The ratings are in: we love FOX

hoosier · #1 02-15-2005, 06:52 PM

Overall news coverage of recent events:

Fox - 1.7 million viewers (up 21% from a year ago)

CNN - 820,000 viewers (up 2%)

MSNBC - 301,000 viewers (down 15%)

From USA Today 2/15/05

kddani · #2 02-15-2005, 07:55 PM

uhhh... is that foxnews, or fox the network?

eta: give us a link. Can't find this anywhere on usatoday's website, and it seems like all their stuff is online

kddani · #3 02-15-2005, 08:01 PM

found it, buried in an article:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columni...edia-mix_x.htm

You really should be more clear when you're posting statistics. It's not overall news coverage. It's based on primetime

DeltAlum · #4 02-16-2005, 12:33 AM

To add a little perspective, here are the ratings for the evening news shows for the "major" networks -- but only the 25-54 demographics.

This is from the Week of February 7, 2005.

Total Viewers Adults 25-54
ABC 10,150,000 2.8/10
NBC 10,210,000 2.7/10
CBS 7,520,000 2.1/7

So, the demos for only part of the weakest of the major evening newscasts beat all three of the major cable outlets Prime Times combined.

I didn't look far enough, but I strongly suspect that even the weakest (CBS) of the morning shows beat the strongest of the cable networks prime time programming.

It's not that the cable networks aren't important and aren't putting a dent in the broadcast networks -- but they still have a long way to go to compete eyeballs wise.

ETA: Unbelievable. I just read the link. You actually believe that ratings for coverage of a single event is meaningful in terms of overall trends?

That's more sensationalistic than the media coverage you are so quick to take to task. I'm glad you're not a reporter working on my story.

To the best of my knowledge, Fox continues to be the number one cable news network -- but not generally by those margins, and their viewers tend to be heavily weighted to Conservative viewers, leaving the rest of the folks to be divided among the rest.

Fox has a good, strong story to tell -- but not as good as you want to make it out to be.

Sorry.

kddani · #5 02-16-2005, 10:13 AM

DA makes a very good point. FOX News tends to the conservative viewpoint, unlike the rest of the cable news stations. So of course they're going to have more viewers, because they don't have a choice. Non conservatives have a variety of networks to pick from.

BWT, hoosier, who is this "we" who loves Fox? The 1.7 million conservatives? Becaues it's sure not the entire TV viewing public. 1.7 out of how many hundreds of million people in this country is a pitance. As always, you frame things in your viewpoint to make them look better and more important. However, what you post is misleading and biased most of the time. If you have to fudge things or play with them to suit your needs, you need to find better resources.

DeltAlum · #6 02-21-2005, 10:55 AM

I ran across this on a broadcasting bulletin board to which I subscribe today. It seems to confirm (season to date) my guess earlier that even the morning shows beat the prime time cable shows -- even during special coverage like the Tsunami coverage -- from a ratings perspective. Unfortunately, it doesn't give numbers for the number three show (CBS), but I still believe that it is well above the Fox number quoted.

"Season-to-date through the week ended Feb. 6, "GMA" has averaged a 4.1 household rating, up 5 percent versus its average to the same point last season. "Today," on the other hand, is still in first place with a 4.8 household rating, but that's off 4 percent versus last year.

In terms of total viewers, the story is the same. "Today" leads the way, averaging 5.99 million season-to-date, but down 6 percent from last year. "GMA" is second with 5.25 million viewers, but that's up 4 percent versus last year."

hoosier · #7 02-21-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kddani

BWT, hoosier, who is this "we" who loves Fox? The 1.7 million conservatives? Becaues it's sure not the entire TV viewing public. 1.7 out of how many hundreds of million people in this country is a pitance. As always, you frame things in your viewpoint to make them look better and more important. However, what you post is misleading and biased most of the time. If you have to fudge things or play with them to suit your needs, you need to find better resources.

Please don't shoot the messenger when you disagree.

Argue with facts, please. List something "fudged". List something "misleading and biased". If you cannot produce quite a list (of fudged, biased, misleading) from my 1,000+ posts, "most of the time" certainly doesn't apply.

You cannot expect a poster to post things that he does not agree with.

You may post, and read, whatever you choose. Me too.

Quote:

who is this "we" who loves Fox?

It's simply the cable news viewers who chose FOX when offered a choice.

DeltAlum · #8 02-21-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
You cannot expect a poster to post things that he does not agree with.

You may post, and read, whatever you choose. Me too.

The messenger shouldn't be in the line of fire if he/she is carrying a message that tells the whole story with no misleading headline.

Not the case here.

If you would back off the "sensationalism" in your subject lines, it would not only make things safer for the messenger, it would also make the message more credible.

kddani · #9 02-21-2005, 08:01 PM

Sure, statistics are statistics, hooiser, but you have to give the proper background for them and say what exactly the statistics are for. You didn't do that. Give the complete story and not just the parts that suit you, your post was grossly misleading and not what the article said at all

Lady Pi Phi · #10 02-21-2005, 08:38 PM

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything...14% of people know that.

DeltAlum · #11 02-21-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
...14% of people know that.

That number seems artificially inflated to me.

hoosier · #12 02-21-2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kddani
Sure, statistics are statistics, hooiser, but you have to give the proper background for them and say what exactly the statistics are for. You didn't do that. Give the complete story and not just the parts that suit you, your post was grossly misleading and not what the article said at all

I love to see the liberal blue staters squirm, and use any phony arguments existing to try to counter conservative posts.

What part of this is not perfectly clear?

------------------------------------------------
Overall news coverage of recent events:

Fox - 1.7 million viewers (up 21% from a year ago)

CNN - 820,000 viewers (up 2%)

MSNBC - 301,000 viewers (down 15%)

From USA Today 2/15/05
---------------------------------------------------------

DeltAlum · #13 02-21-2005, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
I love to see the liberal blue staters squirm, and use any phony arguments existing to try to counter conservative posts.

What part of this is not perfectly clear?

------------------------------------------------
Overall news coverage of recent events:

Fox - 1.7 million viewers (up 21% from a year ago)

CNN - 820,000 viewers (up 2%)

MSNBC - 301,000 viewers (down 15%)

From USA Today 2/15/05
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, for one, it was an event -- not plural. Coverage of the Tsnumai.

Second, overall news coverage would probably include the on air networks as well. No way did Fox beat them on this story.

Third, read my other comments above.

Your subject is not even close to reality.

Sorry, this thread is way off base.

Had you talked about overall ratings of cable networks, and used more than a single story, I wouldn't have such issues.