Cable News Ratings for Friday, December 14, 2012

Categories: '

(136) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Diamond Dave

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM

   BevAG

   Thank you for your support.

   Regarding O’Reilly, he claims to be a registered Independant, and anyone who watches him regularly (as I’m guessing you do according to your knowledge) knows that to be true. The left likes to consider him a “right-wing nut job” because he is a strong Christian and his religious values often play into his views on social issues. And the other networks like to exploit that and use it to support they’re claims that Fox is nothing but right-wingers all the time. Let them have their fun lying. The ratings show for the last 11 years—and in O’Reilly’s case 15 years—who the viewers choose to believe. And all this back and forth everyday on this page about “who’s on fire” and who one in one or two particular demographic doesn’t change that fact. But the MSNBCers should be proud that their network has become a success. That’s something to be proud of. Competition is always good. It keeps them honest.

2. Matthew

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

   What does being a registered Independent have to do with whether or not you’re right wing? You can be a registered Independent and also be a militant socialist, or a libertarian hardliner. Party does not equal ideology.

3. BevAG

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM

   Dave:

   Competition is the ONLY way to go. Just like checks and balances are the ONLY way to go.

   I don’t like one news organization being the only news source and I don’t like one party being SO in the majority. I want both parties to always be in constant tension with each. I want news sources to be in constant tension with each other. I want the Government and the Church to be in constant tension with each other.

   All that “constant tension” is what allows us “little people,” the populace, who have no individual influence know that each organization is going to keep the other accountable. They’re going to “tell on each other,” in other words, because they want to be on top. That ALWAYS benefits the populace.

   I hate it when they don’t hold their opposite side accountable and they DON’T inform us of what’s going on because they got in bed with their opposing side and they’re not reporting on the other. That’s when we are in trouble and the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

4. Ratboy

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM

   Matthew
   @ d even the early rifles weren’t great) were inaccurate, prone to failure and injuring the user, and would mostly ruin whatever food you were hunting.

   Even modern guns can ruin meat, depending on how poor of a shot you are, and how small the game is that you’re hunting. At best, caste-noble and caste-merchant could have used guns for sport, but they were seriously impractical versus say, being a shepherd, a farmer, or a trapper if your goal was food

   Early settlers depended on guns to provide for their families both by protection and food. As they moved across the plains they could not raise cattle or sheep and they could not take the time to set trap lines so they needed guns to hunt as well as protect them from thieves, rustlers, or indians. Once they settled th food was supplimented and in many case the primary food when hunted because the herds were sold and sometimes could not stay alive. The goal for food was using the easiest and chepest way to get t and in many cases that was the one shot needed to drop the animal. As for ruining the meat………the first guns were single shot ball one hole in one hole out so meat was not ruined and when shot guns started to be used i was normal and still is to pick shot from the meat. I was raised on a farm and we in fact di raise our own beef and pork but our annual food budget included and relied on fish (we went on an annual vacation to Minnesota and brought back our limit for the freezer) and hunted game such as deer, rabbit, pigeon, etc.
   Our guns were mainly for food and protection was secondary until there was a threat. Now this is COMMON SENSE.

5. cathy

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM

   @Matthew – I believe what something was initially designed to do is not important. We need to look at what it is used for by the owner. I say this because creating weapons for war has driven numerous inventions of items that have evolved into different uses.
   Rockets were created to deliver bombs. But they are now used more to put satellites into space. Satellites were developed to spy on our enemies and improve military communication. They are now used to send information like radio, tv and other communication to the average person.
   Large range aircraft were first developed by the military to bomb cities. But later they were used as passenger planes.

   I use aircraft here to draw a parallel. These large aircraft were first designed and development to bomb cities and kill many people. But now most are used to transport people or items.
   Guns were first designed and development to kill people. But now people privately own guns for protection, hunting or enjoyment from using them at a shooting range.
   On 9/11/2001 four airliners were used to kill 2,996 people
   There was no out cry to banned airliners. But it did change many ways the airlines, air traffic and airports are operated today.
   On 12/14/2012 an AR-15 is used to kill 20 children and 6 adults in a school.
   Before the gun smoke had cleared, people were calling for a ban on guns. The politicians are only looking at gun control as the answer.
   Both of these items started out as killing machines. But have different uses today.
   Why can’t the people of the U.S. use the 9/11 attack as an example of how to find a solution to the school shootings? We realized on 9/11 it was the terrorist not the airliners that caused this attack. It use a man that attacked Sandy Hook. The tool he used was a gun. How do we limit evils access to guns with the less impact to responsible gun owners?
   Maybe there is a high tech answer? Can you put a microchip in guns and develop a tracking system that alerts police when these guns are close to schools, hospitals or malls?

6. Matthew

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM

   “Early settlers depended on guns to provide for their families both by protection and food.”
   ______________________

   What, exactly, does this have to do with the actual DEVELOPMENT of the first guns, many of which appeared before the United States was settled by Europeans? Everything you said (including modern anecdotes, which are even less on topic) is missing the point, and describing a way of life that transcends gunpowder-based weaponry to the tun of several centuries.

   Your final sentence, in particular, is an argument that I’m not even making, which is what YOUR family uses their guns for. I very clearly said in my first post that protection and hunting are the primary reasons people TODAY purchase guns, which is not the same reason they initially developed and proliferated.

   The early cannons and wheelocks were not hunting weapons that some military genius re-appropriated, it was the other way around, because gunpowder used to be expensive; there was a period where availability was limited to how much was flowing from China via the Middle East. Under such circumstances, to purchase gunpowder to feed yourself would have been prohibitively expensive, ludicrous even.

   You seem to be under the false impression that I’m somehow maligning gun ownership by pointing out the militaristic roots of the technology’s development, otherwise I have no idea why you feel it necessary to explain why your own family owns guns.

7. cathy

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM

   @Matthew, I don’t think you’re off the deep end. You make me think and that’s a good thing.

   Your posts made me clearly see what the biggest gun problem is. (This next statement isn’t about you.) Many people in the U.S. only see guns as killing machines. They can not get past that.

8. Matthew

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM

   “There was no out cry to banned airliners.”
   _________________________

   Because airliners are a tool whose primary purpose is transportation, and guns are a tool whose primary purpose is to wound or kill; someone using an airliner to murder is extraordinary, someone using a gun to murder happens several times a day. Again, that doesn’t mean we should ban guns, but I don’t like how people try to paint gun restrictions as being exactly as unreasonable as automobile or airplane restrictions, when that is clearly not the case. We can both disagree with people AND understand where they’re coming from.

9. Doug Z

   Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM

   Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
   FNC Hannity 2,525 601 1,099
   CNN Piers Morgan Tonight 2,255 926 1,237
   MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show 1,214 377 622

   Rachel is on fire

10. Matthew

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM

    For the record, I don’t think America has a gun problem, I think America has a violence glorification problem, and I think trying to solve violence by getting rid of guns is backwards logic.

11. Doug Z

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM

    William the Conqueror outlawed all weapons to the common people. The nobleman where the Knights or policeman that control the population. It was much easier to control the population. If they had no weapons.

    Politicians love unarmed peasants

12. Letmethink

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM

    @Matthew-For the record, I don’t think America has a gun problem, I think America has a violence glorification problem, and I think trying to solve violence by getting rid of guns is backwards logic.

    —I agree totally with you Matthew–I said last night that we would never agree and I am now eating humble pie once again.

13. Doug Z

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM

    The Romans had The Colosseum with gladiators killing each other.with all the blood and guts. They did not have a breakdown like we are today.so I don’t believe that you can video games.

14. Doug Z

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM

    The White House rejected a House GOP proposal Tuesday to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making up to $1 million, saying it doesn’t go far enough

    Barack Hussein Obama cannot be pleased. This only goes to prove he doesn’t care about the American people just politics.

15. Doug Z

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM

    household incomes of more than $1 million.

    “A million and above,” Mrs. Pelosi wrote. “Who can argue with that?”

    Actually, Mrs. Pelosi can. Now that Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has embraced the proposal in the “fiscal cliff” negotiations with President Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, and her team are urging their party’s lawmakers to vote against it.

16. Hillbilly

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:36 PM

    No cable news in the top 25.

    A late edition of Sports Center was number 25 with 3523. Will a cable news channel make the list next week? Bill O 3396 (Friday) will probably be the highest for the week. With holiday specials (I’m guessing mostly repeats) he might have a chance.

    I say no. I reserve the right to revise that by Friday.

17. Doug Z

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM

    CBS News: ‘Fast and Furious’ Gun Found At Site Where Mexican Beauty Queen Killed

    WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – A gun found at the scene of a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers where a beauty queen died was part of the botched “Fast and Furious” operation, CBS News reports.

    Authorities had said that Maria Susana Flores Gamez was likely used as a human shield and that an automatic rifle had been found near her body after the Nov. 23 shootout.

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tells CBS News that the Justice Department did not notify Congress that a Fast and Furious firearm was found at the scene in Sinaloa.

    CBS News learned the Romanian AK-47-type WASR-10 rifle found near her body was purchased by Uriel Patino at an Arizona gun shop in 2010. Patino is a suspect who allegedly purchased 700 guns while under the ATF’s watch.

18. Hillbilly

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    FNC top cable news channel in prime time & total day viewers.

    CNN beat MSNBC in day time viewers.

    CNN only cable news channel to make the prime time 18-49 list. Congrats to CNN.

19. Hillbilly

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM

    Current TV trying to get noticed.

20. Hillbilly

    Posted December 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    CNN had 5 shows on the list.

    The list is for Sunday. I’ll go out on a limb & predict CNN wins the cable news weekend ratings.