'

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, January 17, 2013

Categories: '

Written By

January 18th, 2013

 

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, January 17, 2013

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC        1,187        234         481
CNN           394        123         169
MSNBC           482        131         223
CNBC           169         46           85
FBN             61         22           35
HLN           186         82         116
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC        1,904        330         696
CNN           610        172         247
MSNBC           913        217         423
CNBC           242        103         164
FBN             81         29           49
HLN           269        109         169
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends        1,147        269         541
CNN Early Start/Starting Point           199         97         117
MSNBC Morning Joe           455        196         267
CNBC Squawk Box           119         44           75
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade           190        113         147
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE        2,196        412         840
CNN Situation Room           580        159         241
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           910        199         333
CNBC FAST MONEY           189         31           74
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           208         49         108
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER        2,139        334         741
CNN Situation Room           536        171         214
MSNBC POLITICS NATION           759        185         367
CNBC Mad Money           205         55           80
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           190         62           96
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH        1,631        322         641
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           616        188         257
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           780        171         379
CNBC Kudlow Report           177         22           63
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL           266        110         163
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        2,807        441         965
CNN Anderson Cooper 360           563        183         254
MSNBC Ed Show           935        169         410
CNBC MARIJUANA INC           276        100         182
HLN Nancy Grace           446        164         266
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity        1,671        343         656
CNN Piers Morgan Tonight           655        137         214
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show           908        244         468
CNBC SHADOW BILLIONAIRE           256        124         159
HLN What Would You Do           185         84         121
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA 1,208 195 455
CNN Anderson Cooper 360 611 196 274
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL 895 238 391
CNBC AMERICAN GREED 195 84 152
HLN What Would You Do 177 78 120
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        1,100        291         511
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           396        153         185
MSNBC Ed Show           428         95         197
CNBC Mad Money             98         39           58
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT           161         68         109

-
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

60

 
  • MARTY

    mr. usa8888 yes he is a good guy but he also has the core beliefs of the conservative district he serves. always has!

  • Michael Page

    Unfreaking believable
    After reading some of the post on this site over the pas few weeks
    ,all I can say ” unfreaklng believable !”
    What is the average age and IQ on here ? By the looks of I’d say “12 on both accounts.”
    USSR8888 you need to get a life. . Setting in front of a computer all day saying the same

  • Mark

    @cathy
    ————————–
    @Mark, at a presidential level so you have nothing to lose, but in a state like Ohio you basically make your state irrelevant by doing this(and all the money that flows into the state every 4 years)

    Are you saying that candidates buy votes by giving money to states through the federal government?
    ————————–
    No, I am saying when a Presidential campaign comes to a state 50 times in a matter of 3 or 4 months it’s a boon to the states economy with all the press following them pumping money into all the markets they visit(hotels, restaurants, etc). Now if somebody who is in a state that greatly benefits off of that(ie Ohio) why the hell would they want to stop that cash cow for their state? As I said make Ohio a votes by district state, all of a sudden other then 1 or 2 districts you stop alot of campaign stops and money being thrown into the states economy.

  • Michael Page

    Studid sh*t

  • Michael Page

    Studid= stupid

  • Chriscee

    @ usa8888

    YOU better read the poll again…..you clearly cannot read.

  • Mark

    As for all the military/defense supports do you realize the US spends more on it’s military then the next 15 countries combined? At what point will you be happy with the US outspending. As for what they spend it on, it’s the military contractors who is screwing over the US public. It should be pointed out along with the Oil & Drug lobbyists and APIAC, the Military lobbyists in my minds are a cancer on our government

  • Mark

    @cathy

    —————————
    The fact that liberals are scared of something that gives every vote more power should tell us all, they don’t care about every vote.
    —————————
    How does it give voters more power? The current system only gives like 10 states(and it’s probably less then that) power. Voting by district even reduces that to giving a small amount of districts power(let’s face it most districts are going to vote one way or another without much chance of them turning). It a basic case that the “power” gets transferred from a handful of states to a bunch of districts and I argue that their will be less people in those districts then all the swing states combined. A popular vote wins the election means every vote is equal no matter what state or city you live in, how is that a bad thing?

    I don’t think it looks good if one party gets millions of more votes but loses an election because of the way districts are drawn up rigs the election in favor of the party that got less.

  • usa8888

    Hey Michael–are they coming for your guns, too? have you got your basement full of food????

  • usa8888

    Hey Chris–do you need an assault type weapon to hunt deer? And do you need a magazine with 100 bullets? come back to me???

  • usa8888

    Cahty –are you supporting voter suppression by the right wing GOP??? Come back to us….

  • cathy

    @Mark, When the press goes fishing they always catch you. You don’t understand how redistricting is done. Do you? You can only redistrict every 10 years. It’s done the year about the census. You have to have a change in population to redistrict. If a districts population doesn’t have a big enough change you can’t change it. Every district has to be around the same population and every district gets a house seat. (one elect college vote.) At best gerrymandering gives the state party in power at the time one seat. (Two in large states look Cal, Texas) People made a big deal out of very little when it comes to gerrymandering. It’s done by both parties and because states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pen go back and forth between the two parties its like they keep taking that one seat back. Example: I live in a republican city, so republican that no one runs on the democratic ticket for city office. In 2001 the democrats moved us and put us in with Detroit 30 miles away from us. This gave them the addition seat Because they moved a democratic city into our old district. In 2011 the republican were in control and they were able to put us back in our 2000 district and regained the sit that the democrats had stolen in 2001. So, the parties are stealing the same seat back and forth.

    If every state let districts cast their vote for the winner in their district you would see that the elect college vote would represent the popular vote.

    If you look at district voting over time you will see that districts do change from Dem to Rep a whole lot. While most states stay the same.

  • Mt Rick

    Marty

    I will correct you. A Constitutional Amendment does not have to pass either The House or the Senate, It is within the powers of the States to call a convention of 2/3 of the States, propose an amendment and submit it to the States for passage to 3/4 of the States or if it is passed by 3/4 of the State representatives at the convention the Constitution is amended.

    If you don’t believe me read Article V of the Constitution. I find that most people are unaware of what the Constitution says.

  • Mt Rick

    Our govrnment has been in violation of the Constitution for years. They do not need to follow the rules if they are entrusted in enforcing the rules as well as interpeting the rules. They will interpet the Constitution as they want it to be interpreted not as it was intended.

  • Mark

    @Cathy

    I understand how redistricting works, I just think it’s ridiculous basing the election of the president on the basis of trying to rig the game to your advantage. As I said I am a popular vote should win it all kind of guy. I am no fan of the electoral college, but I believe that it is better then going on the basis of gerrymandering districts because it’s much harder to rig the system.

    In terms of gerrymandering I personally believe we should have a non partisan group decide how to create districts logically. I fully understand both sides are guilty of making ridiculous districts that make absolutely no sense other then you are trying to shove as many voters of the other party as you can into one district, so there is less of them to vote in other districts.

    It should be pointed out that all the states that are thinking about splitting votes have Republican Governors and went Democrat in the General election. Do you honestly believe it’s fair that using Pennsylvania for instance although Obama won the state by 5%+, if they went by district and gave the extra 2 points to the winner of the popular vote that Romney would have won the state 13-7?

  • usa8888

    Cathy wants to rig the vote–it’s that simple….and so do the rignt wingers…

  • Dreamer

    Hate to log in but,
    From what I gather, people do not know the meaning of a republic.
    Which we are supposed to be.
    I elect to keep the electoral college.
    The mob does not rule.

  • Dreamer

    Ps. All media is dead. Underground…

  • Dreamer

    Pps. Out of all of the shows on all of these three or so stations, I only actually only watch Shep Smith. haaha

  • steve burton

    Laurence, Maddow’s reporting on these Electoral College reform plans misses a major point. Gerrymandered districts are a fact for life for both parties. The House majority has belonged to the Democrats for the greater part of 60 years. They are currently in the minority. Why would the GOP be foolhardy enough to try to produce a system that could put them in exactly the place that RM fears the Dems would end up in a few short years?

    Another point is that these measures will be fought tooth and nail in each state as one or the other party sees power slipping away. The GOP might love the idea of California, an overwhlemingly Democrat state, alloting their electoral votes in such a way, but would certainly be dismayed by such an arrangment in Texas, the only reliably Republican large state left. Just as Dems would scream about CA, IL, and NY dividing their votes in this fashion. Moreover, the American people would likely not accept such an arrangment.

    It is one thing to have the kind of debacle that unfolded in 2000 in Florida. The vote difference was below 1 million and the outcome followed well-established laws and constitutional principles. The system Maddow is discussing could end up electing someone on a technicality who lost by potentially millions of votes, but won the right House districts. My belief is that such a system would not stand, because any candidate so elected would be seen as illegitimate.

    Though Ms. Maddow will never “investigate” it, members of the loony left have their own ideas about turning presidential ballots into slate voting, where a voter gets to make 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. chocies and all the votes are tallied to arrive at who goes to the next round of voting. Seriously? It’s hard enough to get people to vote once. Forcing them to vote several times will increase the influence of hardcore partisans. Many liberals also support a national popular vote. That might be a way to break the duopoly the major parties now enjoy, but could lead to even more fractured outcomes, as voters could then select candidates who appeal to them based on regional, ethnic, racial, religious or other bases. The national winner, assuming anyone could gain a majority, though more likely a plurality, might well have swaths of the country that soundly rejected him or her. Coalition governance anyone? Sounds like something we should leave to those countries crazy enough to operate under parliamentary government.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures