http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...-newspaper
Here's what's funny, johnnyzero puts out some artificial number on the age of Fox News viewers, ignoring the fact that that bastion of liberalism, the NYT, has an extremely aged readership that is literally (note the proper use of the word) dying off every single day.
The NYT will be gone in some years like the Sears and Roebuck catalogue or Oldsmobile. Oh the name has some value and something will have that label on it, but the farce that is the newspaper will have vanished.
Why read Newspapers when We have CSNbbs ?
I still prefer a physical newspaper. I have my morning coffee with the Wall Street Journal, and rarely ever access the digital version (that was an extra cost).
(08-28-2014 08:22 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I still prefer a physical newspaper. I have my morning coffee with the Wall Street Journal, and rarely ever access the digital version (that was an extra cost).
Thought you'd get the online version if you have the paper subscription.
No I cite facts,
fact MSNBC, CNN, & FNC all have an average viewer age that is 60 or higher.
Another Fact, in the same thread I mentioned the FNC viewer age I mentioned the numbers for MSNBC and CNN as well. Now you can b.itch, moan, and cry all you want, but to assume I would in any way, shape, or form, make a comment or think that the NYT has a young readership is a fabrication on your part. want to know another fabrication on your part? That the NYT is somehow a bastion of liberalism. <==see when I say "fact" I am referring only to provable/disprovable things, something that you are incapable of in the OP.
(08-28-2014 08:35 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 08:22 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I still prefer a physical newspaper. I have my morning coffee with the Wall Street Journal, and rarely ever access the digital version (that was an extra cost).
Thought you'd get the online version if you have the paper subscription.
Not necessarily. Last fall when I renewed online, the only offer was joint print/digital, which currently runs $324 per year. However, my grandson had one of those magazine subscription fund raisers that had the WSJ print only for $245. I'll probably do the print only if available this year.
(08-28-2014 08:55 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]No I cite facts,
fact MSNBC, CNN, & FNC all have an average viewer age that is 60 or higher.
Another Fact, in the same thread I mentioned the FNC viewer age I mentioned the numbers for MSNBC and CNN as well. Now you can b.itch, moan, and cry all you want, but to assume I would in any way, shape, or form, make a comment or think that the NYT has a young readership is a fabrication on your part. want to know another fabrication on your part? That the NYT is somehow a bastion of liberalism. <==see when I say "fact" I am referring only to provable/disprovable things, something that you are incapable of in the OP.
I like how you have to make things up about me to express your ire. I never made or wrote any such an assumption, but you clearly demonstrate your reading comprehension and logic abilities are every bit as low as I have stated previously.
And for the record, regardless of your source, the 68 year old average age for viewers doesn't pass the ha ha test.
(08-28-2014 08:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 08:55 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]No I cite facts,
fact MSNBC, CNN, & FNC all have an average viewer age that is 60 or higher.
Another Fact, in the same thread I mentioned the FNC viewer age I mentioned the numbers for MSNBC and CNN as well. Now you can b.itch, moan, and cry all you want, but to assume I would in any way, shape, or form, make a comment or think that the NYT has a young readership is a fabrication on your part. want to know another fabrication on your part? That the NYT is somehow a bastion of liberalism. <==see when I say "fact" I am referring only to provable/disprovable things, something that you are incapable of in the OP.
I like how you have to make things up about me to express your ire. I never made or wrote any such an assumption, but you clearly demonstrate your reading comprehension and logic abilities are every bit as low as I have stated previously.
And for the record, regardless of your source, the 68 year old average age for viewers doesn't pass the ha ha test.
what do you mean the "haha test?"
oh you mean the "the stats are wrong because I say so" talking point.
(08-28-2014 08:55 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]No I cite facts,
fact MSNBC, CNN, & FNC all have an average viewer age that is 60 or higher.
Another Fact, in the same thread I mentioned the FNC viewer age I mentioned the numbers for MSNBC and CNN as well. Now you can b.itch, moan, and cry all you want, but to assume I would in any way, shape, or form, make a comment or think that the NYT has a young readership is a fabrication on your part. want to know another fabrication on your part? That the NYT is somehow a bastion of liberalism. <==see when I say "fact" I am referring only to provable/disprovable things, something that you are incapable of in the OP.
I meant to mention this in the other thread about cable news and the age of viewership but now's as good a time as any.
The average age and the viewership numbers are based on people who watch the channel for an extended period of time, not just 10-15 minutes here and there thus the total viewers is obviously much higher than the numbers in their ratings rank. Given that most younger folks work, have families, etc. it makes obvious sense that the average age would reflect those who actually have the time to sit down for an hour or longer to watch the programing.....aka ..senior citizens and retirees.
People who work, tend to watch these programs when they have a chance....work break, lunch break, between beating the kids :-), etc. so their ability to watch a full hour is limited. Over the years, most of my coworkers and I have watched cable news during a break time or rush to watch after getting our lunch and while eating lunch, etc. When at home, I will watch certain segments of programming but am not religious about carving out an hour to watch an entire program. In short, most viewership is not accounted for in the ratings.
(08-28-2014 09:21 AM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 08:55 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]No I cite facts,
fact MSNBC, CNN, & FNC all have an average viewer age that is 60 or higher.
Another Fact, in the same thread I mentioned the FNC viewer age I mentioned the numbers for MSNBC and CNN as well. Now you can b.itch, moan, and cry all you want, but to assume I would in any way, shape, or form, make a comment or think that the NYT has a young readership is a fabrication on your part. want to know another fabrication on your part? That the NYT is somehow a bastion of liberalism. <==see when I say "fact" I am referring only to provable/disprovable things, something that you are incapable of in the OP.
I meant to mention this in the other thread about cable news and the age of viewership but now's as good a time as any.
The average age and the viewership numbers are based on people who watch the channel for an extended period of time, not just 10-15 minutes here and there thus the total viewers is obviously much higher than the numbers in their ratings rank. Given that most younger folks work, have families, etc. it makes obvious sense that the average age would reflect those who actually have the time to sit down for an hour or longer to watch the programing.....aka ..senior citizens and retirees.
People who work, tend to watch these programs when they have a chance....work break, lunch break, between beating the kids :-), etc. so their ability to watch a full hour is limited. Over the years, most of my coworkers and I have watched cable news during a break time or rush to watch after getting our lunch and while eating lunch, etc. When at home, I will watch certain segments of programming but am not religious about carving out an hour to watch an entire program. In short, most viewership is not accounted for in the ratings.
all I cite is what the numbers actually say, I don't know much about the process itself, but I'm willing to wager that at the very least it is consistent across all networks.
(08-28-2014 08:57 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 08:35 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 08:22 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I still prefer a physical newspaper. I have my morning coffee with the Wall Street Journal, and rarely ever access the digital version (that was an extra cost).
Thought you'd get the online version if you have the paper subscription.
Not necessarily. Last fall when I renewed online, the only offer was joint print/digital, which currently runs $324 per year. However, my grandson had one of those magazine subscription fund raisers that had the WSJ print only for $245. I'll probably do the print only if available this year.
Wow, that's a hefty amount. I pay $90 per year for my paper, and the digital is free...
I used to get the WSJ. Then when Murdoch bought them out it knew he would get partisan. I cancelled my subscription. It's a darn shame because it was a great place to get nonpartisan news.
(08-28-2014 09:26 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]all I cite is what the numbers actually say, I don't know much about the process itself, but I'm willing to wager that at the very least it is consistent across all networks.
I know and would agree. I was just merely trying to dispel the myth that only old folks watch the programming. The ratings data is skewed to the elderly because of their flexibility and/or availability to watch an hour or more of the programs in a given setting.
(08-28-2014 09:33 AM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 09:26 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]all I cite is what the numbers actually say, I don't know much about the process itself, but I'm willing to wager that at the very least it is consistent across all networks.
I know and would agree. I was just merely trying to dispel the myth that only old folks watch the programming. The ratings data is skewed to the elderly because of their flexibility and/or availability to watch an hour or more of the programs in a given setting.
obviously you are not familiar with the term AVERAGE.
(08-28-2014 09:38 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 09:33 AM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ] (08-28-2014 09:26 AM)john01992 Wrote: [ -> ]all I cite is what the numbers actually say, I don't know much about the process itself, but I'm willing to wager that at the very least it is consistent across all networks.
I know and would agree. I was just merely trying to dispel the myth that only old folks watch the programming. The ratings data is skewed to the elderly because of their flexibility and/or availability to watch an hour or more of the programs in a given setting.
obviously you are not familiar with the term AVERAGE.
And obviously you aren't familiar with the term MATH.
If only those who can watch the program for an hour or more is the older population that don't work then the average age would be a number reflective of that. If a significant proportion of those who watch the network but can't watch for a full hour at a time and their average age is...let's say 40, then that average viewership should reflect that population. The ratings data doesn't.
Let me demonstrate.
If I have 10 people that watch MSNBC. Two of them watch Maddow for an entire hour and the remaining 8 religiously watch her show but only are able to catch the first 30 minutes or the last 30 minutes but they aren't included in the average. Thus
Ages of those who watch her show for an entire hour....60, 65
Ages of those who watch her show but not for the entire hour...20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55.
What's the ratings average age? 62.5
What's the avg age of total viewers? 42.5