Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Categories: '

Written By

October 17th, 2012


Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 16, 2012

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC       2,673            739         1,237
CNN       1,086            450            500
MSNBC       1,136            432            572
CNBC         208             70            108
FBN           91             26             50
HLN         168             63             96
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC       9,045         2,694         4,031
CNN       4,352         1,902         1,904
MSNBC       3,888         1,491         1,934
CNBC         448            231            247
FBN         186             61            101
HLN         213             72            109
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends       1,297            349            703
CNN Early Start/Starting Point         236             82            133
MSNBC Morning Joe         465            177            230
CNBC Squawk Box         124             22             55
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade         216            126            163
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE       2,344            532         1,057
CNN SITUATION ROOM         470            109            166
MSNBC HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS         998            267            433
CNBC FAST MONEY         153             43            108
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           93             30             38
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER       2,829            616         1,194
CNN SITUATION ROOM         574            177            231
MSNBC POLITICS NATION         941            298            421
CNBC MAD MONEY         142             51             82
HLN EVENING EXPRESS         127             34             42
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE FOX REPORT W/S.SMITH       2,716            559         1,175
CNN DEBATE NIGHT IN AMERICA         856            315            358
MSNBC HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS       1,198            426            602
CNBC KUDLOW REPORT         170             51             78
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL         281             73             93
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR       4,775         1,105         1,938
CNN DEBATE NIGHT IN AMERICA       1,583            589            671
MSNBC MSNBC DEBATE PREVIEW       1,814            611            911
CNBC YOUR MONEY YOUR VOTE         104             37             52
HLN NANCY GRACE         346            110            179
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE     11,042         3,405         4,909
CNN 2ND PRES DEBATE 2012       5,677         2,506         2,435
MSNBC DEBATE       4,823         1,913         2,387
CNBC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE         604            299            317
HLN DR. DREW         177             71             89
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA     10,850         3,440         5,142
CNN DEBATE NIGHT IN AMERICA       5,514         2,364         2,560
MSNBC MSNBC DEBATE ANALYSIS       5,066         2,014         2,631
CNBC YOUR MONEY YOUR VOTE         356            180            207
HLN NANCY GRACE         116             35             58
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC HANNITY       5,321         1,755         2,706
CNN DEBATE NIGHT IN AMERICA       3,871         1,632         1,925
MSNBC MSNBC DEBATE ANALYSIS       3,140         1,303         1,720
CNBC MAD MONEY         208            100            102
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT         128             31             67

For other days cable news ratings click here.

P2+ = viewers over the age of 2

(25-54) = Adults 25-54 viewing

(35-64) = Adults 35-64 viewing

Prime Time = 8-11pm

LIVE+SD: The number that watched a program either while it was broadcast OR watched via DVR on the same day [through 3AM the next day] the program was broadcast. For more information see Numbers 101.

Scratch = when a show's audience fails to meet minimum Nielsen reporting levels. For more information go here.

Nielsen Cable Network Coverage Estimates (as of July, 2012)

CNN/HLN: 99.727 million HHs

CNBC: 97.497 million HHs

FNC: 97.981 million HHs

MSNBC: 95.526 million HHs

Fox Business: 68.407 million HHs

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2012 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

  • Ratboy

    Big numbers for Brett, tiny numbers for Sharpie, big numbers for Shep, normal numbers for matthews, HUGE numbers for OReilly and Eddie was not allowed to play alone against him!

  • hockey4um

    Cudo’s to CNN for showing up ……….. MSNBC in 3rd and dropping …. as it should !

  • Scroll the Troll

    IMO All Crowley really did was put or keep Libya on the front page were it belongs. Bump in the road just won’t go away.

  • Letmethink

    Early Start/Stating Point at 236. Surprising with numbers this low Solidad Obrien would be included in the Presidential Debate panel.

  • mary

    I watched Fox but I can pitcure the newscasters at MSDNC laid back in their chairs smoking a ciggerette after watching Oboma

  • Sicilian Papa

    FOX breaks 11 MIL. Is that for both cable and network or cable only?

  • lbsles

    Heritage Experts Break Down Tuesday’s Debate

    Emily Goff on Taxes and Spending

    President Obama’s approach to spending and debt is hardly balanced.

    President Obama’s recycled “balanced approach” mantra surfaced for the umpteenth time this evening—even though Americans know it is far from balanced, never mind mathematically impossible. Raising taxes on wealthier Americans who, in President Obama’s own words, “can afford to pay a little bit more,” would be a direct hit to the very businesses and investors we need to be encouraged, not discouraged from creating jobs. Failing to addressTaxmageddon and inject certainty into the economy is an abysmal failure of Congress and President Obama. It’s already threatening the economy, and causing economic stagnation.

  • lbsles

    Heritage Experts Break Down Tuesday’s Debate

    Nick Loris on Domestic Energy Production

    Are oil companies really not drilling because they’re sitting on their leases?

    Are oil companies sitting on leases? The short answer is no… Just because oil companies aren’t drilling, this does not mean that no activity is occurring on that land. Environmental review, permitting, seismic research, and exploration may be occurring. But even that fails to address the real problem: The environmental review and leasing process takes entirely too long.

  • lbsles

    Heritage Experts Break Down Tuesday’s Debate

    Walter Lohman on China

    “Getting tough on China,” something both candidates claimed to aspire to, is good—as long as what is meant by that is ensuring China abides by its international trade commitments. But this is not enough—it is not a trade policy. The U.S. needs to create opportunity with trade, not just manage bad behavior… President Obama said during the debate that he signed three trade deals. Not true…What Obama did was to delay passage of agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that were already completed. He did so to appease labor unions and others in his political base. During the three years of waiting for the President to submit the U.S.-Korea FTA, the U.S. lost $30 billion in exports.

  • lbsles

    Heritage Experts Break Down Tuesday’s Debate

    James Carafano on Libya
    What did the Obama administration do about security before the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and how did it respond afterward?
    It was the question that the President never clearly and explicitly responded to. When it comes to how the White House responded to the attack, the Administration has a lot of explaining to do. Its series of explanations was muddled and misleading.

    When it comes to responding to the attack, Americans of course expect that our government will go after the perpetrators. The questions of how our government responded to the terrorist threat in Libya, however, still has to be answered.

  • AppleStinx

    Sicilian Papa wrote: “FOX breaks 11 MIL. Is that for both cable and network or cable only?”

    Fox News Channel only.

  • lbsles

    Heritage Experts Break Down Tuesday’s Debate

    James Carafano on Immigration

    Our country’s flawed immigration system was finally addressed by both sides.

    They offered two very different approaches and a distinct choice. One approach is to change the laws to accommodate the unlawful population that is already here—an approach that will not only not fix the problem, it will just make America a magnet for more problems. The other approach is to make the laws work and create a legal system that gets employers the employees they need when they need them to grow the economy and create more jobs.

    There are good answers to address these tough problems. What we need in Washington is leadership that is willing to do the job.

  • lbsles

    Heritage Experts Break Down Tuesday’s Debate

    James Gattuso on the Auto Bailout and Bankruptancy

    President Obama blamed Romney for saying GM should go bankrupt — even though the company actually did go bankrupt during his presidency.

    President Obama once more criticized Governor Romney for saying GM should go bankrupt. But Romney tonight finally cleared the record, pointing out that that is exactly what happened –GM and Chrysler DID go bankrupt. But, as Obama confirmed, the administration didn’t stop there – it nationalized the firms. Taxpayers are still some $25 billion in the hole and still own a quarter of the shares of GM. Bankruptcy was the right solution; a bailout was not.

  • suikostinger

    Oh god. Here comes lbsles again with his spam!

  • lbsles

    U.S. Oil Production Up, But On Whose Lands?

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is projecting that U.S. domestic crude oil production will increase to 6.8 million barrels per day in 2013, which is the highest level of production since 1993.[i] This is good news for Americans, and, of course, President Obama will try to take credit for it. But little of this increased oil production is in offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico where most federal oil production occurs. In fact, federal Gulf of Mexico oil production decreased in fiscal year 2011 and then again in fiscal year 2012 due to the Obama Administration’s policies, particularly the moratorium on drilling and permitting that occurred after the Macondo accident and other policies as identified below.

    Federal Oil Production Trends

    According to EIA, in fiscal year 2011, production on federal lands dropped 13 percent from fiscal year 2010 levels, led by a drop in federal offshore production of 17 percent.[ii] The majority of oil production on federal lands (around 80 percent) is located in offshore waters. And the vast majority of federal offshore oil production (generally over 95 percent) is from the 55 percent of the Gulf of Mexico where leasing has been allowed. Thus, an analysis of oil production from the Federal Gulf of Mexico should be a good indicator of where our increased oil production is coming from—federal lands or private and state lands.

    Comparing the loss in federal oil production to production in the oil producing states, we find the decrease expected in oil production from the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 of 112 million barrels is about equal to the oil produced in the state of North Dakota in 2010 (113 million barrels) and it is 50 percent higher than the oil produced in the state of Oklahoma in 2011 (74 million barrels).

    The moratorium helped to cut oil production from the Gulf of Mexico by over one-third. Before the accident, monthly oil production from the Gulf of Mexico was as high as 1.71 million barrels a day, and after the accident, it was as low as 1.09 million barrels per day, a reduction of over 600,000 barrels per day. Mainly because of the moratorium on drilling imposed by the Obama Administration, oil production from the Gulf of Mexico is expected to reach only 1.3 million barrels per day in 2012.[iii] Much of that oil is heavy oil being replaced by imports from Saudi Arabia.[iv]

    The Record for Oil and Gas Leasing and Permitting on Federal Onshore Lands. The federal government leases less than 6 percent of its onshore lands for oil and gas development. Under the Obama Administration, the rate of leasing has slowed by about half. New acres leased between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 dropped 55 percent from 11,635,373 to 5,283,441, and the number of new leases fell by 42 percent from 9,661 between fiscal years 2006 and 2008 to 5,568 between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. And, under President Obama’s administration, the total number of acres under lease fell by over 18 percent, from 47.2 million in fiscal year 2008 to 38.5 million in fiscal year 2011. The rate of permitting has also declined by more than one-third. During fiscal years 2006 to 2008, 20,479 federal drilling permits were approved, compared to 12, 821 for fiscal years 2009 to 2011.[vi] The time it takes to receive a permit to drill on federal lands has doubled since fiscal year 2005 when it took 154 days to receive a drilling permit compared to 307 days in fiscal year 2011. The Obama Administration issued almost 40 percent fewer permits and took twice the time to do it. Since fiscal year 2008, the amount of time that industry needs to take to “resolve any deficiencies” in an application has tripled.[vii]

    By comparison, it takes only 10 days to receive a permit to drill on North Dakota state lands, where the shale oil boom has made North Dakota the second largest state oil producer in the United States. North Dakota is prospering with its unemployment rate at 3 percent and its economic growth rate at 7 percent. In Ohio, drilling permits are obtained in 14 days.[viii] And in Colorado, it takes 27 days to process a drilling permit application from its receipt to the permit issuance.[ix] Because each state has unique geography, topography, geology, hydrogeology and meteorology, the states are well suited to review these applications and they are light-years ahead of the federal government in terms of experience and know-how about their individual state lands.

    The Record for Oil and Gas Leasing and Permitting in Offshore Federal Waters. The United States has a vast amount of offshore acreage that could be leased for offshore drilling, but only 2 percent of the outer continental shelf is currently leased for oil and gas development, 35,275,233 acres out of 1,712,260,000 total acres.[xi] During the Obama Administration, revenues from the sales of offshore leases fell by well over 99 percent, from $9,481 million in fiscal year 2008 to below $37 million in fiscal year 2011[xii] due to cancelled and delayed lease sales. Both the number of acres and the number of tracts leased have declined by about two-thirds since President Obama has taken office. New acres leased between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 totaled 17,880,416, while only 6,073,715 new acres were leased between fiscal years 2009 and 2011. The number of new tracts leased between fiscal years 2006 and 2008 totaled 3,248, dropping to 1,110 between fiscal years 2009 and 2011.[xiii]

    The rate of offshore permitting declined by 62 percent with 995 new well permits approved between January 20, 2006 and January 19, 2009 dropping to 374 new well permit approvals between January 20, 2009 and January 19, 2012.[xiv] Further, it can be seen that the Obama Administration cancelled more lease sales than it has held by comparing the Outer Continental Leasing Program for 2007-2012 proposed in April 2007 and the lease sales schedule that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has on its website.[xv] And, according to the Congressional Research Service, the 15 lease sales to be offered in President Obama’s newest offshore lease plan for 2012 to 2017 is the lowest number since the process began in 1980 and is over 60 percent less than the number held during President Reagan’s first term.[xvi]


    These statistics show that the trend during the Obama Administration has been toward fewer leases and permits for oil and gas drilling and a longer processing time before approval is attained in sharp contrast to state programs where permits are obtained in less than a month. Further, these Obama Administration policies along with its moratorium on drilling after the Macondo accident have reduced the amount of oil produced on federal lands that we Americans own. Gulf of Mexico oil production is not even expected to regain the peak it reached in 2010 by 2013, according to the EIA. If states can take less than a month to approve drilling permits on their lands, why does it take the federal government 307 days to reach approval? The record is becoming clear that the federal government is a poor steward of our national energy supplies and security.


  • lbsles

    DOE Loan Defenders Still Spinning

    When Mitt Romney misspoke and claimed “I think about half” of the DOE loan guarantees to alternative energy companies had already failed, it was understandable that defenders of the program would pounce. Yet in their elation over a wrong number said in the heat of a debate, the DOE defenders doubled-down on their own absurd defenses of the program.

    For example, Paul Krugman used his perch from the NYT to hammer Romney’s inaccuracy. Krugman is upset that the media lets Romney get away with his “completely false assertions about government energy loans.” Yet Krugman should be more forgiving, since he himself made completely false assertions back in May, claiming at the time that Solyndra was the only DOE-backed company that had gone bankrupt. The differences here are (a) Romney said his flub with a caveat “I think” and during a live debate, and (b) the Romney camp quickly admitted he had been wrong. In contrast, Krugman’s blog post was premeditated, and (to our knowledge) he has never apologized for his false claim. Instead, he continues to hammer the media for not policing Republican claims on Solyndra.

    Elsewhere I have walked through the sordid history of Solyndra, explaining that it wasn’t merely an honest mistake, but in fact involved the government ignoring its own internal procedures designed to protect taxpayers. Here at IER we have also outlined the host of dubious renewables projects receiving government backing.

    In the remainder of the present post, let’s point out the absurdity of one of the arguments used to defend the DOE program that we haven’t analyzed previously. As part of their shock, shock over Romney’s flub (and his campaign’s immediate admission of error), the bloggers at ThinkProgress proudly linked to an earlier MediaMatters post supposedly showing the weakness of the “Solyndra hype.” Consider the following argument:

    Congress budgeted $2.47 billion, or more than 15% of the total value of approved loan guarantees, to cover for defaults, like those of Solyndra and Beacon Power, which were both higher risk loan guarantees. [A study] found that even if all of the higher risk (non-generation) projects defaulted on the full amount of their loan guarantees and “no assets were to be recovered, the DOE would still have $446 million remaining to cover additional project losses.”

    The press has largely failed to explain that there was money set aside to cover defaults like Solyndra’s, and that most of the other projects are low-risk, even as they were emphasizing the potential loss of taxpayer money from loan guarantees. [Bold added.]

    It is difficult to comprehend the mindset that would generate this defense of the DOE program. The MediaMatters blogger is arguing that the press has been unfairly leading the public to worry about taxpayer risk from defaulting loans, when Congress has already set aside billions of dollars to cover such losses. Where did Congress get this money, if not from the taxpayers (or by running up the deficit, putting future taxpayers on the hook)?

    The whole point of the DOE’s program is to ensure private lenders grant loans to renewables projects that would not be funded in a free market for energy. By definition, the taxpayers are co-signing on loans that do not pass the market test. Mitt Romney misspoke when he said half of the loans had defaulted thus far, but he was correct in arguing that the program was an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. The federal government will only divert capital into politically-favored channels if it continues to pick winners and losers in the energy sector.

  • lbsles

    5 Reasons Why The Federal Government Should Get Out of the Finance Business: Solyndra Edition

    ABC News yesterday reported a few interesting facts about the Obama administration’s half billion-dollar loan to now defunct solar manufacture Solyndra, who is now being raided by the FBI. That aside, below are five reasons why the federal government should exit the finance business.

    First, the government loaned Solyndra money at a really, really low interest rate—a mere 1.025 percent quarterly. In fact, this was the lowest rate provided for any green energy project.

    Second, this low rate was in spite of “red flags” about the risk of investing in Solyndra. One outside rating agency rated Solyndra only a B+ and another rated Solyndra only as “Fair” for credit worthiness.

    Third, Obama’s Department of Energy announced the loans before the due diligence was complete and even after auditors raised concerns. But this was not for lack of attention because even the President visited the plant and praised Solyndra as an example of the future of energy.

    Fourth, according to ABC News, “Solyndra’s most prolific financial backer is George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who was a bundler of campaign donations for Obama’s 2008 race. Kaiser’s Argonaut Ventures and its affiliates have been the single largest shareholder of Solyndra, according to SEC filings and other records.” This connection alone should have caused pause for the federal government when considering an expedited loan arrangement.

    And last, and in my mind, by far the worst, Kaiser and his Argonaut Ventures are first in line to recoup their investment in Solynda in bankruptcy proceedings. As ABC News explains, “Energy officials confirmed this arrangement, saying that private investors including Kaiser would first recoup their $75 million, then the U.S. government would have a chance to recover $150 million of its investment. If any money is left, the private investors and the U.S. government would divvy up the remainder in equal shares.”

    In sum, the Obama administration rammed through a half billion loan on very favorable terms to a shaky company, run by a George Kaiser, one of President Obama’s largest fundraisers. If Kaiser and his company made money with Solyndra, they would keep the profits and if Solyndra failed, as in this case, they still get their money back while the taxpayer is left holding the bag.

    This is one example of what’s wrong with crony capitalism. With Solyndra, the Obama administration, using taxpayer dollars, insulated the private investors from any risk. For Obama fundraiser George Kaiser, it was a no lose situation. For the American taxpayer, it’s no win.

    As this situation with Solyndra shows us, there is no reason the federal government should be in the business of loaning companies money. There were good reasons private firms didn’t loan Solyndra the $500 million—reasons that the Obama administration overlooked because Solyndra was a politically correct business.

    Source: IER

  • lbsles

    Obama’s Questionable Embrace of Free Enterprise

    In his closing argument, President Obama presented himself as a champion of free enterprise. Then came the ominous “but”: “But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules.”

    Here’s the rub: free enterprise goes hand in hand with the rule of law and equal opportunity—what the President refers to as everyone playing by the same rules and getting a fair shot. A true champion of free enterprise does not need to specify that he also believes in these, since they are part and parcel of free-market economics. To specify that the free enterprise system needs to be supplemented by the rule of law and equal opportunity suggests instead that one has embraced the Left’s straw man depiction of capitalism as a ruthless system that allows the rich to rig the game and fleece the poor.

    That the President’s embrace of free enterprise is less than sincere is confirmed by the “fair share” comment. This is a thinly veiled jab at the rich (which he defined during the debate as either the top 1 percent or 2 percent of earners). A true champion of free markets would not be attacking the rich by implying they are somehow taking advantage of the rest of us.

    President Obama can either embrace the free enterprise system or he can play the class warfare card. But—and in this case there must be a “but”—he can’t wear both hats at the same time.

    – David Azerrad

  • lbsles

    The Truth on Trade Policy: Asia
    President Obama said during tonight’s debate that he signed three trade deals. Not true. President Obama was left three free trade agreements on his desk when he took office. Those deals and many others were initiated, negotiated, and signed by President Bush. The one trade agreement that Obama has prioritized, the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) involving now 11 countries, was also initiated by President George Bush.

    What President Obama did was to delay passage of agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that were already completed. He did so to appease labor unions and others in his political base. During the three years of waiting for the President to submit the U.S.-Korea FTA, the U.S. lost $30 billion in exports.

    The United States needs an energetic, committed trade policy. We need a TPP that is truly a free trade agreement and of sufficient scale to make a major impact on the U.S. economy. That means accommodating the world’s third largest economy and U.S. ally, Japan. In means folding in other willing free trade partners like South Korea. And it means putting TPP on a timeline that gets it completed, passed and implemented as quickly as possible.

    A robust trade policy in Asia also means initiating new agreements with countries like Taiwan and carving out select initiatives to American allies like the Philippines that are not quite ready for a gold standard free trade agreement like TPP.

    “Getting tough on China,” something both candidates claimed to aspire to, is good – as long as what is meant by that is ensuring they abide by their international trade commitments. But it is not enough. It is not a trade policy. The U.S. needs to create opportunity with trade, not just manage bad behavior.

    – Walter Lohman

  • Scroll the Troll

    Whoops ” where it belongs” I forgot this site is grammar patrolled

© 2015 Tribune Digital Ventures