Keith O. Has 7th Highest Rated Show on Cable

[stewert]

O'Reilly claims Keith Olbermann is a ratings disaster, yet in the 25 to 54 demo he has the 7th highest rated show in all of cable news. There are only 6 shows in all of cable news that beat Olbermann in the 25 to 54 demo.

Total viewers in the 25 to 54 demo -

1) O'Reilly - 434,000
2) H&C - 377,000
3) Greta - 374,000
4) Shepard - 346,000
5) Hume - 274,000
6) Hardball - 241,000
7) Olbermann - 185,000

Here is the list of shows that Olbermann beats in the 25 to 54 demo.

Larry King
Lou Dobbs
Dan Abrams
Wolf Blitzer
Paula Zahn
Nancy Grace
Rita Crosby
Anderson Cooper
Joe Scarborough
Tucker Carlson

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. don't forget that Faux counts hits, not viewers.

even if you scroll your way through the channels, and sit on faux for a sec, you are counted as a viewer. CNN and MSGOP do not count it that way.

By the way, how does the real news program, The Daily Show, rank?

[Bozita]

7. Is that true?

You'd think that the numbers all come from the same criteria.

[T Town Jake]

14. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way...

...cable viewers receive the "feed" in their television sets from their local cable companies. The cable companies themselves pull that "feed" - whether from Faux, CNN, MSNBC, AMC, ESPN, etc. - using a variety of technical methods.

Not one of them allows for a "two-way" submission of electronic data of the type you propose, i.e., tracking which channels their customers "scroll" through and then retransmitting that data "back" to Faux or any other cable network: it simply doesn't work that way, and couldn't, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that television sets simply are not equipped with the necessary electronic hardware to accomplish such a task.

It sounds nice as a way to disparage Faux's numbers, but I'm afraid your assertion is quite incorrect.

[johnfunk]

17. Actually, digital cable boxes ARE capable of tracking your viewing.

I know someone who wrote part of the software for PowerTV -- the digital cable box that watches YOU.

And guess what? It's the cable industry's Dirty Little Secret.

And here's the BEST part: rumor has it that New York's Time Warner Cable has pretty much concluded that:
-- NewsCorp has managed to skew the Nieklsen ratings for FNC through a variety of questionable means
-- CNN has FAR more viewers at ALL times than FOX News Channel
-- and yes, a far, far larger proportion of TVs tuned to FOX News Channel are not being watched.

Of course, that's NEVER going to be made public, because it would be bad for EVERYONE's bottom line. It's all about the ad revenues. baby!

[T Town Jake]

19. Actually, they are not...

...putting aside the fact that the majority of cable homes do not have digital boxes, those that do cannot track idle viewing on standard cable channels. What digital boxes "track" is premium viewership when one actually inputs a personal digital code and buys a movie, or pay-per-view event. Since Faux, CNN, et al, are not in the premium "rack," or "bundle," and are, in essence, "free" adjuncts to one's overall cable service (the regular bill you pay every month), that feed isn't monitored in any way shape or form - nor could it be, unless Faux is now a "pay-per-view" channel.

But your post is even more deceptive than that: even the premium programs you pay for to watch on a one time basis are only "tracked" for billing purposes by most cable companies: human eyes don't even see such data, as a rule.

Sorry, but try again.

[stewert]

20. Truth..........

FOX is not #1 in cable news, they misrepresent the ratings.

They use a formula to calculate how long people watch per viewing session, then they come up with their #1 claims based on those calculations.

In reality CNN has more actual viewers per month, they just do not watch as long per viewing session.

-------

The Ratings Mirage
Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers

By Steve Rendall

On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .

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.

When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox , they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN 1.02 million viewers to 665,000.

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.

How can CNN have more total viewers when Fox has such a commanding lead in average viewers? Conventional industry wisdom is that CNN viewers tune in briefly to catch up on news and headlines, while Fox viewers watch longer for the opinion and personality-driven programming. Because the smaller total number of Fox viewers are watching more hours, they show up in the ratings as a higher average number of viewers.

CNN regularly claims a cume about 20 percent higher than Fox 's (Deseret Morning News , 1/12/04). For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, CNN 's cume was significantly higher than Fox 's: 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox (Cablefax , 4/30/03). But in the same period, the ratings reported by most media outlets had Fox in the lead, with an average of 3.5 million viewers to CNN 's 2.2 million.

Even among Fox 's core audience of conservatives, CNN has an edge in total viewership. A study by the ad agency Carat USA (Hollywood Reporter , 8/13/03) found that 37 percent of viewers calling themselves "very conservative" watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox .

But many industry analysts say CNN still makes more money. Stock analyst Michael Gallant told the Chicago Tribune (11/28/03) that while Fox is growing faster, CNN is still earning about $200 million more per year than Fox (Television Week , 10/20/03).

Furthermore, CNN apparently continues to command higher ad rates, or CPM. CPM stands for "cost per thousand" (using the Roman numeral), the price a television outlet charges advertisers per thousand television households reached by a commercial. Though Fox began claiming to have reached CPM parity with CNN last summer, CNN chair Jim Walton insisted that CNN 's rate was still 40 percent higher (Television Week , 7/14/03).

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

[merh]

22. Does Fox count the local Fox news channels in their numbers?

There are some areas where the only local news is the local fox news channel.

Thank god that is not the case where I am at, I can't stand the local fox news stations, the formats are so odd and they come on an hour earlier. x(

[stewert]

24. merh.......

merh wrote:

Does Fox count the local Fox news channels in their numbers?

stewert wrote:

I have no idea.......

[merh]

27. I would bet they do.

There is nothing honest and/or above board about Fox.

:hi:

[T Town Jake]

29. You must have not read the exchange: I don't disagree with a word...

...you've posted here. Actually, I don't know whether what you posted here is accurate or not, but it isn't really germane to the question that I was attempting to address.

What the issue in contention was was whether Faux - or any other regular cable channel - had a little gremlin stowed away in the digital cable box that counted "hits" whenever someone "scrolled" through: they do not. NO cable channel does; and no cable company has the technical ability, at this time, to help Faux "cheat" in such a manner. Let alone a financial motive (read: profit motive) to do so.

Carry on.

[stewert]

31. T Town Jake

I don't care what you said to who, I just posted how FOX is rated #1 when CNN has more actual viewers.

So deal with it.

Carry on Sparky............

[T Town Jake]

32. stewert

I don't care why you posted what you did, I just responded to a post you made to me.

Let me give you a brief run down on how this "discussion forum" thing works: some one posts something, and some one replies. Another person then replies to that reply, and a conversation develops. And when another party (you, in this instance) jumps into the middle of such a conversation, it is assumed that you are directing your commentary towards one or another of the parties engaged in said debate/conversation.

In this case, you directed a comment to one of my replies: my apologies for not recognizing that you have yet to master how discussion forums work.

But that's how they do work, and it's you, not I, that are going to have to learn to "deal with it"...(snicker)...

[stewert]

34. T Town Jake

Get a life man, then get a clue.

I don't really care what you said to me or anyone, and I have been here since 2001 with over 3000 postings, so I forgot more about these boards than you know. You on the other hand have been her since may of 2004 with 1600 postings, that makes me an expert and you a newbie.

Not to mention I run my own forums at my website oreilly-sucks.com, so let it go sparky.

This is my last reply to you, case closed.

[T Town Jake]

38. stewert

...you really make yourself look more ridiculous with every succeeding reply, so I'm glad you have the self-awareness to realize it's best to let the thing go ("this my last reply to you").

Case, indeed, closed.

[sundancekid]

39. thanx for that clarifying contribution - kudos on your post - nice to have

real data and real sources - with an education for me to boot

[karynnj]

36. How do they know if they are being watch?

If true - that they sense human presence in the room - I'm not sure I want to know.

[stewert]

28. antifaschits.........

What they do is count viewing time per viewing session. Then they calculate it out by using some ratings formula to get the actual ratings numbers.

And FOX does not do it, Neilson does.

But if you count unique viewers per month CNN has more actual viewers per month than FOX or MSNBC. A unique viewer is one person, CNN averages something like 89 million unique viewers per month, FOX averages something like 70 million unique viewers per month.

So CNN has more actual viewers per month, but FOX viewers watch longer per viewing session, and they tune in over and over many many times during a day so it all adds up. Then they calculate the ratings based on return viewers per viewing session.

Say 10 FOX viewers tune it to FOX 5 times a day and watch for 13 minutes each time. Then 10 CNN viewers tune in to CNN 5 times a day and watch 5 minutes each time. FOX will get credit for higher ratings even though they both had 10 viewers. Because the FOX viewers watched FOX for double the time in each viewing session. It would take roughly 22 CNN viewers watching for 5 minutes each time to equal 10 FOX viewers. I think that is the wrong way to calculate ratings but that is how they do it. They should count unique viewers, that is how we do it on our websites.

Basically FOX viewers watch an average of 13 minutes per viewing session, or something close to that, I forget the exact numbers. But CNN viewers only watch about 5 or 6 minutes per viewing session. So FOX gets to take credit for being #1 in the ratings because of the formula Neilson uses to calculate ratings, when CNN has more actual viewers per month.

It's very complicated and for some reason Neilson does it that way, why, I have no fricking idea.

[rucky]

46. Aren't they audited by Neilson?

If not, then pay no stock in the "rankings".

[tridim]

2. How does Faux do it?

I know it's the Fascist's cable channel of choice, but the shows in the top 5 are just awful regardless of the crappy politics. You'd think the average Faux viewer would catch on to the scam after awhile. Guess I give them too much credit.

[mzmolly]

26. I think it's the "tabloidism" they are so good at.

It's like "STAR Magazine" of television politics.

[niallmac]

3. So then Phil should replace Tucker yes?

[Janice325]

4. I have a question

Does anyone have any idea as to the availability of Fox News versus MSNBC?

[Mabus]

9. I've wondered that too

We just got MSNBC on our cable package in November, 2004. I've been telling people about KO since the channel became available and, so far, everyone who has turned him on has gotten hooked. On the other hand, we've had Fox and CNN for years. We're kind of used to turning the tv off at 7 (CST) around here.

[stewert]

33. Janice........

I don't have the actual numbers but I believe FOX is on in more homes than MSNBC.

I can tell you that in 2002 FOX was in 78 million homes and MSNBC was in 70 million, but I do not know what it is in 2006.

I found this from a 2004 article on the state of cable news:

Shortly after their launches in 1996, Fox News was available in 21 million homes, and MSNBC in 33 million. CNN, meanwhile, was already available in 72 million homes. Now, the numbers are much closer, with CNN available in 86 million homes, Fox News in 80 million, and MSNBC in 76 million.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=5

So they claim in 2004 FOX was on in 4 million more homes than MSNBC.

[grasswire]

5. hard to believe that Tweety tops Keith

Some conservatives must be watching Tweety.

[maine_raptor]

6. Part of the problem may be timing.

The only problem I have with KO's show is that it starts at the same time as the Daily Show's re-run (8PM). I wish CC would go back to that 7PM timeslot, I rather miss the first half of Tweety's show than the first half of Keith's.

Edited for typo.

[noamnety]

11. The Daily Show's schedule change was awful

That's the petition we really need - putting the daily show back at 7, where it belongs.

[Lasher]

18. That is a very good point

KO & the Daily Show would both have to rank pretty high on Democrats' list of favorites in this category. For me they are #1 & #2, but I can't decide in what order.

Edit: Wonder how O'Reilly would do if they had old Hitler speeches with subtitles on another channel at the same time? :rofl:

[Poiuyt]

42. Didn't Keith used to have the top ranked show on MSNBC?

I think Tweety was helped when they changed his time slots to 5:00 and 7:00pm EST, while Keith's are 8:00 and 12:00 EST

[flyarm]

43. remember in east coast keith used to be on twice..tweety had that

changed..now tweety comes on twice and keith once!

[Jane Austin]

47. I check TV Newser's numbers every few days,

and I believe Keith usually does top Tweety, especially in the 25-50 demo group that advertisers are interested in.

[otohara]

8. Fox Viewers Just Gluttons for Dumbing Down

themselves....Civil war in Iraq, Maybe it's a good thing!

[TacticalPeek]

10. Is there a link for that?

I sometimes wonder how or if the numbers change in relation to events.

[stewert]

12. Yes There is a Link.......

I was using the numbers from the wednesday 2-22-06 cable news shows.

25-54 demographic:

6pm: Hume: 274,000 / Dobbs: 185,000 / Abrams: 143,000

7pm: Shep: 346,000 / Blitzer: 116,000 / Hardball: 241,000 / Showbiz: 71,000

8pm: O'Reilly: 434,000 / Zahn: 127,000 / Countdown: 185,000 / Grace: 160,000 / On The Money: 170,000

9pm: H&C: 377,000 / King: 148,000 / Rita: 133,000 / Prime News: 153,000 / Mad Money: 67,000

10pm: Greta: 374,000 / Cooper: 181,000 / Scarborough: 115,000 / Big Idea: 113,000

11pm: Cooper: 169,000 / Situation: 100,000 / On The Money: 55,000

http://mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

And if you want to see the average ratings and total viewers for the month of January you can see them here.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/jan06ranker.pdf

In January Olbermann was #1 overall in total viewers for all MSNBC shows. Hardball was #2, and Rita was #3.

[TacticalPeek]

30. Thanks. Facts are fun.

:)

[Old and In the Way]

13. The data seems to infer that there is a 350-400,000 hardcore audience

that watches Faux exclusively.

[stewert]

15. Data........

It shows that only 300,000 to 400,000 people in the 25 to 54 demo watch cable news shows, and that is out of 190 million people.

The other viewers are over 54 years old, and the average viewer for the O'Reilly factor is 68 years old.

It also shows that Keith Olbermann has almost 50 percent of the viewers that O'Reilly has in the 25 to 54 demo.

[Olney Blue]

16. Are there really 434,000 Americans dumb enough to watch O'Lielly?

[stewert]

23. Actually........

There are between 1.8 million to 2.5 million people dumb enough to watch O'Reilly.

For the year 2005 O'Reilly averaged 2,495,000 million viewers a night. But only 400,000 of them are in the 25 to 54 demo, so almost 80 percent of his viewers are right wing fools over the age of 54, and his average viewer is 68 years old.

And in the last 2 weeks or so the factor ratings are down 20 percent to 1.8 million total viewers a night.

In January he averaged about 2.2 million viewers a night, for the first 2 weeks of February it is down to 1.9 million viewers a night. On wednesday night he only had 1.8 million viewers, and when he has a fill in host it drops to about 1.4 million.

[dmr]

21. Who the hell would watch Rita Crosby?

That woman has no journalistic talent, and is irritating to the ears.

It is a nightly race in my house to make sure her voice isn't heard when KO ends his program. She is torturous on so many levels.

[Shelor]

25. Look at all the morons ahead of him. Cable is so full of crap.

[Clark2008]

35. On Friday, when Tweety has the roundtable, I call

it the Loser's Forum: Tweety, Reeter, *ucker Carlson and Joe "Dead Intern" Scarborough.

All the folk who couldn't drum up enough business to maintain on a Friday night. Keith's, thankfully, not there. He can hold his own on a weekend eve.

[ooglymoogly]

37. gee does this no. reflect all the public area tv's for example

at my local hospital. like most hospitals are permanently set on faux, government waiting rooms, and think about all the other offices that are permanently set on faux. faux, fake, dishonest are all synonyms. it is the official government propaganda machine

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. I could get a 100,000 by firing up a HAM.

All those numbers are pitiful.

[Ksec]

41. And hes gaining while oreallys dropping. nt

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. Love the list of the ones he's beating. And his ratings are RISING, unlike

O'Liely's, which are shrinking and are an older demographic anyway.

For those who may have been out of town and missed it, here is the MUST-SEE video of Keith responding to O'Reilly's petition drive to get him fired PLUS the counterpetition to get O'REILLY replaced.

Note that Can-o-Fun has only Windows media videos, but Crooks & Liars has this classic video in both Windows media and Quicktime. Link in my excerpt below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x514048
thread title (2-24-06 GD): VIDEO- KO on O'Reilly's Petition to Replace him with Donahue
Extremely funny. Keith pulls no punches and signs the petition himself! Can-o-Fun/liveoaktx VIDEO in Windows Media format. Crooks & Liars has it too in both Windows and QuickTime: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/24.html#a7291

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x516383
thread title (2-25-06 GD): Replace Bill O'Reilly with Phil Donahue petition on Huffpo
A true delight and a must-do too: “Bob Cesca posted this petition to Rofer Ailes in response to O'Reilly's petition to get Olbermann fired from MSNBC.
"Dear Your Honor Roger Ailes, We, the undersigned, are becoming increasingly concerned about the mental health of the host of your 8:00 PM EST show. This host has claimed: …” There follows a list of some of O’Reilly’s many outrages – with a link to Media Matters’ list of 400 ‘signs of mental instability,’ and the letter concludes: “In a recent petition to MSNBC, your host praised Mr. Donahue's ability to draw a large audience and referred to Mr. Donahue's ‘honor and dignity’ -- a perfect fit for Fox News Channel as your current host obviously endorses Donahue's ability to perform in prime time. So he's a perfect replacement for your 8:00 PM EST host who clearly could use some professional psychological assistance. We look forward to the premiere of The Donahue Factor, weeknights at 8:00 PM on Fox News Channel.”

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Right-wingers seem to have a lot of time on their hands to watch t.v.

[Jane Austin]

48. The numbers in the OP are for one day only - Wed, Feb 22.

Over the long haul, I believe Keith Olbermann beats Tweety.

Additionally, Olbermann is on opposite the inexplicably popular O'Leilly and Nancy Grace.

weety's competition is the lamer Shepard Smith and Wof Blitzer, so he really should be doing much better than he is.

[kentuck]

49. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king....

:) O'Reilly is # 1...yea....uh-huh..