Cable News Ratings for Monday, February 18, 2013

Categories: '

(163) Comments - Add Yours!

1. elanga

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 5:47 PM

   My new CNN line-up:

   12PM:Newsroom(NR)
   1PM:NR International
   2PM:NR USA:News live from the states
   3PM:NR
   4PM:Newsworld:Quality show on foreign affairs anchored by Fareed or Amanpour
   5PM:TSR with Wolf
   6PM:A good business show like once Moneyline
   7PM:A good political show
   8PM:CNN 360:a new revamped newsshow
   9PM:Interviews and debates
   10PM:CNN’s 60 minutes or Nightline with exclusive reports and news
   11PM:Piers Morgan live with an audience

2. Matthew

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 5:58 PM

   Alternate Plan: Fire all of CNN’s pundits, and give their budget and resources to the far superior CNN International

3. Bobbyv

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:11 PM

   Matthew,

   I do not want to retry Iraq but if memory serves there were many intelligence agencies plus both the Clinton and Bush admins who believed he had WMD. I remember the debate being more about what should we do about it than if he had. The biggest dissenters were the French and they were being paid.

4. Bsotgnw

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:24 PM

   Mike

   I think you UNDER state the case for the belief that Sadam had WMD. His own generals when questioned thought he had WMD. Why? Because he wanted them to spread the falacy it made him look more powerfull. In short spreading false information is a well know tactic of despots. And Bush being shuch a terrible guy, giving 90 million people a shot a self governence wow how horrible!

5. Cathy

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM

   Did Maddow report restore the $1 trillion? Did Maddow report bring back the 4000 American soldiers? Did it stop any of it from happening again? Did her report present new information that can be used to charge W. Bush with a crime?

   No, no, no, no….. So, why go after a story that will not change anything? Why not report on the lying done and being done by the current people running the country?

6. Matthew

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM

   @Bobby: There was dispute within the intelligence community about what types of weapons he might have, whether he still had ongoing programs, and whether they were on their way to developing nuclear weapons. The last one is the most critical in terms of our discussion of controversy, because Cheney is the one who chose to misrepresent CIA findings on that issue, and state publicly that Iraq was acquiring equipment to enrich Uranium, which was not the CIA assessment.

7. Bobbyv

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:34 PM

   Matthew,

   I think most can agree that we would do things differently. If Iraq becomes a bastion of freedom for the middle east that would be good, and in reality Saddam was a bad guy but world politics makes strange bedfellows and we have sided with worse than him (Stalin, for example)

8. Cathy

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM

   Matthew and Mark2, Did you forget about the 50,000 that Saddam killed through genocide? And was still killing. We should sit back and watch people die.

   Bush can do not more damage to the country, Mark2. Obama can. He is in power. Isn’t it more important to expose his lies?

9. Bsotgnw

   Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:43 PM

   Mark2 an the res of you libs lets take a little trip down memmor lane and stop with the revisionist history

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E

10. Matthew

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:44 PM

    Did Maddow report restore the $1 trillion? Did Maddow report bring back the 4000 American soldiers? Did it stop any of it from happening again? Did her report present new information that can be used to charge W. Bush with a crime?

    There isn’t a big enough eye roll in the universe for this string of words. You are, in essence, trying to hand wave away all investigative journalism which will not change the past (in other word, all investigative journalism) as inconsequential. Not that I believe that’s actually your position, of course, since this is highly transparent partisanship. It wouldn’t be “oooh, why bother, it’s not like this is gonna bring those 4000 lives back” if this were a f***ing Democratic president’s blunder. GET REAL.

11. usa8888

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:52 PM

    I have still not had ANY response from right wingers regarding how drastically cutting spending will help the economy create jobs. I realize this is difficult for you to show (since it is totally false) but, being the core belief of the right wing, I would think one of you would be capable of explaining the “reasoning”. I am waiting….

12. usa8888

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:55 PM

    Saddam would have offset the power of Iran and possibly negatively impacted Al Qaeda–something to think about….

13. Bsotgnw

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM

    Ah memmory lane how sweet it is! Revisionism sucks

    Democrat quotes on Sadam and WMD most before BusH administration.

    http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

14. Matthew

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:58 PM

    Matthew and Mark2, Did you forget about the 50,000 that Saddam killed through genocide? And was still killing. We should sit back and watch people die.

    Hahaha, please. If that’s what it were all about, some president or another would have sent our soldiers into the Horn of Africa ages ago, or you would be advocating for the poor and oppressed in China, in Tibet, Southeast Asia. You’re making excuses to defend a Republican president, for no other reason than his status as a Republican, simple as that.

    After all that you’ve done to disparage the working poor as party animals who wasted their youth, people collecting SSI as grifters, and people on unemployments as greedy layabouts, you suddenly have a couple spare trillion to spend to save the world? Bulls**t.

    Isn’t it more important to expose his lies?

    It’s all important. It’s important to know what happened in Benghazi. It’s important to know what happened in Iraq. It’s important to know what’s happening with Afghanistan. Investigative journalism is not an ‘either/or’ choice.

15. Matthew

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 6:59 PM

    ITT: My patience for party hucksters finally wears out, I go into bi-monthly assault mode

16. Katie

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 7:01 PM

    Rachel gets the key demographics, the young people. Not the old geezers that watch Fox.

17. Bsotgnw

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 7:02 PM

    Mark 2 & USA888 this is especialy for you

    http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

18. Sam

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM

    It was a good documentary by Rachel and scored very in the ratings

19. Cathy

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 7:12 PM

    @Matthew, I believe Bill Clinton is as dirty as sin. He and Hillary were dirty poor until his two term as Governor when the local airport become the busiest little airport in the nation for international small planes.
    He did a lot of inside trading and tons of other things. He’s net worth went from one million to 28 million while he was the President.
    But once he was out of office, I was upset about reporter going after him.

    I want to see political reporters make sure the the people currently in office aren’t lying to us or stealing from us. Keep the current guys in office working and up front. They have a major impact on the current and future of our country.

    Matthew, I’m an old farm girl. Maddow story was nothing more then locking the barn door after the horses were out and had been killed.

20. 1nancy2

    Posted February 20, 2013 at 7:17 PM

    Katie
    “Rachel gets the key demographics, the young people. Not the old geezers that watch Fox.” Hi Katie. Welcome and do come back, OK?