Cable News Ratings for Thursday, February 14, 2013

Categories: '

(504) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Mark

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM

   Verity was a 70-year-old retired steel executive when he was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987 to run the Commerce department. His nomination wasn’t particularly controversial, but it did stir the ire of the far right. (Hard as it is to believe now, there were plenty of conservative leaders who doubted Reagan’s commitment to the cause during his presidency.) At issue was Verity’s enthusiasm for increased trade between the United States and the Soviet Union, a no-no for any Cold War-era hawk. Verity had previously spoken out against the Reagan administration’s policy of linking the emigration of Soviet Jews to trade goals.

   This prompted Jesse Helms, who was a regular thorn in Reagan’s side in the ‘80s, to mount a filibuster. But it only succeeded in slowing down the nomination for a few days; when it was filed, the cloture motion passed on an 85-8 vote. The final tally for Verity’s October ’87 confirmation: 84-11.

2. Mark

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:42 PM

   So technically filibustering has been done before but it was more a case it seems of a couple rowdy voices trying to make a point then an organized effort

3. Kendall

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM

   @ Mark2

   Well, I decided to watch both FNC and MSNBC at length a few weeks ago. I even did a show-by-show critique.

   The thing that jumped out at me the most is that MSNBC liked to use a lot of sarcasm when criticizing the right. FNC seemed to deliver their criticism of the left in a humorless, dead-pan way. (Gutfeld is the exception). I think FNC would be better served by injecting more humor into their network; some of their hosts and commentators are pretty grim.

   Other than that, I would say that they are about the same when it comes to partisan point of view.

4. Stan T.

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:48 PM

   @ Mark

   You left out Bush Sr.’s first choice for Secretary of Defense…he was fillibustered and he was forced to choose another nominee…

   I know Rachel Maddow claims Hagle is the one and only Secretary of Defense ever fillibustered in US history…but as usual, she’s absolutely, totally WRONG.

5. Stan T.

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM

   Kendall
   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM
   @ Mark2

   Well, I decided to watch both FNC and MSNBC at length a few weeks ago. I even did a show-by-show critique.

   The thing that jumped out at me the most is that MSNBC liked to use a lot of sarcasm when criticizing the right. FNC seemed to deliver their criticism of the left in a humorless, dead-pan way. (Gutfeld is the exception). I think FNC would be better served by injecting more humor into their network; some of their hosts and commentators are pretty grim.

   Other than that, I would say that they are about the same when it comes to partisan point of view.

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

   But unlike MSNBC, FNC is a NEWS channel…other than O’Reilly and Hannity, who are commentators…but MSNBC is nothing but commentators…That’s why FNC isn’t a comedy channel like MSNBC. The head of MSNBC even admits their total reason for existing is to push the liberal agenda and to attack the right…there is nothing to indicate they have any desire to actually report news.

6. Kendall

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:56 PM

   @RedBarSoup

   “Why only her? I’ve shown plenty examples of Fox News’ “honesty”. They are all BS.”

   Maddow is one of the few people on cable news who tries to pass factual information. I’m well aware of her left-leaning views. But, I don’t think someone’s ideology is terribly important as long as they own up to it, and they don’t try to mislead.

   I admit that I don’t watch much cable news, but I have sampled the three networks. Maddow (and Burnett) seem to be fairly straight shooters. I want to know if that ever changes.

7. Dreamer

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 7:58 PM

   Fox needs to have all of it’s affiliates show a nightly news program.
   Hosted by Shepard Smith.

8. usa8888

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:00 PM

   Can you believe Fox Right Wing News is still pushing the Benghazi affair–you would think their right wing viewers would have had enough of their bogus allegations–the American people have…..

9. mikeyO

   Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM

   @Kendall yes John Tower for SOD the rumors were he was a drunk and womanizer. Hagel will most likey get in, dont expected this delay will last. I am shock senator from South Carloina Graham (AKA Goober)show some back bone that wont last, thinks he is worry will get a primary Challenger in 2014 election.

10. Stan T.

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:05 PM

    @Mark2
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM
    @StanT “…the percentage of the youth viewer…”

    I woudn’t consider 50 yr olds “Youth Viewers”.

    In general, MSNBC and Fox News do attract older viewers. However, the difference is that the very young viewers are tuning in to see shows Rachel Maddow as opposed to a Hannity.

    Rachel Maddow ranked No.1 in the 18-34 demo for Jan 2013.

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/january-2013-ratings-msnbc-up-big-over-last-year_b164725

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

    Did you bother to look at the source for that article? It was very clear…”The full release from MSNBC is after the jump.”…so it was according to MSNBC…not a real source.

    Also, they claim to be #1, however, they also state: “In Sales Prime (M-Su 7p-2a), MSNBC ranked #2 topping CNN by 21% among A25-54…so they were really #2 in the A25-54 demo…wanna guess who was #1?

    They also claimed they averaged “Primetime (Mon-Sun): 790K Total Viewers / 235K A25-54″ but FNC is generally 2 million total viewers and 3-400K in the demo…so how is it possible for MSNBC to be number one? Actually, most times they talk numbers is versus CNN…and they repeatedly say “MSNBC ranked #2″ which obviously means they weren’t #1.

11. usa8888

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM

    Graham probably has some t- party fool running against him so he has to act like he is more conservative than he is…

12. Stan T.

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:09 PM

    usa8888
    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:00 PM
    Can you believe Fox Right Wing News is still pushing the Benghazi affair–you would think their right wing viewers would have had enough of their bogus allegations–the American people have…..
    ************************

    Let’s see, Fox News keeps asking for answers about how 4 Americans died in Benghazi, and the WH refuses to answer…and what is the Far Left Wing News MSNBC talking about? Senator Rubio sipping water…why didn’t they cover Obama scratching his cheek today in a speech? That’s got to be at least as bad as having dry mouth after having already given one speech in spanish…

13. usa8888

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:11 PM

    The GOP is content to let terrorists run loose. Obama is the best terrorist killer we have ever had. The right wingers are playing pure politics with Benghazi–the GOP would have done much worse in terms of their reactions….and Fox is the propaanda arm of right wing, pushing what might turn on the fringe, as their ratings slip and they attract basically old viewers…

14. Mark

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:12 PM

    @Stan T.
    ———————–
    You left out Bush Sr.’s first choice for Secretary of Defense…he was fillibustered and he was forced to choose another nominee…

    I know Rachel Maddow claims Hagle is the one and only Secretary of Defense ever fillibustered in US history…but as usual, she’s absolutely, totally WRONG.
    ————————-

    Tower lost on an outright vote, he couldn’t get 50 votes basically no fillibustering needed

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower

    In 1989, Tower was President George H. W. Bush’s choice to become Secretary of Defense. But in a stunning move — particularly given that Tower was himself a former Senate colleague — the United States Senate rejected his nomination. The largest factors were concern about Tower’s personal life, in particular allegations of alcohol abuse and womanizing.[15] The Senate vote was 53-47, the first time that the Senate had rejected a cabinet nominee of a newly elected president.

15. Kendall

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:28 PM

    @ Stan T.

    Yes! MSNBC has way more opinion-oriented shows than FNC. That’s for sure! That was the OTHER big thing that jumped out at me. lol

    I think it would be accurate to say that MSNBC is barely a news organization. But, like I said in my earlier critique: it’s ok (with me, at least) if a network is partisan…they should just own up to it. That’s why I said FNC should ditch the “Fair & Balanced” mantra and come up with something more conservative, like…”Fox News: The Right Place For News”. Because, I don’t think a single person truly believes FNC is anything but right-leaning.

    Also, I’ll agree that FNC is more of a news agency than MSNBC. But, I wouldn’t call them non-partisan. Even their news shows are slanted. What do I mean by that? Well, I noticed that not one show gives positive coverage to the current administration. It’s all criticism. Conversely, all of the coverage given to conservatives seem to be positive and supportive. It’s pretty blatant. But, like I said…just be up front about it.

16. Matthew

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:30 PM

    But unlike MSNBC, FNC is a NEWS channel…other than O’Reilly and Hannity, who are commentators…

    You sure love this falsehood, since you repeat it so frequently. In any given 24 hour period, Fox has 15 hours of opinion/editorial programming (including repeats, obviously). Fox and Friends is not a hard news program. The Five is not a hard news program. Red Eye is not a hard news program. Cavuto is not a hard news journalist. I’m also being extremely generous in counting Megyn Kelly as ‘hard news.’

    I realize I live in a hyper-partisan country, where your idea of objective journalism is the host of a show leveling criticism at the people you dislike, or even leveling criticism at both sides, but this is not objective journalism – evenly-distributed commentary is still commentary, still editorializing. There’s no phrase in modern discussion of the news than “both sides of the story;” there isn’t two sides to the facts, they simply are what they are.

    Bret Baier and Shep Smith are about as close as it gets to objective hosting on Fox, with the rest being transparent propagandists, hacks, and entertainers. FNC is exactly as terrible as MSNBC, except they reach a wider audience with their awfulness.

17. Matthew

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:32 PM

    errr *^correction: “There’s no phrase in modern discussion of the news that I find more loathsome than ‘both sides of the story;’”

18. Kendall

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    @ Mark

    Thanks for the info. So, Maddow was correct that Hagel was the first SECDEF nominee to be filibustered. Her honesty lives to fight another day. Good. She’s and entertaining lady…I would hate to have to shun her. lol

19. Dreamer

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:39 PM

    To Kendall,

    “But, like I said in my earlier critique: it’s ok (with me, at least) if a network is partisan…they should just own up to it.”

    Shepard Smith is a liberal.

20. Dreamer

    Posted February 15, 2013 at 8:42 PM

    So to speak.