steep; for instance, the network was down 30% in the demo for primetime.

MSNBC's primetime programming brought in bigger ratings than last month, which tipped the ratings war scale between the network and CNN back in its favor. MSNBC attributes its ratings climb to the reshuffling of Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word," with Ed Shultz's "The Ed Show."

CNN however, experienced ratings growth of its own across the board. Compared to November 2010, CNN grew 4% in Total Day viewing. Anderson Cooper's "AC 360" 8:00 p.m. airing also improved over 40% in total viewing, compared to this month last year. (Piers Morgan, unfortunately, saw his ratings slide a bit below the numbers Larry King was posting on his farewell tour in 2010, though he has managed to top King's ratings overall this year.) CNN also beat MSNBC in the daytime.
That was already posted, but evidently went unread.

A loss of 30% by Fox, and a GAIN of 40% by CNN in the same time slot. I guess you were so intent on attacking what I had to say, you skipped right over it.

[LetsGoWings]

Fox News saw its numbers drop by double digits in primetime, total day and A25-54 viewers compared to 2010. This isn't totally surprising, since that was a major election year, but the drops were steep; for instance, the network was down 30% in the demo for primetime.

MSNBC's primetime programming brought in bigger ratings than last month, which tipped the ratings war scale between the network and CNN back in its favor. MSNBC attributes its ratings climb to the reshuffling of Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word," with Ed Shultz's "The Ed Show."

CNN however, experienced ratings growth of its own across the board. Compared to November 2010, CNN grew 4% in Total Day viewing. Anderson Cooper's "AC 360" 8:00 p.m. airing also improved over 40% in total viewing, compared to this month last year. (Piers Morgan, unfortunately, saw his ratings slide a bit below the numbers Larry King was posting on his farewell tour in 2010, though he has managed to top King's ratings overall this year.) CNN also beat MSNBC in the daytime.
That was already posted, but evidently went unread.

A loss of 30% by Fox, and a GAIN of 40% by CNN in the same time slot. I guess you were so intent on attacking what I had to say, you skipped right over it.

Nope not attacking, you only produced one article to prove your point. However, you continue to harp on the older than 54 number, but provided no comparison, and then discredited my comparison, you are no better than Fox News. How about you provide an accurate comparison to prove that Fox viewers are so much older than all the others?

Anderson gained 40%, not all of CNN, yet again you distorting facts to prove your point. Unless you are saying the only time that is considered primetime is the 8 PM slot, but that wouldn't be the first time you have tried to change definitions to prove your points.

[Baby Hitler]

Nope not attacking, you only produced one article to prove your point. However, you continue to harp on the older than 54 number, but provided no comparison, and then discredited my comparison, you are no better than Fox News. How about you provide an accurate comparison to prove that Fox viewers are so much older than all the others?

Anderson gained 40%, not all of CNN, yet again you distorting facts to prove your point. Unless you are saying the only time that is considered primetime is the 8 PM slot, but that wouldn't be the first time you have tried to change definitions to prove your points.

I have provided much information to prove my point, regardless of how much I produce, you will continue to find fault in it.

It's what you do.

I have provided all the proof I'm going to. It will be up to the viewers to decide for themselves whether the information I have provided is sufficient to prove my case.

No need for you to reply, we will put you down as a no.

Good day.

[lordfly]

One survey concluded that 45% of people over aged thirty five hate the taste of silly string.

Ergo, silly string is terrible and should be banned. Forever.



Fox news sucks, but comparing it to MSNBC or CNN or whatever is pointless. They're all terrible.

[Baby Hitler]

[Baby Hitler]

How about we realize that all of the news channels we get on cable are an utter waste of programming and move onto something else?

Fox sucks, CNN is terrible (unless you like people reading you Tweets), MSNBC is irrelevant. Even Headline News, once a bastion of straight news reporting, has turned into a wankfest.

Agreed 100%, they all have an obvious bias and spin events their own way.

Prove it.

I provided pages and pages of examples to prove my point, but since you agree with LordFly, you do not require him to provide ANY evidence what-so-ever to prove his.

Yeah there is absolutely no bias in this post. See, you are exactly like Fox, but on the other side of the fence.

Why is it so hard for you to provide unbiased information to prove your point?

And you are exactly like Fox, and on the same side of the fence.

[ussoccer26]

Fluffy, I think I got this figured out. LGW is actually Bill O'Reilly in disguise, which is why he will still refute the truth even when he is presented with facts.

[BigRedDog]

You can hit some people along side the head with a concrete block and they still will refuse to recognize it as "the truth"

[LetsGoWings]

Fluffy, I think I got this figured out. LGW is actually Bill O'Reilly in disguise, which is why he will still refute the truth even when he is presented with facts.

You can hit some people along side the head with a concrete block and they still will refuse to recognize it as "the truth"

Really? Show me where I did that? I presented facts as well, but since you despise Fox News you, like Fluffy, refuse to accept those facts.

It is true that Fox has lost viewers, I am not refuting that. However, saying that Fox lost 30% in primetime and CNN gained 40% on Anderson are tough numbers to compare because primetime is not just the 8pm time slot. The proper number to use would have been the 4% gain by CNN.

Fluffy also pointed out that around 75% of Fox's audience was older than 54 years of age. This is also true. However, this 75% number is meaningless until you compare it with other networks. When compared, it turned out the 4 news corporations on the graph prof H posted were all at or above 50% for the older than 54 demographic. When I pointed it out, remember the same graph Fluffy used to come up with the 75% number, he stated that it was 3 year old data. The 2012 data would not be out because the graph used data that was close to the calendar year, meaning the only data missing from the graph was 2010 and 2011. I then posted data for March 22, and qualified it with being just one day of data, to show that Fox's 75% number decreased, and the other networks increased. Then FB states that Fox News should not be called Fox News, However it meets the definition of news.

Here are the links FB provided after I countered him:
http://www.politicususa.com/jon-stewart-fox-ratings/ - I agree that Jon Stewart has better ratings
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?cat=6 - obvious bias in this website and does not report on stats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_1121970.html - some bias in huffington post, but I do agree that Fox fell by 30%, Anderson gained 40%, and CNN gained 4%.

http://www.blagoplanet.com/fox-and-friends-ratings-dropping/politics/ - no stats in this post, just one persons opinion.
http://www.newser.com/story/134460/fox-news-ratings-plunge.html?utm_source=happyhour&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20111201 - Again the same 30%, 40%, 4% numbers.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201012210005 - no stats on viewership here.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201012210005 -  no stats on viewership here.


I will agree with FB about the 30%, 40%, and 4% numbers. However, he is the one distorting truth and changing definitions. He is also trying to say CNN gained 40% in primetime, when it was only Anderson that gained 40%.

Why is it so hard to give an unbiased analysis. I get it you and FB hate Fox News, and are letting this hate cloud your judgement of the analysis of their ratings.

[Baby Hitler]

I get it you and FB hate Fox News, and are letting this hate cloud your judgement of the analysis of their ratings.

And we get it that you love Fox News, and will do anything to protect it.

You have stated that the other networks are just as bad, yet do not have any evidence to prove it.

PROVE IT!

[LetsGoWings]

And we get it that you love Fox News, and will do anything to protect it.

You have stated that the other networks are just as bad, yet do not have any evidence to prove it.

PROVE IT!

I do not love Fox News. I am giving an unbiased analysis of the networks.

Why is it so difficult for you to give an unbiased analysis? I provided you data to show that fox news having viewers older than 54 wasn't that big of a deal when compared to other networks, but you continue to ignore this fact and just state that Fox has an old viewer that they won't be able to replace.

[Baby Hitler]

How are they not news? They meet the definition. Oh that is right you want to change the definition of the word because you do not agree with their view points.

I would like  to change the definition to require that the information that is presented to be FACTUAL.

fac·tu·al  (fkch-l)
adj.
1. Of the nature of fact; real.
2. Of or containing facts.

[Baby Hitler]

Google search "Fox News Lies"

https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+lies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Search
About 72,300,000 results (0.13 seconds)

http://foxnewslies.net/ Shows even the most recent lies shown as fact on Fox News.

[LetsGoWings]

I never said they were as bad. I said "Agreed 100%, they all have an obvious bias and spin events their own way." there is a difference.

bias- a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias

They all have their tendencies to spin information their own way.
Anderson Cooper, CNN- Liberal
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC- Liberal
Bill O'reilly, Fox- Conservative.

[LetsGoWings]

I would like  to change the definition to require that the information that is presented to be FACTUAL.

fac·tu·al  (fkch-l)
adj.
1. Of the nature of fact; real.
2. Of or containing facts.

However, as it currently stands, it does not include that, so Fox News, whether you would like to admit it or not, is still news.

How about you implying CNN had a 40% total increase, when it was only Anderson?

Again, you keep dodging this question, why is it so hard for you to give an unbiased analysis of the viewership audience of the news stations?