I had heard that Fox News was the clear ratings leader but didn't realize how bad they beat everyone else till I came upon this article today.

 

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/cnn-drops-to-last-place-among-cable-news-networks/?hp

 

Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News had a huge lead with 659,000 viewers in that age group. Second was Rachel Maddow on MSNBC with 242,000.

Mr. King averaged 224,000 and Ms. Behar 181,000.

 

At 7 p.m. CNN’s host, Lou Dobbs was fourth, barely beaten by Jane Velez Mitchell on HLN, 166,000 to 162,000. The big winner was Shepard Smith on Fox with 465,000 viewers. Second was Chris Matthews and “Hardball” on MSNBC, with 179,000 viewers.

 

Bill O’Reilly on Fox News continued his long dominance with the biggest numbers of any host, 881,000 viewers. Mr. Olbermann, with his first-run program, was second with 295,000. Close behind was the first edition of Ms. Grace’s show with 269,000. Campbell Brown on CNN trailed with only 162,000.

Is this news? Fox has always killed their competition.

Well if it's true that there are numerous different stations for "liberals" and only one for "conservatives" it makes sense that Fox News would get great ratings. Liberals would have many different choices, while conservatives have one.

Is this news? Fox has always killed their competition.

 

I guess not if you are follower of Obama.

Well if it's true that there are numerous different stations for "liberals" and only one for "conservatives" it makes sense that Fox News would get great ratings. Liberals would have many different choices, while conservatives have one.

 

That rings true in only 2 of the 3 cases above.

 

Hannity audience 659,000. The other 3 stations TOTAL 647,000.

OReiley audience 881,000. THe other 3 stations TOTAL 626,000.

Shepard audience 465,000. THe other 3 stations Total 507,000.

And somewhere I remember but don't have time to read it, Greta's audience is like Hannity and Oreiley.

Well if it's true that there are numerous different stations for "liberals" and only one for "conservatives" it makes sense that Fox News would get great ratings. Liberals would have many different choices, while conservatives have one.

 

That's a good point, however I recall reading that Fox has a large liberal and independent percentage in their audience also.

That rings true in only 2 of the 3 cases above.

 

Hannity audience 659,000. The other 3 stations TOTAL 647,000.

OReiley audience 881,000. THe other 3 stations TOTAL 626,000.

Shepard audience 465,000. THe other 3 stations Total 507,000.

And somewhere I remember but don't have time to read it, Greta's audience is like Hannity and Oreiley.

 

So Hannity wins by 12,000 viewers and Shepard loses to the other stations.

 

The only significant difference is O'reilly.

That's a good point, however I recall reading that Fox has a large liberal and independent percentage in their audience also.

 

So that takes even more viewers away from the other three "liberal" stations, thus making the advantage for Fox even greater.

 

I'm not sure if that helps or hurts the argument I was trying to make.

Well if it's true that there are numerous different stations for "liberals" and only one for "conservatives" it makes sense that Fox News would get great ratings. Liberals would have many different choices, while conservatives have one.

There is a lot of truth to this statement, HB20. On the other hand, I believe a lot has to do with programming, despite political viewpoints. If it is bad television, people are not going to watch or they will watch something different. I attribute a lot of Fox's domination to not only the notion you bring up, but also they simply have better programming this is more entertaining. I flip between O'Reilly, Olbermann, and Maddow every night. The Factor is by the best as far as production, imo. You can only take in so much of the zoomed in Olbmerann face shot which encompasses about 90% of the show. Maddow just is not very good and is not natural at making jokes like Bill and Keith are... none-the-less, she gives it her all through her show.

There is a lot of truth to this statement, HB20. On the other hand, I believe a lot has to do with programming, despite political viewpoints. If it is bad television, people are not going to watch or they will watch something different. I attribute a lot of Fox's domination to not only the notion you bring up, but also they simply have better programming this is more entertaining. I flip between O'Reilly, Olbermann, and Maddow every night. The Factor is by the best as far as production, imo. You can only take in so much of the zoomed in Olbmerann face shot which encompasses about 90% of the show. Maddow just is not very good and is not natural at making jokes like Bill and Keith are... none-the-less, she gives it her all through her show.

 

 

Personally, I don't watch any of them. I'd rather watch John Stewart and Steven Colbert, or any other program on television than to watch Hannity, Oreilly, Olbermann, Maddow or any other joke of a TV show that is on any of those channels.

Personally, I don't watch any of them. I'd rather watch John Stewart and Steven Colbert, or any other program on television than to watch Hannity, Oreilly, Olbermann, Maddow or any other joke of a TV show that is on any of those channels.

Except that Stewart and Colbert ARE a joke of a TV show. However, I agree with your assessment of Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow. O'Reilly, on the other hand, isn't near as bad as the others.

Except that Stewart and Colbert ARE a joke of a TV show. However, I agree with your assessment of Hannity, Olbermann and Maddow. O'Reilly, on the other hand, isn't near as bad as the others.

 

O'Reilly is just as bad as the others, if not worse, IMO.

 

And Stewart and Colbert are hilarious and do a very good job at making fun of Hannity, O'Reilly etc.

 

I believe it was Colbert who went on O'Reilly's show once, and that was probably the only segment of O'Reilly's show I've ever seen in it's entirety. That segment was great.

O'Reilly is just as bad as the others, if not worse, IMO.

 

And Stewart and Colbert are hilarious and do a very good job at making fun of Hannity, O'Reilly etc.

 

I believe it was Colbert who went on O'Reilly's show once, and that was probably the only segment of O'Reilly's show I've ever seen in it's entirety. That segment was great.

He's really not near as bad as the others, still not something I tend to watch often.

 

Stewart and Colbert are anything but hilarious. Lame is a word that describes them best.

I don't like Bill O'Reilly very much... It's more from his "Talking Points" radio spots than his television show, however. They make it really hard to enjoy Clark Howard. :lol:

So Hannity wins by 12,000 viewers and Shepard loses to the other stations.

 

The only significant difference is O'reilly.

 

I would guess that one person beating 3 other stations by himself, would be significant.

 

And I say that as a person who can't stand to watch Hannity.

 

I was amazed that many people actually watched him.