Cable News Ratings for Monday, January 14, 2013

Categories: '

(110) Comments - Add Yours!

1. b

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM

   MY GOD….WHERE IS THE BOTTOM FOR MSNBC?

2. Laurence Glavin

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM

   Somebody should investigae this nearly unremitting dropoff of one million viewers between the flapping jowls guy and the cement-head between 8:00 pm and 9:00 pm weeknights on the Faux Right-Wing Propaganda Network. Is the flapping jowls guy’s audience made up of superannuated viewers who go to bed at 9:00?

3. Raz

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 1:57 PM

   Larry old love, did we have vitral for breakfast?

4. Laurence Glavin

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:06 PM

   No…Carnation Instant Snark(tm).

5. Mike

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM

   Yes, good point, Laurence. In spite of the dropoff of one million viewers from O’Reilly to Hannity, Hannity still has nearly a million more viewers (or +79%) than MSNBC’s highest rated show.

6. Kendall

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:17 PM

   @Laurence Glavin

   I always wondered about that, too. Approximately 1 million people tune out from O’Reilly to Hannity. Why? I don’t watch either person (I’m a network news kind of gent). Is there a big difference between O’Reilly, Hannity, and Van Sustren?

   FNC and MSNBC have been competitive in the demo pretty regularly after the election. The retiring of “Baby Boomers” should begin to inflate TV numbers (across the board) in coming years, I think. We’ll see.

7. Chriscee

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:22 PM

   8PM is when Primetime TV on the east coast starts. Don’t get your feathers ruffled….Hannity will REMAIN #1. MSNBC is all but toast.

8. Matthew

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:25 PM

   Is there a big difference between O’Reilly, Hannity, and Van Sustren?

   Yes. Van Susteren’s show is closer to a standard news show, and is more driven by correspondents/guests and current events.

   O’Reilly is a host-driven commentary show, that’s pretty plainly biased, but (attempts) to maintain a mostly reasonable and entertaining tone.

   Hannity is a “THE WORLD IS ENDING AND IT’S THE FAULT OF PEOPLE WHO AREN’T LIKE YOU” partisan type show, in the mold of most radio shock jock schtick.

9. Laurence Glavin

   Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:27 PM

   At one point today, Tuesday, there was an ad for EDX,free college-level courses people can take online from schools hat seem to have a hard time attracting students for in-person classes, like Harvard and MIT. Maybe if they offered “Logic and Rationality for Commenters to Websites”, a few visitors to tvbythenumbers could profit from it.

10. UpAndOver

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM

    Matthew, did you consult with Mark, Luke and John ?

    Are you A doctor, a fisherman, a tax collector, or just a teenager…

11. Matthew

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    @Hillbilly, from yesterday:

    I never said cooler than the baseline, cooler than a decade ago, cooler than the long term average. I said cooling from their revised predictions.

    Yes, you said a revised projection of 0.43 is ‘cooling,’ when it isn’t. It’s warming. A downward revision isn’t a temperature drop, how can a temperature that hasn’t occurred cool? The revised projection is that 2013 will be around the temp of 2012, 2014 will be a record warm year (warmer than 2010 or 1998), 2015 will break 2014′s record, and 2016 will break 2015′s record, then 2017 will be cooler again.

    The overall projected trend is one of warming, relative to 2000 – 2010, 1971 – 2000, 1950 – 2010, whatever you set your baseline to. That’s not cooling.

12. Kendall

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    @Matthew

    Thanks! That explains a lot.

    Perhaps it’s the leans-right moderates who watch O’Reilly but not Hannity. The same thing is happening on MSNBC (to a lesser degree): leans-left moderates tune in for Maddow but not so much for Shultz.

    I think you’re going to see more and more people identifying as moderate. And, you might even see a “Moderate Party” in the future made up of fiscally and socially moderate Americans (like me). Fingers crossed.

13. cathy

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    Because of what we are all going to hear from Obama tomorrow I’m posting these for debate.

    Why don’t liberals understand that guns are designed for protection, hunting and sport. They are not designed to kill. By banning guns you are limiting the ways a parent can protect their children.

    Obama and Biden are using the statement. “If we can do something to save one child’s life then we should do it.” But will a ban on guns any type of gun save the life of one child while costing the lives of others?

    Guns are the great equalizer. God created mankind but smith and wesson made all men equal. We have all heard that.
    A gun enabled a mother of twins to protect her children from an attacker. As was done in Georgia just a week ago. Would she and her children be alive today, if she didn’t have the gun? She hid herself and her children and the man come after them. I think it’s safe to say he meant them harm.

    In 2010, a twelve year old girl saved her life and the lives of her two sisters and a friend by showing through the window that she had a gun to the convicted child molester kicking down the door to her home. The man left but was found two weeks later. He was connected to the abduction and death of a 10 year old girl, that he abducted one day after he attempted to abduct the 12 year old, her sisters and friend.

    I’m sure I can go back and find many other stories. There has always been more crime per person in the city then in the country (farm areas). In the 1930′s and again in 1950′s prisoners were asked why they choose their victims. Prisoners pointed out that farm houses are normally skipped because all farmers are armed and very good shots. The only thing that scares criminals off more then a gun owner is a home with multiple large dogs.

    Do the police carry guns to kill or do their carry them for protection? They carry them for their protection and to protect the citizens they serve.
    Guns are designed to help people protect themselves and their families.
    Cars are designed to get you from place A to place B.
    Both guns and cars can and do kill. They can be compared.
    What you liberals keep forgetting is the worst school killing happened in Bath, Michigan when the school was bombed. Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children under 6 with the OK city bombing plus 160 adults. There is not way to make our world 100% safe.

14. Snap Tie

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    Chicago Unions will be passing out Pitchforks and Billy Clubs.. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20594387/thousands-of-chicago-workers-may-lose-health-coverage

15. Kendall

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    @Cathy

    Are you making an argument for why our society should keep all guns or certain kinds? Are you alleging that the Obama Administration wants to get rid of rifles and handguns? What is your opinion with respect to other countries that don’t make firearms readily available and do not have as high a crime rate as us (Canada, India, China, almost all of Europe, Japan, Australia,etc)?

    I agree that getting rid of guns won’t fix our problem with crime. And, I believe that people should be able to own hand-guns and hunting rifles.

    I don’t see the need for military-style “assualt” rifles with 10+ round magazines, but would not advocate banning them. I would agree with universal background checks and registration. I believe that mentally unbalanced people (officially diagnosed) should not be allow to acquire guns. And, I agree that the gun-show loop hole should be closed.

    America’s problems are mostly related to economics. Because of the structure of our society, not everyone can succeed. Those that do must protect themselves from those that don’t (sometimes with force). Free-market capitalist will argue that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. But, even if that’s true (and I don’t know that it is) there will inevitably be people who don’t…even if they try as hard as they can. So, what happens to them. Many struggle to make ends-meet working 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs or turn to a life of crime. Many of them have children who grow up in that kind of environment and adopt that life-style (not knowing any better).

    I don’t know what the solution is. Build more prisons? That will cost money…which means higher taxes. Arm everyone so that we end up with a “Hatfields vs McCoys” situation?

    I want to get rid of illegal guns…gun running. That’s were we should start.

16. bubs

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:18 PM

    Is there any place to get all the ratings without all the political commentary? I could care less about your political views. I just want the ratings.

17. Bill Gorman

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    “Is there any place to get all the ratings without all the political commentary? I could care less about your political views. I just want the ratings.”

    Look at the ratings.

    Stop at this line “Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2012 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.” (which reminds me we need to update that year!).

    Problem solved.

18. RedBarSoup

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    Cathy is just a wing nut conspiracy theorist like Hannity that thinks Obama wants to get rid of ALL guns. I only read half the article of what Obama wants to do to make gun laws stricter and guess what….THAT’S ALL they did….which was make gun laws stricter like having a more extensive background check of the said person that’s trying to buy the gun. But as Cathy would want you to believe, “OBAMA TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!”

19. Diamond Dave

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:34 PM

    Matthew is pretty accurate in his assessment of the FNC prime time line-up. The audiences for O’Reilly and Hannity are very different. And Greta, because her show is more news based, tends to be a bit dry.

    O’Reilly is a registered Independant, but because of his Christian values comes off as “right-winged” a lot of times. Any regular viewer of his show would know that he does attempt to give a fair and objective assessment of the issues, but it is his show, and he can say however he feels. Many times, he also likes to play Devil’s advocate, in order to get truthful and provocative responses from his guests.

    I do watch the prime time shows on MSNBC from time to time as well, and they feel more in the vein of a liberal Hannity. Am I wrong in thinking that? I’m sure FNC haters won’t agree, but if anyone is willing to give an objective response I’d like to know.

20. richard

    Posted January 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM

    I wonder when MSNBC is going to have a talk with Chris Mathews about achieving better ratings. With his experience he should be doing much better