Rachel Maddow's Surge Is Fox News' Worst Ratings Nightmare

[TomCADem]

Source: Atlantic Wire

After prophesying a landslide win for Mitt Romney, Fox News has seen its ratings decline a lot more than usual since the election — and Sean Hannity's viewers in particular keep disappearing, while Rachel Maddow's continue to tune in over at rival MSNBC.

The last batch of Nielsen data available before year's end shows Hannity's viewership getting chopped in half after November 6, according to the New York Daily News's Don Kaplan. Politico's Dylan Byers argues this decline simply brings Hannity back to pre-election norms. Or perhaps these vanishing viewers are just disgruntled voters who can't stomach the news cycle anymore. Kaplan, however, attributes this decline to Hannity's implied predictions:

... viewers who basked in his preelection anti-Obama rhetoric tuned him out when they were stunned to wake up on Nov. 7 and discover that the President had won a second term — a scenario that Hannity had all but promised could never happen.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz — who both, of course, did not predict a Romney victory — have retained most of their viewership in the weeks following election night, and CNN's Anderson Cooper has lost almost none. With ratings holding strong after Obama's reelection and Maddow appearing on The Colbert Report, it appears like MSNBC is making good on president Phil Griffin's plan to bolster the channel's brand awareness.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/rachel-maddows-surge-fox-news-worst-ratings-nightmare-212956162.html

---

I can only hope that the election results might alert Fox News views to the fact that they live in a bubble that is disconnected to reality.

[Skittles]

1. GO RACHEL!

[Turbineguy]

2. Next:

Will the United States face an acute shortage of morons in 2013?

[awoke_in_2003]

6. Never...

We are leading the world in moron production.

[RKP5637]

26. Made in the USA! Our #1 product. GO USA!!! GO USA!!! GO USA!!! n/t

[Sekhmets Daughter]

27. The perfect punch line!

[Crowman1979]

3. I think Rachel's ratings are due to people catching on who mainly watch their news online.

Whereas the Fox viewer drop is from scaring their audience into an early grave.

[otohara]

44. Pretty Sure Online Viewing Isn't

counted....

Could be wrong, but as a former radio person, I asked my friend who still
works in radio about online listening. Clear Channel's IHeartRadio is where I listen mostly
and he said no.

Only those with Arbitron or Neilson devices are counted.

[onehandle]

4. Smarts > Fear. nt

[Sophiegirl]

5. +1 n/t

[Grassy Knoll]

7. Fox News was Designed for 3 reasons.....

Divide this nation, hate every Democrat on earth, and propagate
superiority of republicanism, like the little german fella who was never
taught to shave properly.

[SoapBox]

9. Super ditto.

[tabasco]

50. The question remains why it was created

Answer: There are those among us with great wealth, who wish to destroy democracy and become monarchs, reichsfuhrers or the equivalent.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

8. Griffin wants to boost brand awareness. Good!

People who think as Fox tells them are especially susceptible to marketing, (imho; they want some Authority to tell them what to do and who they are) so I'm glad to hear that the CEO is focusing on advertising the MSNBC brand.

[delrem]

10. I don't particularly like MSNBC.

Ed Shultz is a warmongering blowhard

I can't get behind his tone, which reminds me of the worst of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. No reason, just pure emotion and brand loyalty.

I was a fan of Rachel Maddow on Air America. She was smart, biting, and deep - everything that totally turned me on as a political reporter/analyzer. When she first entered MSNBC she was amazing, she brought a fresh new group of analysts to the focus (where *are* they now - there's nothing but MSNBC sludge now) to discuss issues of the greatest immediate importance. But, once Obama was elected she seemed to forget the inner voice that once directed her. E.g. she plays the game of the most totally embedded "reporter" R. Engel, not questioning the total dreck of it all. Would she do that if G. W. Bush were president? I doubt it. Where are the other voices, the voices that she would showcase if a Rep. were still in power? In the main her focus has devolved into sloppy complaints about the Republicans, the spirited analytic discussion of actual issues, of what is actually *happening* has vanished into a main-stream-media AKA post-partisan fug.

A pity.

MSNBC, like FOX, is part of the US bubble. People might think that because they watch MSNBC and not FOX, or FOX and not MSNBC, that they've somehow escaped the bubble. But they haven't. They aren't getting real news or analysis at all. Nor, in fact, are they getting it from CNN, or ABC,...., or Kim Kardashian, ...

[napi21]

11. I disagree. I admit Fox and MSSNBC are both partisan, and

both openly admit that. The big difference I see is that MSNBC's hosts always backjup their statements with videos and proof of what they state. FPX just has a lot of opinions from biased pols and most of what they say can be disproven by the actual videos etc.

I rarely watch fox, but do see clips others play of their comments. I also check things out that are aired on progressive tv & radio that don't make sense to me.

I'm sure all the hosts will spin their information to support their own opinion, but I've found a handful of false reports from the progressive shows, I've foumd MOST of the reports on FOX to be LIES!

[NewJeffCT]

28. Fox doesn't admit that they are partisan

and, Fox does not have the liberal equivalent of Joe Scarborough on for 3 hours a day, either. Many Fox viewers think Fox is the only unbiased news source out there. Everything else on TV is socialist (MSNBC) or far left (everything outside of Fox and MSNBC)

I don't love MSNBC, but at least they admit they're partisan. I can only take small doses of Ed Schultz, Rev. Al and Chris Matthews, and sometimes get bored with Lawrence O'Donnell. Rachel I still like, but I haven't watched her regularly since before the election.

[rhett o rick]

40. I miss Rachel on radio. I dont watch much TV. Now in Seattle we will miss all of

our favorites. I believe starting today, Seattle progressive radio switches to sports. I will miss it a lot.

[sendero]

42. A sdtumbling drunk..

... doesn't admit he's been drinking but only a complete imbecile doesn't know. There are two kinds of Fox viewers, those that know full well that Fox is partisan and don't care because that is what they want to hear, and idiots.

Fox viewership has been trending down for some time. The country is slowly slowly slowly waking up to the fact that the conservative agenda is toxic for everyone except the rich and their lackeys.

[gtar100]

12. I take it you don't listen to Ed's show.

For that much is clear. Please be careful where you inflate these bubbles. For one looking in may really be only looking from an adjacent one. The nice thing, though, about the bubble analogy is that it lets us know that we can easily pop them. It may appear we are trapped inside but we aren't. In other words, I am not defined by who I watch or listen to and am free to agree in part if I don't in whole. So let's not not denigrate those who stick their necks out for the progressive movement simply because we don't agree with everything they say. I bring this up because Ed is no warmonger (a very harsh accusation) but I know where you're coming from when you say that because he has spoken in favor of military action. I'm speaking up in his defense because Ed is very strong on many progressive issues, particularly economics, unions, health care, voting rights, class warfare, and many, many others. I for one am glad we have a man like him willing to take on the public spotlight and say the things he does. So please don't throw out the good because you found a point of disagreement. What is that old saying... build bridges not bubbles?

[DreWId]

14. Ed's good

I like Ed, especially as someone who takes phonecalls from "us regular folk" on his national radio program every day.

I am starting to dislike Chris Matthews as I've noticed something... increasingly insular about his framing of the issues. This tends to be the most noticeable when anything about Catholics or Catholicism crops up. Sometimes it's evident in how he gives the rundown of his segments at the very beginning of his program.

What I don't like about MSNBC, now, are the new morning shows featuring the younger crowds, and especially round-table segments that seem to take news and turn it into opinionated gossip and coffee-talk.

[LovingA2andMI]

18. Agree!!!

STRONGLY! Stop being a Rachel Maddow fangirl (well to be honest, I was never one but used to watch her show more often) when she and her staff associated herself with a Blogger who personally makes me want to .

Also, I'm a bit sick and tired of the same darn talking heads on MSNBC, acting as if THEY and THEY alone know every freaking issue. Stop it MSNBC! News is about NEWS....not making Jr. Celebrities out of your "talking heads".

It's not that hard to find people on the ground in these places (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin -- i.e. stories covered on MSNBC this year) besides: Karen Finney, Joy Reid, John Nichols, Michael Eric Dyson, Richard Wolffe, Krystal Ball. In fact the only talking heads I care to see everyday are Tarmon Hall (and she's a true journalist), Chris Jansing, Thomas Robert (Two More Journalists) Chris Matthews and Alex Witt. That's it.

Lately, I have been turning the dial on MSNBC more than I ever did when Keith Olbermann was on the channel. I believe I'm not alone. The question is if others will admit to it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

29. MSNBC is not a news channel...

Its purpose is to provide analysis and left leaning opinion...much like the OP Ed pages of newspapers. Your assessment of 'true journalists' is really just your opinion of which personalities you enjoy. If you want pure news read a few newspapers...

[Ian62]

36. What makes you think you get any real news from papers?

They are nearly all owned by large Corporations just like all the main TV channels.

MSNBC is owned by General Electric.
That is probably why Maddow has had to tone it down since she went there.

You will only get real news from small sites on the net.
The rest of it is subject to censorship for anything that might be against the interests of large Corporations.

[rhett o rick]

41. Well maybe we dont want "real news" ever think about that?

[MindPilot]

46. To really get out of the bubble, get out of the country

al-Jazzera, BBC, CNN World.

My personal favorite is al-Jazzera; they have some fantastic documentaries.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. The Russian Channel.

RT. Channel 280 on Dish Network.
They have Thom Hartmann on 3 nights a week. I listened to him on Air America, also Rachel Maddow & Al Franken, Mike Papantonio and RFK Jr.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

47. I think you must read the wrong newspapers. n/t

[Ian62]

49. Which one do you suggest?

NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, WSJ all censor the news.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

51. Censor is too strong a word...

Slant would better describe the issue and only for certain things. Add The Christian Science Monitor, the U. K. Guardian and Al Jazeera English and you'll compensate for the slant. I don't think it is possible to be well informed on every issue all of the time, and reading just a few selected sites will also leave big holes in your information...not to take anything away from those sites.

[Ian62]

75. I don't think Censor is too strong a word

The only papers I bother reading are things like Straits Times, Asia Times, Haaretz and some Hebrew language Israeli newspapers.

Some of the anti-war and anti police state stuff in the Guardian is good - you certainly won't find any of that in an American paper.

Al Jazeera is more and more subject to Qatari government influence. They don't want to see any movements to replace unelected absolute monarchies in the ME.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

76. LOL...

and where do you think Strait Times goes for its news?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

[LovingA2andMI]

57. Then MSNBC Should Say That:

Just Like Faux, the channel is opinion and opinion/editorial/talking head pundit information, only. MSNBC like Faux, represent themselves as a news channel.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

60. No they don't...

MSNBC says it is "The Place for Politics" Almost every story on the channel is viewed through a political prism. I don't know why you would think it is a 'news' channel. CNN used to be a news channel, today not so much.

[TomCADem]

62. Disagree. Under That Standard, There Is No TV News

MSNBC Often Provides Breaking News Often moments after it has occurred. Yes, there is a lot of analysis, but they also get great interviews from members of Congress that you don't often get on the networks.

Compare MSNBC to any of the Sunday "News" shows. I would argue that MSNBC is much more fact based, then the he-said, she-said talking heads of network "news" shows.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

63. Those are the exceptions.

Interviews are not news. In the world of journalism they are "feature articles"

I never said they were not fact based. Where is it written that opinion and analysis are fantasy or fiction? Actually, there is very little news on television, which is why so much of the electorate is either uninformed or misinformed.

[WilliamPitt]

22. This.

[samsingh]

24. Anyone who's not a repug MUST appreciate, if not like, MSNBC

MSNBC and Fox are nothing alike. Fox tells half truths, lies, and propaganda. They don't report anything that doesn't fit their repug, right-wing agenda, or try to corrupt it. For example, when Osama Bin Laden was killed, there were no praises for the President's decision making (Bush would have been put on a 100 foot pedistal). Instead they tried to belittle it and were openly consoling each other on tv because it was not possible to belittle it.

MSNBC takes a progressive view with passion and honesty. They don't use the CNN spin 'they all do it so it must be okay' crap. Fox punches most of America in the face, repeatedly. If MSNBC blocks the punch with facts and passion, the repugs and rightests howl that MSNBC raised their hand so they're all exactly the same.

No they're not.

[LovingA2andMI]

58. So one does not fit into a

"purity test" if one criticize anything about MSNBC? That sounds like the same crapola the folks that love Faux News to death say.

[samsingh]

73. who said you can't criticize msnbc? i explained how aware we should be about how fox operates

it sounds like a reverse purity test is being proposed.

[dotymed]

35. REALLY? Ed supports arming the "freedom fighters"

and taking out Qaddafi because the President said he had killed Americans. Imagine the countries that we have killed innocent civilians in and are continuing to do so. If their reasoning is the same, America's clandestine wars will become public wars....

[underthematrix]

52. Of course I prefer MSNBC news shows to FOX or CNN

but I prefer reading to watching someone tell me what is going on. With that said, I'm going to address one specific issue you brought up in your post, which is endemic of the problem. You wrote "she plays the game of the most totally embedded "reporter" R. Engel, not questioning the total dreck of it all." Does it not strike you as puzzling that a man who is allegedly just a "reporter" is kidnapped and then a week later appears on TV about his kidnapping? For years, the CIA has used journalists as operatives. From all appearances Engel seems to be a spy. I don't know which came first journalism or spying but he quacks like a spy rather than a reporter. I didn't watch Maddow's Engel segment because it sort of pisses me off that a spy is on national television pretending to be just a reporter kidnapped by a foreign political group. So why would the US use a spy. Well Engel either left something or took something with him.

I think a larger problem for us, the American public is lack of critical thinking skills. It is not enough for us to watch the news, we need to always ask ourselves "why are they telling me this story NOW?" How does this story relate to other stories being told today? What narrative are they trying to create today with these particular stories?

[LovingA2andMI]

59. This is perfect, Thank You!

"I think a larger problem for us, the American public is lack of critical thinking skills. It is not enough for us to watch the news, we need to always ask ourselves "why are they telling me this story NOW?" How does this story relate to other stories being told today? What narrative are they trying to create today with these particular stories?"

RIGHT ON!

[Walk away]

68. And yet you are willing to clap for a blogger who makes unfounded accusations...

about a reporter who risked his life to make sure Americans have both sides of the story.

[Walk away]

67. Did you just call Richard Engel a spy?

Do you know him? You have a lot of nerve accusing someone as brave and dedicated as Richard when you have no proof or even the slightest reason to do so.

I know people who have been part of his team for years. Who are you? Where would you get any information to support your claims?

[still_one]

13. Even if they had no one watching, murdoch would keep it going. It is an extension of the repug

party after all

[samsingh]

25. agreed

[Ian62]

37. Fox News is the department of propaganda for the neocons

Just like Goebbels was the minister of propaganda for Hitler.

The similarities run deeper.

Sean Hannity has ties to neo nazi groups.

The Bush family have strong sympathies with Nazi ideas.
Prescott Bush was convicted of trading with the enemy in 1942.
Basically he helped bankroll the Nazi regime through the Union Banking Corporation.

Early neocon supporters were all left wing Trotskyites in favor of permanent revolution and war to project power abroad. People like Bill Kristol.

The neocons are a curious mixture.
But they all favor permanent war.

[Kennah]

15. Perhaps Fox viewers are buying shortwave radios and tuning in Art Bell

[PatSeg]

16. I have a few relatives

who had gotten sucked in by FOX and after the election they admitted they had been deceived and used. The last I heard, they said they were turning it off. Hopefully they stuck with it. It is an addiction and not always easy to break free.

[defacto7]

17. Nice to hear...

I was hoping as much. It's hard to believe Americans fell for the Fox hole in reality.

K&R

[Auriandra]

21. What irked me

was going into car washes, waiting rooms & nursing homes & having that crap on. I actually checked out of a hospital three days early because all they had for cable news were Fox & CNN-HL.

[PerceptionManagement]

19. No, no no! Keep the repugs ignorant, confused and hateful! Long Live Faux Spews!

"I can only hope that the election results might alert Fox News views to the fact that they live in a bubble that is disconnected to reality."

I know this can seem counter intuitive. But think about it. If we keep repugs in epistemic closure, they can lead themselves to endless "Romney Landslides" in the future. Just smile and keep winning elections. Let the clowns at Faux enjoy their train wreck. At the rate things are going, the average Faux viewer will never wise up. And that is good for Dems.

[madrchsod]

20. ed`s radio show is far better than his tv show

rachell is the smartest political commentator on television.

we are lucky we have enough viewers to make the advertisers happy.

current and freespeach have excellent programing.

[NMDemDist2]

23. +1 n/t

[mgardener]

30. It would take honesty

I would be very angry if I watched Fox and realized I was systematically lied to about the election.
I hope it would make me think about what else saw or heard on Fox news/radio was not the truth.
But I am not sure Fox news viewers have that sense. I think that they have news fatigue and will be back to Fox when they gin up another POTUS Obama controversy.

My view is that the republicans won lots of victories by mixing their politics with religion. You can be wrong about a fact. But you cannot change people's minds when their religion and their politics become interchangeable. they will not believe their religion is wrong.
It has now become an albatross for the republicans and I do not know what they can do about it. It will be a continuing problem for the republicans until they decided to do the right thing (Like the democrats did about Civil rights is the 60's) and keep their politics and their religion separate.

Fox news feeds the demon, religion, politics and paranoia all served up by ranting men and women.

[Liberalynn]

31. So When Do We Add More People like Rachel to MSNBC

and have less like Morning Joe? I also vote Brokaw and Gregory be banned from the channel all together.

[annabanana]

33. I gotta tell you.. I find Joe... useful

He helps me plan ahead for the RW memes that are on the way. PLUS he is not immune to reason and I think that as he moves further to positions of reasonableness, he brings people with him who would otherwise be lost.

[Liberalynn]

65. Those are good points

He's not as bad as some Pukes

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

77. If I wanted to see consrevatives like Scarborough

I would watch Fox. His show is the worst on MSNBC. Get rid of it.

[annabanana]

32. How the HELL did I miss Rachel on the Colbert Report?!?

What day did that air? Which episode was it.. anyone got a link?

[northoftheborder]

53. Yes, I missed that too, and I record all to watch later. Is it on the website?

[annabanana]

56. I found the segment

I saw the date and realized that at that time I not only had no heat or electric... I din't even have PLUMBING!
(damn sandy)

clip here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-explains-her-election-report-to-colbert-it-was-a-day-when-the-facts-have-a-liberal-bias/

[patricia92243]

34. Still wish they could somehow get Keith Olbermann back. He made the station IMHO. n/t

[Ligyron]

39. Yeah, Keith O. needs to come back

Chenyk U. was fun too.

[rhett o rick]

38. The Fox message is short, ugly and horribly repetitive. I would think even morans would get

tired of it. And Hannity is such a weasel.

[WCGreen]

43. It's because the Geezers watching that crap all had heart attacks when the dark dude was

re-elected

[Jenoch]

45. While the post election ratings increases

are good news, MSNBC has a long way to go. Ed Schultz has fewer than half as many viewers as does Fox, Cooper has about 25% as many viewers as does Fox, and Rachel has about 1/3 fewer viewers than Fox.These were from last week's ratings.

[SDjack]

48. Faux Newz was caught in a big lie. Now, some of their viewers question everything

FN spews.

[lovuian]

54. the destruction of the Republican is their own doing

the message of give the rich everything ....is over

[libdem4life]

55. Texas GOP/schools ban "Critical Thinking" Skills

Breeding ground for "conservative" minions. They probably use Fox for their Civics classes, as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/27/1101959/-Texas-GOP-Platform-to-ban-teaching-Critical-Thinking-Skills-in-schools-The-stupid-IT-BURNS

[ReRe]

61. Go Rachel!

...but Fox learning that they live in a bubble? It'll never happen.

[DirkGently]

64. Maddow & Chris Hayes are the best commentators on television.

[Walk away]

66. I just had a good friend who is a senior producer at MSNBC over for my New Years brunch today...

I think they are doing a great job but I did relay the DU complaints from last night about no "Stars" covering the Senate's Debt Ceiling negotiations.

[another_liberal]

69. I do love Rachel Maddow!

Rachel is inspirational, informative and fun. She will win a contest with "Hate T.V." every time.

[AndyTiedye]

71. There Was a Study of Just How Disconnected from Reality Fox Viewers Are

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093953/-Another-study-says-watching-Fox-News-makes-you-dumber#

[harmonicon]

72. Either way, journalism loses.

Hey, remember journalism? It used to be related to the news. Now "news" simply means info-tainment.

[madisongrace]

74. Rachelle is a good teacher

I am always delighted with the perspective and analysis she can hone from a story. AND, she is a good teacher. She can explain things in a way that is educational, and makes the complex concepts seem very clear. Brillant.