DISQUS

Yes, but I doubt Olbermann has much viewership west of the Mississippi either, at least until you hit California. That's their audience.
As for the ratings effect, I believe that Maddow will, within 100k viewers, hold the line after Olbermann. She will do much better if Olbermann finds better stories to finish his newscast with. Like I said a few posts ago, unless its a special comment, I personally turn him off after worsts. No, I don't care that the bigfoot thing you ran a while ago was a hoax, because that was ALSO a #1, so I didn't watch it. No, I don't need to see Olbermann running a clip of Joel McHale running a clip of Olbermann running a clip of Joel McHale running a clip of Olbermann running the clip of him on The Soup.
DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE WITH THOSE 5 MINUTES! The whole point of Oddball, according to Olbermann, is to put the 'fun' stuff at the middle of the broadcast.

Correction: CNN doesn't get creamed, but it has lost a good portion of its lead over MSNBC. Not long ago, the cable news ratings were split FNC V CNN and MSNBC V CNNHN. Now its FNC way out in front with CNN V MSNBC. But if you just look at the ad demos, its much closer to a 3 way fight

Yes, FNC dominates in the ratings, virtually no matter what. And they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. But if the White House switches parties, expect a shakeup in the ratings. I don't expect any position switching though.
Yes, Olbermann's fans cheer every time Olbermann passes O'Reilly in the advertiser demos. And every time they fall back down, accompanied by silence. And they will continue to cheer on the rises. Cheer the rips, ignore the dips!
Irrational? Yes. That isn't gonna stop them.
And yes, CNN get creamed by both. But they are still all making money!

I agree with different points of the above posts.
First, Anonymous. Rachel after Keith should hold more viewers than Dan currently does, she has had massive exposure on countdown and unless she screws it up big time, my guess is she holds at least 75% of the viewers. Still an improvement over Abrams, who got about 50%. BUT I only think this will happen IF (and this is a big IF) Olbermann finds better #1 stories. Unless he is doing a special comment, I normally turn it off after 'worsts'.
Seidman - Yes, left-leaning pundits do not draw as large an audience as right-leaning pundits, but it still draws viewers. Olbermann can normally draw about a million a night. I think anything that matches Olbermann's style better than Abrams in the 9 slot would help. Look at what happens to FNC when their lawyer show comes on at 10.
As for the 'election coverage' pushes everyone up. That's true. Its happened before. Its also true that right-wing pundit's ratings rise and fall based on the occupant of the White House. When 'their guy' is in power, viewers and listeners go up. Air America didn't exist 8 years ago, neither did MSNBC's current prime-time lineup. Who's to say that left-leaning views don't respond the same way?

Fox does still us Fair and Balanced as their slogan. quite a bit actually.
As for Mr. Murdoch. I don't believe he is a hard ideologue so much as a smart businessman. Since the 1970s, there has been a conservative 'industry' of sorts. All the books, radio stations and more recently FNC. Before FNC, there was no big conservative station. He saw a potential demand and filled that need.
The best part is this industry will be around forever because conservatives in government never do what they say they will. Abortion is still legal, No constitutional amendment against same sex marriage and gov't spending is still rising
The liberal 'industry,' is much less viewed. Look at Air America, for example. and Olbermann's ratings, not stellar until he started the whole 'special comment' thing, are still WAY short of O'Reilly.
As for the liberal MSM (interestingly, despite their ratings, FNC does not consider themselves part of the MSM)...please consider the following...
Reporters do tend to be more liberal than the rest of the country. But their editors trend to the right.
Journalists see things that they can't or won't show on TV. When was the last time you saw a full crime scene, with the blood and bodies? Its rare. The Journalist sees it. How many of those would you have to see before you start thinking we need better gun laws? Liberal bias? or just sick of the killing?
Journalists rely on facts. Evolution is a scientifically upheld theory. ID/Creationism...not so much. Yet in coverage, both sides are shown to be equal. Liberal bias there?

I'm not just applying that to FNC. Is MSNBC The place for politics when, for the next 2 weeks they are an Olympic channel for the entire day?

I watch most of the cable and digital cable news networks (FNC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg and FBN). I'll admit I do have my favorites, and FNC and FBN aren't them.
My taste in news is, apparently, rare or at least uncommon. I like international stories that aren't directly tied to "Elected official(s) visits ____," Anchor banter drives me up a wall, celebrity gossip is NOT news. Unfourtunately, all news networks fail there.
I also watch skeptically, trying to analyze each point that is brought up and comparing it to what I know. It could be an observer's bias, but I find myself mentally screaming (not just disagreeing with, but truly angry at) FNC and FBC more than the others.
Any organization that must constantly defend claims it makes about its product (yes, news IS a product) is doing something wrong.
Imagine of Merck came out with a drug that, they claim, cured whatever. Would you believe them if every week (or day, or hour) they had to issue a new statement re-affirming that this drug, indeed cured the disease?

Not only did Olbermann come roaring back, I don't think I've seen Verdict's numbers that high in a while...
Pockafella - you have just opened up a can of worms. I'm going to avoid starting the flame war and just give you two things to think about.
1) No news organization or reporter is completely fair and balanced. Even the best come up short.
2) Slogans are wonderful ways to communicate something that isn't obvious or even an outright lie.
The fact that you used two democrats to prop up your argument is rather telling. Its shocking to see Democrats say stuff like that. Republicans, not so much
While I do believe that some FNC bashing is related to the fact that they are #1, others are legitimate complaints.
I honestly hope the other networks don't adopt FNC's tactics. They are chugging along, making profits for their parent companies and gaining in viewership. American news doesn't need more fluff and anger. It needs more news.

Yea yea, "its just an illusion caused by the world spinning 'round" (i know the song is talking about sunset, but it still works)
Keith has been below his norm for a while. Its strange. It will be interesting to see what happened yesterday. They are pushing their prime time bloc pretty hard during the Olympics on that channel

I'm gonna go with Duh.
I'm also gonna bet that the next time a conservative elected or formally elected official gets in trouble, FNC is gonna either drop the story, drop the party or change the party.
Like Democrat Mark Foley. Its true. Ask the O'Reilly factor. Twice in the same (pre-recorded) show.
Some things just aren't worth betting on. We just named two. The sun rising tomorrow would be a third

I honestly think that with moves like this, TV is hastening its decline. They are trying to squeeze more and more ad dollars out of each show by promoting other shows during the show. At the same time, many shows are broadcast on cable stations. Even without using the lower 3rds, it seems to me it would be almost impossible to LOSE money in that environment. CSI should have funding through the fall 2010 season with the marathons on Spike
Honestly, I think the networks should take a step back and look at what they are doing. In the years since MASH was on (I use that because I have it) we have lost 4-5 minutes of content per half hour. That's insane. I was also watching a show on commercial TV from Britain. The hour long show was 45 minutes, about 5 better than in the US. And don't get me started on the BBC.
They need to look at what is happening to commercial radio and the 'neo-radio' stations. Neo radio (NPR had a good story on them a while back. Google 'neo radio') makes money without all the glitz and with fewer commercials per hour (they use more, shorter breaks) compared to commercial stuff. I'd be willing to watch TV more if they adopted something like that. (The shorter breaks ensure the viewer/listener doesn't wander)
One more question about ad time. Why is it cable shows can be shorter than network TV shows when I'M PAYING FOR CABLE TO BEGIN WITH? Don't I deserve another minute or two of content (at the least) for that

What is it with the massive upswing in viewership of the Olympics? I can understand a fairly usual year-to-year increase (populations do climb after all) but this is downright crazy.
Is it the higher publicity due to the controversies (people watching waiting for a disaster)? Smarter scheduling on NBC Universal's part? Plastering the Olympics on something like 8 cable channels? More prominent Olympic athletes? Or are we just happy to be able to watch something that isn't either reality TV or about the presidential campaign?
Personally, I think its all of the above. NBC, helped by the controversies, created a perfect ratings storm. And to think there were (and to some extent still are) rumors that GE was gonna try to sell its share of NBC Universal

I have another theory for everyone...try this out. Olbermann's first segment (the 15 minute one) is normally a politics fix. There have been times where I watch for the first segment, and might stick around for a few more stories (I always bail after Worsts, if not sooner). Yes the anthrax thing was a story, but leading with it could have really screwed up others who watch it in a similar way to myself. I want my politics fix, darn it!

Thinking about it and reading this post, I have to concede the point. When you look at it that way, a network would be willing to accept a loss to improve their value.
The sad part is I work in retail, where firesale items are sold at a loss to get people into the store (aka - loss leaders). Ideally, the people buy more stuff than the loss leaders and the store still makes money. Basically the same thing, but it didn't occur to me that TV networks would do it too.
My problem here was viewing TV in general through a narrow of news broadcasts. If they remain unprofitable (or sometimes even if viewship stagnates) they fire the producer and get another. The Sunday shows are a likely exception to that and to tie it to this post's point, the hope there is to make news and get your show and network mentioned non-stop for a news cycle, which is publicity you can't buy

I posted this on an older news item, but i figure there is a better chance of people seeing it here.
I wonder if the high income viewers will save the show, even if on the face of it the ratings stink. Like you said, luxury retail loves the $100k plus crowd. That is why CNBC day time and golf make all their money. (CNBC's viewers are, on average, the richest on TV). Sometimes its not about how many are watching, but who is watching.

As for the critically acclaimed argument, most shows that I think about staying around for that reason have shorter runs compared to hits. Arrested Development was loved by critics and was around for all of 3 seasons. In the end, the viewers need to be there. It all comes down to profit. Maybe the feel good effect means the executives will accept less profit, but they will not tolerate a loss

I wonder if the high income viewers will save the show, even if on the face of it the ratings stink. That is why CNBC day time and golf make all their money. (CNBC's viewers are, on average, the richest on TV). Sometimes its not about how many are watching, but who is watching

Interesting comment on Quarterlife there. I'm not sure how publicized this is, but at least as of a few months ago, someone is trying very hard to save Quarterlife, if not the show than at least the website. Long story short, Quarterlife tried to get itself broadcast on my Universities closed circuit television station (through my student run club), and my impression was that they were trying to get that through in many other locations.
It didn't broadcast (no time left in the year) but I did watch it. Its not bad, it just started throwing in new characters and new plots too fast. Yes, my generation suffers from acute A.D.D. at times, and we do like a plot that advances and characters that develop, but give us a break. If I need a flow chart to keep track of who knows who and who's doing what, I'm not watching.
Maybe if they re-boot it and take it a bit slower...Its not like they could do much worse, right?

If they moved a show to Friday night in the summer, CBS is trying to help it along to it's grave. Its almost the equivalent of running something opposite American Idol. You just don't do it if you want the show around.
And Nielsen ratings do take into account the people who record and watch shows within a certain number of days (I forget what it is...I'm pretty sure its either 3 or 7). I'm not sure if this site publishes that data, but it is collected and factored into viewership.
Shows die. It happens. Picking the shows that audiences will respond to is next to impossible. The best promoted shows can fail, and the ones that the execs grudgingly accept (ie Survivor) can be monster hits. Maybe cable picks it up, maybe not. It all comes down to whether or not it will be profitable

I honestly don't think that any cable network has huge amounts of credibility. CNN and HN are basically the same operation, and with Lou, Glenn and Nancy on their lineups, sure the opinion is varied, but still too heavy. Its infotainment You want news? Go to the BBC or your PBS station

Olbermann made a few interesting comments on Today's 'Worst Person' segment. As you break the audience down into younger and younger groups, Olbermann's show, (3rd in July across the cable news networks in the broadest key demo) climbs up higher and higher. Once you get to 18-34ish (could be as high as 39, i forget) Olbermann is tops with O'Reilly in 3rd. But O'Reilly still leads in the very important demographic of, as Olbermann put it, "65 to dead"

Exactly. Hey Al, how come your weren't looking for a shake-up at Fox and Friends after they lost the key demo to American Morning a few days ago? Were you calling the end of O'Riley after Olbermann and even Substitute R. Maddow beat him in the demo?
Count of all of them staying around for a while. Audience numbers wax and wane, line up a week of numbers in separate browser tabs and watch it happen. In the end, they tend to stabalize around a general trend, baring a shakeup in times or programming.
Yes, Olbermann slipped a little Wednesday, but Grace was also on a surge. I believe there was a big kidnapping case breakthrough that night

Wow, right after American Morning squeezed a demo win over Fox and Friends, they get completely trounced. What was different on Monday that attracted all the American Morning viewers?

Fox Biz is also not available on 'basic' cable like CNBC is and is a new name in the market. However, I've watched both of them and Bloomberg also. CNBC has a focus on the investor watching, while bloom focuses more on news and business news. Fox does what Fox does best. Everything but news

Kinda scary that in the key demo, MSNBC's documentary programs beat everyone else doing news or newsish programing in prime time. Are prisons really that interesting?
And CNBC day time on weekends is paid programming, right? how do they go so many people?