'

Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Categories: '

Written By

January 9th, 2013

 

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Tuesday, January 8, 2013

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC       1,124            218            427
CNN         348             91            137
MSNBC         500            150            241
CNBC         155             46             75
FBN           56             16             29
HLN         195             70            112
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC       1,873            321            590
CNN         625            189            247
MSNBC         901            240            454
CNBC         240             91            137
FBN           47               8             20
HLN         305            116            176
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends       1,053            229            462
CNN Early Start/Starting Point         200             85             96
MSNBC Morning Joe         445            155            258
CNBC Squawk Box           93             24             47
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade         246            103            154
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE       1,918            361            682
CNN Situation Room         549             90            170
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS         942            247            426
CNBC FAST MONEY         166             58             95
HLN EVENING EXPRESS         106             45             75
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER       2,049            312            706
CNN Situation Room         508            108            172
MSNBC POLITICS NATION         703            191            309
CNBC Mad Money         117             50             67
HLN EVENING EXPRESS         128             55             80
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH       1,776            348            630
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT         452            152            184
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS         815            215            352
CNBC Kudlow Report           85             28             30
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL         214            130            143
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR       2,523            393            710
CNN Anderson Cooper 360         659            209            263
MSNBC Ed Show         854            193            381
CNBC SUPERMARKETS INC         173             96             91
HLN Nancy Grace         305            131            194
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity       1,861            342            618
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight         797            225            300
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show         983            304            561
CNBC 60 Minutes ON CNBC         246             66            127
HLN Dr. Drew ON CALL         297            105            168
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA       1,231            229            438
CNN Anderson Cooper 360         418            133            177
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL         866            222            417
CNBC AMERICAN GREED         300            109            191
HLN Nancy Grace         313            111            165
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR       1,024            245            462
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT         245             85             89
MSNBC Ed Show         462            144            214
CNBC Mad Money         112             66             76
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT         219             97            112

-
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 viewingPrime Time = 8-11pmLIVE+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 HHsCNBC: 97.497 million HHsFNC: 97.981 million HHsMSNBC: 95.526 million HHsFox Business: 68.407 million HHsNielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • Mark2

    ^MSNBC had the highest rating increases of any Cable News network.

  • Andies

    Does it really mattter if Fox wins the ratings anymore? Their whole agenda was to mk sure Obama did not ge another term.. they failed.. So, fox winning the cable ratings means noting to us liberals.. We are actually outside enjoying life not sitting by a tv all day.

    So please spare the “Fox Wns Again” comments… it’s comical at this point… Because in reality THEY LOST

  • Bsotgnw

    Andies: You confuse FOX NEWS with FOX, Hanity is not News. Bret is news Shep is news the rest is entertainment

  • RedBarSoup

    You confuse FOX NEWS with FOX, Hanity is not News.

    …..they are on fox news…the station with the slogan “fair and balanced”. You have multiple people in here that think they are, including the non news shows….so your excuse is null and void.

  • MARTY

    the king of cable news has returned! go fnc!

  • betty

    Awwwww…all the Excuses, Alibis….Crocodile Tears….very Amusing! LOL !

  • betty

    No…you’re not stuck inside watching T.V., nooooo,Not Much. LOL LOL LOL.

  • cathy

    Matthew, Some of the most intelligent people were called knuckleheads by people much more important then you. I do not believe a group of scientist brought and paid for by a group of politicians who will benefit from their minor increase finding.

    You can look through history and see how politics impacts science. Once it is political it becomes more junk then science. Ask yourself these questions, are we collecting data and then letting the data tell us the truth? Or are we starting with a theory and trying to prove it? If we start with a theory as we have with Global warming the government needs to pay for two studies. A groups who’s job it is to prove the theory and a groups who’s job it is to disprove the theory. You need both to find the truth.
    Scientist have also used opposite theories to fully prove a theory. Why did the government only employee a group to prove the theory?

    If global warming has been proven. Then why does the NASA site say they are still looking into it.

    How can global warming be a fact if the area I’m living in hasn’t seen a change in the average temp in over 50 years.

    Why in 2003 did we start hearing that Global Warming was causing Global cooling?

    We know that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. And at one time it’s highly likely the poles used to be in a tropical area. Many scientist believe any climate change is caused by the earth’s natural cycles. Here is one: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html.

    If you don’t believe science is impacted by politics take a look at intelligent design. Look at the number of scientist that have lost their jobs once they agreed with the theory. People hear the words Intelligent Design and scream creationism, which is not true. Scientist have learned through DNA research that there is no way that life just started. (The more we learn the more we learn we don’t know.) Even Richard Dawkins, Mr. Atheism, admits that recent science proves that even single cell life can’t start on its own. Dawkins states, “Life come to earth on a meteor.”
    My point is the government has a tight hold on scientists. And you can’t believe their findings at face value.

  • HRJ

    Can’t we all just get along?

    I wonder; what kind of person is a Hannity fan?

  • cathy

    When did Fox news say their goal was to make Obama a one term president?

  • DB

    I really get a kick out of the libs on here. For the past month they have been saying how MSNBC was kicking Fox’s rear end in the demo and the end of Fox is near but now that things are back to normal they are saying ratings don’t matter.

    Rat, I am really upset with you, I wanted to ask 8888 who played football last nite!!! :-) Where is Mr. “my opinion is fact anyway”? Is their nite kindergarten now??? BTW Rat, 8888′s Mcdonald’s post was so stupid it wouldn’t even register on the stupid meter.

    Matthew, You can believe all the propaganda and false facts and substandard models you wish. You have no real life experience working on the “Climate Change” baloney. I have and I know for a fact that scientists have no real clue what the climate is doing– we humans are not smart enough yet to understand all the intricacies of the climate. Sorry but you have been hooked on this one pretty deep.

  • 1966

    @hrj
    a nice person. lol

  • Matthew

    Ask yourself these questions, are we collecting data and then letting the data tell us the truth? Or are we starting with a theory and trying to prove it? If we start with a theory as we have with Global warming the government needs to pay for two studies. A groups who’s job it is to prove the theory and a groups who’s job it is to disprove the theory. You need both to find the truth.

    First of all, your final suggestion is ludicrous – You don’t create separate groups with divergent end goals, studying the exact same phenomenon. BOTH groups would be trying to either prove or disprove the theory. In that regard, we don’t have two groups trying to prove or disprove the theory, we have tens of thousands of scientists.

    Second, no, we are not ‘starting with a theory and trying to prove it.’ We’re starting with DATA, and coming to the conclusions at this point in time that best fits the data we have. If you’re going to make statements like that, I would urge you to read the history of climate science, as well as climate change, which far predates public and government interest.

    Finally, it must be stated that you seem to think that our climate data comes from a very limited number of sources, which are funded by an even smaller pool of interests – this isn’t the case at all. The community studying AGW is MASSIVE. For systemic fraud to not only be taking place, but maintaining a wall of secrecy, is simply untenable, unmanageable, unreasonable. Are you suggesting that a private scientist in Brazil, whose findings confirm the AGW consensus, is in on the same conspiracy as a publicly funded researcher in Britain, or Hong Kong, or Germany?

    If you don’t believe science is impacted by politics take a look at intelligent design. Look at the number of scientist that have lost their jobs once they agreed with the theory.

    Because Intelligent Design is not science, it’s philosophy. And the problem arises when some want to teach it as such, or worse, as an alternative to evolution, which is not a valid purpose. Evolution is a factually supported explanation for speciation and adaptation; NOT for creation. Evolution does not purport to explain the emergence of single-celled organisms, only how those single-celled organisms became more complex.

    As for teaching I.D. as something complementary with/existing alongside evolution, this is problematic in that I.D. is not based on any particular data, but on incredulity. In other words “How could this happen without God?” Again, that’s fine as a philosophical argument (and I say this as someone who is not atheist), but it has no place being taught as a science, because it is presently outside the scope of science to test the existence of God.

  • Matthew

    Matthew, You can believe all the propaganda and false facts and substandard models you wish. You have no real life experience working on the “Climate Change” baloney. I have and I know for a fact that scientists have no real clue what the climate is doing– we humans are not smart enough yet to understand all the intricacies of the climate. Sorry but you have been hooked on this one pretty deep.

    Yack yack yack. You told me and Boris last year that you knew for a fact that the EPA had falsified models, and when we called upon you to show us some of these ‘EPA models,’ you conveniently disappeared. I think you’re a complete fraud (in regards to your purported real life work), and if you think your ramble is going to sway me, you’re out of your mind.

  • DB

    Redbardope says he can debunk facts from people who disagree with him. It took him days to debunk the study he quoted that was determined to be a hoax. You wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you in the face, especially if it didn’t agree with your twisted world view. You are not in the same league with Matthew when it comes to discussing a topic. I disagree almost totally with Matthew on everything he says but he does research and backs up his arguments with understandable discussion. He rarely calls people names and I don’t think anyone on here would call him stupid. He is an intelligent young man that I think will change some of his views when he gets out in the real world, but whether he does or not he is thoughtful. You on the other hand are just not smart and prove it every post. BTW Redbar, there is a study out that was on the internet, so it must be true, that every poster that uses Redbarsoup is a moron. You can’t prove that wrong because the study was based on your posts.

  • 1nancy2

    Andies
    Well, well, welcome here, Andies, from one liberal to the other. Fox was a joke on election night. I had to suffer at a party with Fox being the station reporting the results all p.m. Most of the people there were Repubs. and oh, how they bashed their chests, clenched their teeth and howled when O. won OH. The funny part was Karl Rove not believing the Fair and Balanced channel, reporting that O. was in for another 4 years. He even had Meghan sashay down the hallway to check with the men working the computers that night: “Yes, Meghan, the twelve of us sitting here decree that O. is the winner in OH.” I mean, really, Andies. Please be sure to keep posting here, OK?

    Does it really mattter if Fox wins the ratings anymore? Their whole agenda was to mk sure Obama did not ge another term.. they failed.. So, fox winning the cable ratings means noting to us liberals.. We are actually outside enjoying life not sitting by a tv all day.

    So please spare the “Fox Wns Again” comments… it’s comical at this point… Because in reality THEY LOST

  • Matthew

    “He rarely calls people names and I don’t think anyone on here would call him stupid.”
    __________

    Boy are you gonna be disappointed when you read my response to you!

  • DB

    Matthew, never said EPA falsified models. I said the models were not good enough to predict what the temperature is doing. This is a typical trick of the progressive, misstate the dissenters position and then accuse them of something not true. You are a great example of our current university system. The teach you what to think not how to think. I didn’t disappear, I just realized there is nothing that changes the mind of an ideologue. You continue to confirm my fears that while you are intelligent your mind is closing as it is filled with left wing propaganda. Hope I’m wrong but you are doing nothing to dispel the notion.

  • DB

    You didn’t call me a name but your overall learning is being stifled by your learning environment. Still don’t think you are stupid, quite the opposite. I just wish you were more open minded to dissent. When someone tells you being run over by a car is not a good thing and they know that because they have been run over by a car, I hope you believe them even a scientist does a study that says being run over by a car is not really that bad.

  • Sam

    @ Matthew,

    “Is O’Reilly on vacation?”

    His logic always is…

    - It seems like Piers is benefiting from that tool Alex Jones meltdown on his program.

    - 2012 was the warmest year on the record, still denying climate change righties ?

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures