(08-26-2014 08:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 08:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 08:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 08:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 07:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  What the hell point are you making? Are you bellyaching because fox owns the 55+ age group. Or are you bellyaching because fox now owns the 25-54 age group?

I'm calling the OP an idiot for thinking these stats change the notion that FNC doesn't do well amongst younger viewers.

You need to define your definition of a "young viewer."

sorry but peanuts times peanuts is still peanuts. The average age of FNC is 68.

that's all one needs to know...

So you're admitting you absolutely failed in this thread. Thanks!

I think the OP failed this thread if anything...

Come 2019, when a Repub in the oval office is doing poorly, I bet MSNBC will have pretttty good ratings.

(08-26-2014 09:20 AM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  Come 2019, when a Repub in the oval office is doing poorly, I bet MSNBC will have pretttty good ratings.

The problem with MSNBC is that they try to duplicate what fox news does by being essentially the liberal version of fox news.

that's like a football team with a terrible quarterback and a terrible wide receiver core trying to implement an air raid offense.

(08-26-2014 09:23 AM)john01992 Wrote:  The problem with MSNBC is that they try to duplicate what fox news does by being essentially the liberal version of fox news.

that's like a football team with a terrible quarterback and a terrible wide receiver core trying to implement an air raid offense.

So in that analogy, who are the quarterbacks and who are the receivers? Are you comparing the on-air talent, or what?

(08-25-2014 11:11 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Quote:FNC, with several shows hitting 2014 highs, won in adults 25-54 and total viewers on both a primetime and total-day basis for Monday through Friday of last week. Tune-in was above average across the news board due to coverage of the protests in Ferguson and the murder of James Foley.

Looking at the Nielsen numbers, Fox News averaged 443,000 adults 25-54 in primetime to finish ahead of CNN (361,000) in the key news demo, with both networks more than doubling the tally of MSNBC (179,000). CNN had narrowly won in the demo on Monday and Tuesday, before Fox News asserted itself Wednesday through Friday.

So much for the old viewer attacks at FNC by a few libs here.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/fox-news...201290087/

I bet the only reason 178,000 of those MSNBC viewers watched MSNBC was to watch Lockup: RAW.

(08-26-2014 09:23 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 09:20 AM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  Come 2019, when a Repub in the oval office is doing poorly, I bet MSNBC will have pretttty good ratings.

The problem with MSNBC is that they try to duplicate what fox news does by being essentially the liberal version of fox news.

that's like a football team with a terrible quarterback and a terrible wide receiver core trying to implement an air raid offense.

I actually agree with this point but would add the caviat that MSNBC tries to be more shocking and partisan in their coverage (because that is what they perceive FOX News is).

To use the football analogy the bad team implementing an air raid offense doesn't even bother to put a defense on the field when the opposing team has the ball.

(08-26-2014 07:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  25-54?????

Isn't that main target market for televisoin advertisers?

depends what they are selling.

In regards to John's point about young viewers I sort of understand his point. Young viewers are not watching cable news (they are getting their news in other outlets).

We all know younger people tend to be more progressive in their thinking but as they mature become more conservative. Hell, a lot of the people young people call crusty old people were the the same hippies who were smoking dope, burning their bras and flags and speaking poorly about their country back in the 60s. Just because the young people worship at the alter of Mother Jones and the Daily Kos today does not mean they will not become more conservative 10, 20, 30 years from now.

(08-26-2014 10:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  In regards to John's point about young viewers I sort of understand his point. Young viewers are not watching cable news (they are getting their news in other outlets).

We all know younger people tend to be more progressive in their thinking but as they mature become more conservative. Hell, a lot of the people young people call crusty old people were the the same hippies who were smoking dope, burning their bras and flags and speaking poorly about their country back in the 60s. Just because the young people worship at the alter of Mother Jones and the Daily Kos today does not mean they will not become more conservative 10, 20, 30 years from now.

The very young really dont watch news at all. (They may watch Stewart and think they are watching the news, but really arent)

John's point was all over the place. He was trying to say the 25-54 numbers dont matter because Fox's average viewer is 68 years old. What he fails to understand (or admit to) is that if both of those are true, then Fox News is dominating cable news. Seriously dominating it. Both young and old. Including the demographics the advertisers want.

(08-26-2014 10:37 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 07:58 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  25-54?????

Isn't that main target market for televisoin advertisers?

depends what they are selling.

True, but that demographic takes everything from condoms, to beer, to viagra. I think that's the demographis that pushes advertisement sales figures.

(08-26-2014 09:52 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 09:23 AM)john01992 Wrote:  The problem with MSNBC is that they try to duplicate what fox news does by being essentially the liberal version of fox news.

that's like a football team with a terrible quarterback and a terrible wide receiver core trying to implement an air raid offense.

So in that analogy, who are the quarterbacks and who are the receivers? Are you comparing the on-air talent, or what?

demographics. it's not a question of talent but where that talent is concentrated. In this analogy the libs have good running backs, and a very good defense. ground pound, eat the clock style of play is their game.

Liberals are not as strong in the older age groups (the groups that actually watch TV cable news in large numbers). Liberals don't take issue with a "conservative bias" in the media in the same manner that cons take issue with a "liberal bias" in the media. in other words FNC fills a void whereas MSNBC doesn't.

Lastly and the one topic i'd rather not get into because it will only start a major argument, FNC is a type of channel that caters to gullible/low information viewers which is a type of demographic that is more prevalent on the right than the left. ==> there I said it

(08-26-2014 11:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Lastly and the one topic i'd rather not get into because it will only start a major argument, FNC is a type of channel that caters to gullible/low information viewers which is a type of demographic that is more prevalent on the right than the left. ==> there I said it

Swing and a miss.

Dude, Fox News has Watters World segments. Why dont you watch a few of those to see for yourself who the low information viewers are. Raw and uncut.......

(08-26-2014 10:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 09:23 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 09:20 AM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  Come 2019, when a Repub in the oval office is doing poorly, I bet MSNBC will have pretttty good ratings.

The problem with MSNBC is that they try to duplicate what fox news does by being essentially the liberal version of fox news.

that's like a football team with a terrible quarterback and a terrible wide receiver core trying to implement an air raid offense.

I actually agree with this point but would add the caviat that MSNBC tries to be more shocking and partisan in their coverage (because that is what they perceive FOX News is).

To use the football analogy the bad team implementing an air raid offense doesn't even bother to put a defense on the field when the opposing team has the ball.

I agree, TBH I think a big reason when MSNBC exists is to give partisan cable news in general a bad name. In other words, MSNBC further waters down the cable news product. Their whole mantra is to call out FNC for being outrageous while being even more outrageous themselves which is hilarious.

(08-26-2014 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Lastly and the one topic i'd rather not get into because it will only start a major argument, FNC is a type of channel that caters to gullible/low information viewers which is a type of demographic that is more prevalent on the right than the left. ==> there I said it

Swing and a miss.

Dude, Fox News has Watters World segments. Why dont you watch a few of those to see for yourself who the low information viewers are. Raw and uncut.......

like I said not gonna get into it because no one here will change their opinion.

(08-26-2014 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Lastly and the one topic i'd rather not get into because it will only start a major argument, FNC is a type of channel that caters to gullible/low information viewers which is a type of demographic that is more prevalent on the right than the left. ==> there I said it

Swing and a miss.

Dude, Fox News has Watters World segments. Why dont you watch a few of those to see for yourself who the low information viewers are. Raw and uncut.......

like I said not gonna get into it because no one here will change their opinion.

t-r-u-t-h h-u-r-t-s

(08-26-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 10:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  In regards to John's point about young viewers I sort of understand his point. Young viewers are not watching cable news (they are getting their news in other outlets).

We all know younger people tend to be more progressive in their thinking but as they mature become more conservative. Hell, a lot of the people young people call crusty old people were the the same hippies who were smoking dope, burning their bras and flags and speaking poorly about their country back in the 60s. Just because the young people worship at the alter of Mother Jones and the Daily Kos today does not mean they will not become more conservative 10, 20, 30 years from now.

The very young really dont watch news at all. (They may watch Stewart and think they are watching the news, but really arent)

John's point was all over the place. He was trying to say the 25-54 numbers dont matter because Fox's average viewer is 68 years old. What he fails to understand (or admit to) is that if both of those are true, then Fox News is dominating cable news. Seriously dominating it. Both young and old. Including the demographics the advertisers want.

I have never said that FNC doesn't dominate cable news, all I say about that is congrats ==> you won a competition that's not worth winning.

in regards to 25-54:
The OP is dead wrong about claiming that the ratings mean FNC can cater to younger viewers. That notion is total BS because.
1. 25-54 is a large demographic and has the bulk of its viewers closer to the 54 end than the 25 end.

2. this demographic is only a fraction of the total cable news viewers, hence the reason winning this category isn't that big of a deal. as noted earlier in the thread all three cable news channels have a viewer age average of 60 or higher. and we are basically arguing over a demographic that is 99k-200K which is peanuts compared to the big picture.

(08-26-2014 12:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 11:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Lastly and the one topic i'd rather not get into because it will only start a major argument, FNC is a type of channel that caters to gullible/low information viewers which is a type of demographic that is more prevalent on the right than the left. ==> there I said it

Swing and a miss.

Dude, Fox News has Watters World segments. Why dont you watch a few of those to see for yourself who the low information viewers are. Raw and uncut.......

like I said not gonna get into it because no one here will change their opinion.

t-r-u-t-h h-u-r-t-s

what truth? your argument is personal opinion based on watter matters. mine is "how come FNC has the least informed viewers?" or "How come liberal states generally have better education systems than their conservative counterparts" or "just remember, the creationists are on YOUR side"

(08-26-2014 11:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 10:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  In regards to John's point about young viewers I sort of understand his point. Young viewers are not watching cable news (they are getting their news in other outlets).

We all know younger people tend to be more progressive in their thinking but as they mature become more conservative. Hell, a lot of the people young people call crusty old people were the the same hippies who were smoking dope, burning their bras and flags and speaking poorly about their country back in the 60s. Just because the young people worship at the alter of Mother Jones and the Daily Kos today does not mean they will not become more conservative 10, 20, 30 years from now.

The very young really dont watch news at all. (They may watch Stewart and think they are watching the news, but really arent)

John's point was all over the place. He was trying to say the 25-54 numbers dont matter because Fox's average viewer is 68 years old. What he fails to understand (or admit to) is that if both of those are true, then Fox News is dominating cable news. Seriously dominating it. Both young and old. Including the demographics the advertisers want.

true that is why you usually see it split up as 18-34 and 35-54

(08-25-2014 11:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I wonder how all the cable news channels stay in business, with so few viewers…

If those channels are being piped into your house via cable or dish then a piece of your monthly bill goes to the channel even if you never watch it at all.

(08-26-2014 02:01 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 11:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I wonder how all the cable news channels stay in business, with so few viewers…

If those channels are being piped into your house via cable or dish then a piece of your monthly bill goes to the channel even if you never watch it at all.

there you go, plus they are parts of a package. Fox News is bundled to providers with Fox Sports, FX, Fox Business, etc. MSNBC with CNBC and whatever else is in that conglomerate.