CSNbbs

Fox News keeps saying it has the most viewers so I thought I'd check it out. Below are the last 2 days, but it pretty much stays consistent.

Fox News beats all the other networks combined. Why? Honesty, maybe?

Robbie, care to educate us with your thoughts?

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratin...cable-news

Quote:Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 19, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,347,000 viewers
CNN – 510,000 viewers
MSNBC –394,000 viewers
CNBC – 181,000 viewers
HLN – 281,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,865,000viewers
CNN— 718,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,002,000 viewers
CNBC – 135,000 viewers
HLN – 496,000viewers

Quote:Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 18, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,394,000 viewers
CNN – 471,000 viewers
MSNBC –401,000 viewers
CNBC – 173,000 viewers
HLN – 267,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,988,000 viewers
CNN— 715,000 viewers
MSNBC –970,000 viewers
CNBC – 186,000 viewers
HLN – 526,000 viewers

"News" Networks. HAH

They are all Hollywood tabloids that are pushing a partisan agenda. It's not about getting things right, it's just about saying things to get people to watch.

Its easily the most entertaining. Definitely isn't "news".

With 24 hours to fill daily, sure, there is a lot of fluff, But I see an awful lot of news also.

Why isn't the question posed, why are they still growing? If they already have all Republicans and Conservatives, why are they still growing? I know the answer, just want that stewing around in the libs heads for a while.

(08-20-2009 08:13 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]Why isn't the question posed, why are they still growing? If they already have all Republicans and Conservatives, why are they still growing? I know the answer, just want that stewing around in the libs heads for a while.

Ummmmmmm....there's a reason why it's called Fox News













This is what the liberals have to offer

.

And man !!!!!!!!

You didn't even touch on 1/10th of the good looking women at Fox.

They, "THEY", (the Libs) have Rachel MadCow and the SheMan Hair Helmet trying to compete with all the Babes at Fox.

There ain't no way it can be done.

And the most striking thing about the Fox Women is not really their shear beauty, but their "Huge I.Q.'s".

There is no other Network that even comes close.

.

I would drink Courtney Friel's bathwater. No, I'd drink Courtney Friel AND Shannon Bream's bathwater. Wait, no, I'd drink Courtney Friel's, Shannon Bream's, Megan Kell.......oh hell, you get the point.

I think Ainsley Earhardt is Da Bomb. Courtney Friel looks like she'd be a lot of skanky fun.

Megyn Kelly beautiful smart

.

Let us just put them ALL in a huge Bath and then we can take turns drinking their bath water.

They are all just simply Intelligent, Sexy, and Beautiful to the N'th Degree.

Man I need some Cold Water !!!!!!!!

.

(08-20-2009 05:19 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]Fox News keeps saying it has the most viewers so I thought I'd check it out. Below are the last 2 days, but it pretty much stays consistent.

Fox News beats all the other networks combined. Why? Honesty, maybe?

Robbie, care to educate us with your thoughts?

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratin...cable-news

Quote:Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 19, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,347,000 viewers
CNN – 510,000 viewers
MSNBC –394,000 viewers
CNBC – 181,000 viewers
HLN – 281,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,865,000viewers
CNN— 718,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,002,000 viewers
CNBC – 135,000 viewers
HLN – 496,000viewers

Quote:Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 18, 2009

P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,394,000 viewers
CNN – 471,000 viewers
MSNBC –401,000 viewers
CNBC – 173,000 viewers
HLN – 267,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,988,000 viewers
CNN— 715,000 viewers
MSNBC –970,000 viewers
CNBC – 186,000 viewers
HLN – 526,000 viewers

It is pretty simple. The old people Obama is trying to kill watch Faux and the number of old people that watch TV "news"(and a large portion of the US population in general) is much higher than the younger crowds who are playing video games, are online and don't watch TV news as much.

(08-20-2009 08:58 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-20-2009 08:13 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]Why isn't the question posed, why are they still growing? If they already have all Republicans and Conservatives, why are they still growing? I know the answer, just want that stewing around in the libs heads for a while.

Ummmmmmm....there's a reason why it's called Fox News













This is what the liberals have to offer

Wow. They hire some dumb blondes. I guess that is enough to keep you guys who only think with your "other" head to keep watching.

(08-20-2009 09:50 PM)Tripster Wrote: [ -> ].

And man !!!!!!!!

You didn't even touch on 1/10th of the good looking women at Fox.

They, "THEY", (the Libs) have Rachel MadCow and the SheMan Hair Helmet trying to compete with all the Babes at Fox.

There ain't no way it can be done.

And the most striking thing about the Fox Women is not really their shear beauty, but their "Huge I.Q.'s".

There is no other Network that even comes close.

.

So "Huge IQ's = breasts? It certainly can't mean intelligence.

(08-20-2009 10:02 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]I would drink Courtney Friel's bathwater. No, I'd drink Courtney Friel AND Shannon Bream's bathwater. Wait, no, I'd drink Courtney Friel's, Shannon Bream's, Megan Kell.......oh hell, you get the point.

Yes. We get the picture. You are a dirty old man that needs a vasectomy so we don't get anymore Rebel Jr.s.

Partly because Fox has a far more loyal viewership, who keep their T.V.'s tuned in to Fox, instead of switching between the other networks.

From an older article -

"The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day."

"But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

Firstly ... CNBC is more like Bloomberg than CNN. It doesn't count.

Secondly ... the liberals are spread out over many networks. The "conservatives" aren't. Though Fox News is much more neocon than con.

Thirdly ... I'd like to point out these numbers are easily steamrolled by many online political news sources and podcasts.

Lastly ... I'd like to point out that those are not CAPTIVE numbers. How many bars and such have a TV with Fox News just running and nobody paying attention?

Just as long as you gusy didnt try to claim that Gretchen is hot. Ugh.

That Megyn chick isnt hot either. She's by no means ugly, but she's not a beauty either.

Most of those girls wear so much makeup cause of the HD cameras - Is it Robin Meade? (I dunno, I dont really watch any of this stuff, aside from a little CNBC). I'm just saying if you touched her face you'd leave a handprint. Gretchen too.

You know Geraldo is trying to hit all of those Fox girls. I bet he isn't getting any. He might have had more game back in the day.

(08-21-2009 02:16 AM)dwr0109 Wrote: [ -> ]Partly because Fox has a far more loyal viewership, who keep their T.V.'s tuned in to Fox, instead of switching between the other networks.

From an older article -

"The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day."

"But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

So they try to dig into the numbers when it comes to TV ratings, but they can't put forth any due diligence when it comes to the WHO's numbers on life expectancy?

Pathetic.

I don't even have CaTV. And when I travel I usually watch cartoons or HGTV.