'

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.

 
  • DB

    Sam, not the warmest year in China, Alaska or Russia. Not the warmest year in USA either according to the real data released by NASA but you’ll believe the data that backs up your view. BTW, Canada was colder than usual too. So at best some of the earth warmed but more of it cooled. Just the way the climate works. Do you libs have to take a gullible test before being allowed to drink the kool-aid??

  • Bobbyv

    I seem to remember some D’s on Fox on election night

  • usa8888

    Today’s ratings figures show a HUGE spike in elderly viewers for Fox’s personalities.

  • Matthew

    I just wish you were more open minded to dissent.

    This, above all, is what I think you, and many others here, do not understand about me. I AM open minded, and almost all of the conclusions I’ve come to on issues are made on a critical, case-by-case bases. This is not fashionable to say, but I have very few deeply-held beliefs, and my opinions are not based on ideology. This is why I was in disagreement with most of the ‘liberal’ posters here in regards to gun control.

    Try to understand my conclusions on AGW from my perspective: In the area of climate science, I am a layman. Given that, when presented with a theory such as AGW, I have no choice but to defer to the conclusions and data of others. On one end, there are thousands of global scientists, gathering temperature data through a variety of means, and all of those scientists are coming to the same conclusions. On another end, are skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer, who are credentialed, and believe temperatures are warming, but have alternative theories as to why they are warming.

    Then, finally, there’s a very large group of mostly uncredentialed people whose entire argument is based not on data, or alternative theories, but mere skepticism for the sake of skepticism. The skeptics are coming to me, and saying “You shouldn’t trust them, the science is shoddy, they have an ideological agenda, their funders have an ideological agenda. Trust me, instead!” My question is: why? The skeptics have an ideological agenda, their funders have an ideological agenda, their data is nonexistent, and their argument is even MORE shoddy.

    It’s not about deciding that AGW is correct because I WANT it to be correct, it’s just that it’s the most plausible theory at this point in time. If 2010 – 2019 is cooler than 2000 – 2009, I would have to change my mind. I’m not saying it’s impossible that AGW theory is wrong, I’m saying that I have no reason to distrust it, relative to the alternatives. If I’m to think there’s something fishy about climate science, there is, IMHO, something even fishier about AGW denialism.

    From my perspective, you’re just waving your arms and screaming “don’t believe their propaganda, believe my propaganda instead!” Sorry, no sale.

  • usa8888

    Sorry DB couldn’t grasp the McDonald’s analogy. Would suggest enrolling in college…..

  • usa8888

    Did you see today in the latest national poll that the unfavorability rating for the NRA exceeded its favorable rating for the first time. Also, most people favor a BAN on all assault weapons and large magazines as well as very strict gun checks and federal penalties for trafficking in mass murder weapons. The stone La Pierre and his associates have no respect or concern for the murdered children and people in society as long as they can continue to put money in their pockets……………

  • usa8888

    The NRA is pushing the absurd idea of arming teachers in schools. Can you imagine a teacher with a regular pistol going up against a lunatic with an assault rifle and pistol, large magazines, and tumbling bullets, ADN full body armor?? The teacher wouldn’t last 2 seconds!!!! The obvious answer is to get the assault type weapons off the table so it’s much more difficult for lunatics to get them…..Other things need to be done, too, but that is the first thing to do. There is NO 2nd Amendment need whatever to carry assault weapons–they would be useless against the US government….and they are not needed in hunting…..

  • Bobbyv

    US,

    I am not a big gun person but let me play Devil’s advocate. Let’s say that assault weapons are banned and there are no more assault weapon murders. Six months from now someone with a pistol kills similar to CT. Don’t you think the next step would be to ban pistols? It makes logical sense.

  • RedBarSoup

    Stay classy DB. Show your true colors!

  • RedBarSoup

    I wonder if DB can be any more of an a*shole, let’s wait and see!

  • Sam

    @ DB,

    ” Do you libs have to take a gullible test before being allowed to drink the kool-aid??”

    A rightie denying science ? In other news the sky is blue !

  • RedBarSoup

    Yo dude! Science isn’t fact! My OPINION is! In other news, I’m a Christian! AHAHAHAHA

  • Jeff

    RedBarSoup
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 6:16 PM
    I wonder if DB can be any more of an a*shole, let’s wait and see!

    Sam
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 6:22 PM
    @ DB,

    ” Do you libs have to take a gullible test before being allowed to drink the kool-aid??”

    A rightie denying science ? In other news the sky is blue !

    =============

    Well said, DB is still and idiot!!
    Kind of like when you were SO SURE President Obama was going to loose re-election. With all your games and bets, you were still SO SURE. Again, you are still an idiot!

  • cathy

    Matthew, You are very closed minded and you can’t read. You are so wrong that they didn’t start with a theory. The started with a theory. And then collected data. They only looked at 30 years of data.
    We have information from hundreds of years of history that tell us of large changes in temps for ten to twenty years. Scientist can look at the layers of ground and see millions of years of climate data. They can see that the earth goes through climate changes in cycles. Through the soil data and history, many scientist believe that the earth has a 80 year climate cycle. But you go ahead and believe the data that was only collected in the last 30 years.

    I never said anything about teaching Intelligent Design. I talked about how the government has fired people for even talking about it. I was using it to show how the government controls science today. But your closed mind wouldn’t let you see that. You jump right to it being a belief not science. It’s scientific theory. Supported by the fact that life can not be created. The science of DNA has proven it. I.D. is how life started on earth and evolution is well it’s different things. We could use DNA to prove or disprove evolution. But even asking for research money has gotten people fired. From the time Darwin started talking about evolution the main question has been how did the single cell life start.

    What I found funny about evolution is we only talk about it in passing. We don’t get into the heart of the theory. Which is that a species can only evolve through it’s strongest members. If we truly believe in the theory of evolution we are causing our own demises by feeding our poor and uneducated and letting them have children.

  • cathy

    @Sam, 2012 was the warmest year on the record…. The record of what? The earth has been around for a long time. It was a lot hotter when the dinos roamed. I believe the earth has heating and cooling cycles.

  • cathy

    Found this when checking email.

    “Psychologist Jean Twenge, the lead author of the analysis, is also the author of a study showing that the tendency toward narcissism in students is up 30 percent in the last thirty-odd years.
    This data is not unexpected. I have been writing a great deal over the past few years about the toxic psychological impact of media and technology on children, adolescents and young adults, particularly as it regards turning them into faux celebrities—the equivalent of lead actors in their own fictionalized life stories.”

  • Stan T

    Matthew
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM
    Responding to Letmethink from the previous thread:

    Matthew they show a decade trend that shows little to no heating and some cooling. You may spin it however you please.

    No, ‘they’ don’t. What you are saying is not a matter of opinion: you are wrong. You are factually incorrect. Please post the RSS or UAH data that shows 2000 – 2009 was cooler than 1990 – 1999.

    If you’re dishonest you can use an extraordinarily hot El Nino year (1998) as your baseline, to claim that there is no warming; this, of course, isn’t factually accurate, but on a graph it certainly would look compelling to a layman. The problem is that long-term trends don’t agree; Of the top 10 warmest years globally, 9 were in the 2000s, one in the 1990s. If we’re in a cooling trend, why were the 2000s so warm?

    As an aggregate of data, the positive temperature anomaly (aka warming) for 2000 – 2009 was 41% greater than the anomaly for 1990 – 2009. How, then, do you claim cooling?
    **************************************
    the Met Office, there has been a cooling trend for the last 15-16 years, which Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has admitted to, though he declared that a 15 year trend is not a trend, even though global warming is based on the 15 year trend that occured before it.

    Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2HXsE55P4

    Satelite picture also prove that antartical has more ice now, than ever in recorded history…yet the global warmingmongers claim that’s proof of global warming…lol

  • Stan T

    Dave
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 2:25 PM
    Good old FOX.Every right wing-nut in the country watches them.
    The hard fact is they have lost 1000000 viewers a week.The nut jobs are getting to be fewer and fewer as proven by Presidents Obama’s re-election.

    ******************************************
    you must be smoking what the MSNBC hosts are smoking…if Fox News lost a million viewers a week, they would have had zero viewers weeks ago…rofl

  • Matthew

    You are so wrong that they didn’t start with a theory. The started with a theory. And then collected data. They only looked at 30 years of data.

    This is ludicrous, and wrong. Again, do your homework, and read the full history of both climate science, and climate change. What you are suggesting is contrary to the way a scientific theory works – How can you propose that human activity is warming the Earth, if you don’t already have data that indicates a warming trend? The conclusion that human activity was causing a warming anomaly is the conclusion that ultimately fit the data they had gathered – temperatures were warming, and human emission of greenhouse gases had been growing exponentially, first because of agriculture, and eventually because of industry.

    We have information from hundreds of years of history that tell us of large changes in temps for ten to twenty years. Scientist can look at the layers of ground and see millions of years of climate data. They can see that the earth goes through climate changes in cycles. Through the soil data and history, many scientist believe that the earth has a 80 year climate cycle. But you go ahead and believe the data that was only collected in the last 30 years.

    And? You are having an argument against nothing, against an assertion I never made. I never said that data older than 30 years doesn’t exist, and I can assure you that every climate scientist on Earth is aware of climate cycles. This is a consequence of us, two amateurs, arguing a subject that climate scientists spend decades devoting their lives to; you are coming to the incorrect conclusion that, somehow, natural forces are not taken into account in AGW models, as well as the conclusions scientists come to.

    The current consensus is that, taking into account all other factors, including sun spots, cosmic rays, natural cycles, El Nino, La Nina, that global temperatures are warming ABOVE levels that would be expected for all of those factors, and that the most likely cause is a combination of: deforestation, agriculture, and industrialization.

    In other words, the destruction of greenhouse gas sinks, combined with an increase of methane and CO2 emissions is heightening the Greenhouse Effect, with subsequent consequences for global temperature and climates. Anthropogenic Global Warming. It does not mean “warming cycles only happen because of humans,” it means warming is above baseline projections, and human activity is producing the anomaly. Amongst the scientific community, this belief is not controversial, it is not a 50-50 split, it’s not contentious, it’s the near universal consensus.

    All the rest, be it how bad the warming is, what the consequences will be for humans, what, if anything we should do, what the government’s role is, all of that is up for debate; in many ways, those factors are poisoning the argument, and causing people to throw common sense out the window and buy into conspiracy theory nonsense.

    I talked about how the government has fired people for even talking about it. I was using it to show how the government controls science today. But your closed mind wouldn’t let you see that.

    Fired…whom? Fired people working in what capacity? If a university decides to teach Intelligent Design, what is the government’s authority to intervene?

  • Stan T

    RedBarSoup
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 2:43 PM
    I love that you debate people in here Mathew, but I’ve seem to not understand the point anymore. I tried it at first but they just always come up with an excuse or false information, that I can prove is false in under 2 minutes, to try to prove their point and once you prove them wrong, they MAGICALLY disappear to just come back with another copy and paste with more false information.

    *************************************

    it’s you guys who cut and paste flase information…just becauae MSNBC or the huffington post say something, that doesn’t make it true…let’s not forget that MR ED says there is no gun control in Chicago…you know, the town with one of the strictest gun laws in the country…lol

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures