'

Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Categories: '

Written By

March 28th, 2013

 

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Wednesday, March 27, 2013

P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
Total Day
FNC        1,178        238         455
CNN           315         93         132
MSNBC           393        119         190
CNBC           140         31           68
FBN             45         10           23
HLN           364        141         226
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC        2,115        263         654
CNN           452        130         200
MSNBC           789        226         374
CNBC           126         50           69
FBN             61         15           30
HLN           565        178         324
Net Morning programs (6-9 AM) P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FOX & Friends        1,159        300         496
CNN Early Start/Starting Point           225         74         102
MSNBC Morning Joe           349        111         179
CNBC Squawk Box           116         16           51
HLN Morning Express w/ Meade           312        170         247
Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC FIVE, THE        1,923        309         669
CNN Situation Room           432        136         181
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           602        128         223
CNBC FAST MONEY           211         50         117
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           348         99         216
Net 6PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC SPECIAL RPT W/BRET BAIER        1,712        300         624
CNN Situation Room           392        122         180
MSNBC POLITICS NATION           549        151         262
CNBC Mad Money           131         34           80
HLN EVENING EXPRESS           403        119         237
Net 7PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC The Fox Report W/S.SMITH        1,730        326         709
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           372         89         177
MSNBC Hardball WITH C. MATTHEWS           620        203         329
CNBC Kudlow Report           125         23           66
HLN JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL           477        175         324
Net 8PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        2,883        361         897
CNN Anderson Cooper 360           469        131         229
MSNBC NOW W/ ALEX WAGNER-PRIME           559        148         274
CNBC CAR CHASERS, THE           133         55           74
HLN Nancy Grace           618        204         360
Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC Hannity        1,841        204         569
CNN PIERS MORGAN LIVE           435        113         186
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show           972        312         477
CNBC The Apprentice           103         46           54
HLN Dr. Drew ON CALL           629        185         349
Net 10PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC ON THE RECORD W/GRETA 1,596 224 488
CNN Anderson Cooper 360 451 146 183
MSNBC Last Word W/ L. ODONNELL 831 216 371
CNBC The Apprentice 141 49 78
HLN HLN AFTER DARK 447 144 263
Net 11PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC THE OREILLY FACTOR        1,139        283         484
CNN ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT           271         72         116
MSNBC NOW W/ ALEX WAGNER-PRIME           381        145         212
CNBC Mad Money             76         28           40
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT           307         94         187

-
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

Nielsen TV Ratings Data: ©2013 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • lbsles

    Profoundly Confused by Analysis of the SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Gay Marriage
    March 26, 2013

    RUSH: The Supreme Court had oral arguments today on Proposition 8 in California, same-sex marriage. This is another thing that confused me, because what happened, people started sending me tweets from the SCOTUSblog. Now, the SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States, is a blog run by people who apparently are excellent at interpreting the questions and comments made by the justices during oral arguments and then making predictions on how the case will end up based on that.

    Now, the SCOTUSblog said unequivocally… This was not a prediction from these guys….. They said that after oral arguments, there were not five votes to invalidate Prop 8. That’s the first thing. They said that after they’d studied the oral argument questions and comments and so forth from both lawyers (all the justices that participated), that there were not five votes to essentially legalize same-sex marriage. There were not five votes to overturn Prop 8.

    But then after that assessment was made, an assessment was made that Anthony Kennedy made it very plain that he doesn’t want to rule on this at all and wants to dismiss the case. Justice Kennedy said, “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.” He twice asked whether the most prudent course for the court would be not to rule at all. Now, if that happens, if the court doesn’t rule, as I understand it — and I’m not sure I do. If the court doesn’t rule and essentially dismisses the case, it means that the last legal interpretation

  • lbsles

    That would be the ruling of the Ninth Circus, which invalidated Prop 8. So what we’re being told here is that Justice Kennedy (and this is one of these tweets from the SCOTUSblog people) just doesn’t have it in him to invalidate Prop 8. He just can’t bring himself to do it. But he would essentially do that by dismissing the case. If he votes to invalidate Prop 8, that means same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land in California, and the tweets all say he doesn’t want to do that.

    He wants to dismiss the case.

    Well, if he dismisses the case, he’s essentially invalidating Prop 8, because that lets the Ninth Circus ruling stand — and the Ninth Circus, as you know, is why they’re all there. The Ninth Circus overturned Prop 8. The Ninth Circuit said Prop 8 is unconstitutional; you can’t deny homosexuals the right to marriage. If the Supreme Court decides they’re not gonna hear this case, and if they do indeed decide to dismiss it, as I’m told and I understand it, then same-sex marriage is the law of the land in California.

    The reason why I’m confused is because the same people are saying two different things. Let me explain it again. SCOTUS tweets. One tweet says Kennedy just doesn’t have it in him to invalidate Prop 8. Meaning, he doesn’t have it in him to tell the people of California they were wrong. This is what they say at the SCOTUSblog. Okay? So that means that Kennedy is uncomfortable invalidating it, right? He doesn’t want to invalidate it. So then they say that Kennedy prefers to just dismiss the case, which would invalidate it, because it would let the Ninth Circus trump Prop 8.

  • lbsles

    There are not five votes to give the same-sex marriage crowd what they want, right now. There are not five votes to uphold the Ninth Circuit. Does that help you? Okay. But if Kennedy succeeds in getting case dismissed, the Ninth Circus is upheld. (interruption) Well, Snerdley, yes, it limits the damage to California. But that’s what the case is about, California. (interruption) Well, they can do three things. The court could reinstate California’s ban and leave each state to make its own decision.

    The court could issue a narrow ruling that would create a right to gay marriage in California only, maybe a few other states, or it could announce a constitutional right to gay marriage everywhere. They could do anything they want. It’s the Supreme Court. Do you realize how stupid this is? Do you realize what the problem is with all of this? The problem is that, once again, nine exalted lawyers are determining something that has been a tradition since beginning of time. Nine exalted lawyers.

    Folks, it’s like I said yesterday. What really is going on here is the left is forcing their agenda on us. They don’t care whether there are popular votes to support it or not. That doesn’t matter. It’s gonna be forced on us however, whichever, whenever. It doesn’t matter. Pure and simple. Ah, of course there’s more to this. I mean, one of the women that the case is about went to the microphones after the oral arguments. I think her name is Stier, S-t-i-e-r.

    It’s all about love from me, she says, and that’s the argument that the pro-homosexual marriage are making. It’s emotional. It’s all about love. That’s what is appealing to the young people. “Who can deny anybody love? Why, who should have that power? Why, nobody should be able to deny people love,” and so forth. So on that’s how they’re selling it. But Kennedy, you know, he’s kind of saying, “What the hell are we doing here? Why is this case before us? It’s not what we’re here for.”

    But in doing so, if they dismiss the case, then Prop 8 is invalid just like Prop 187 was. Just like every other election and every other proposition it seems lately in California, whatever the people there decide gets overturned by a judge somewhere, and that would be the case here if it is dismissed. Look, I’m sorry for sharing my confusion with you, because in the process now you’re getting confused. I can tell by looking at Snerdley. You probably thought you had this understood from front to back, side to side; now you don’t know what’s going on. Well, join the club.

  • Chriscee

    Gas When Bush Left Office, $1.78 — Gas Today, $3.64 —

    THANKS ALOT OBAMA.

    OBAMA: Under my plan, energy prices will NECESSARILY SKYROCKET. Obama must think it’s necessary now.

    Higher energy prices only hurts the people that Obama says he cares so much about….MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS FAMILIES…

    Obama cares about one thing….OBAMA.

  • TheBoss1

    You really cannot look at these cable ratings and havevacfair analysis until that trial is over.

  • lbsles

    What they ought to do is say, “We’re sending this back. We’re overturning the Ninth yet again. They had a totally legal election out there. The will of the people has spoken, and it is what it is.” But the will of the people doesn’t match what the left wants, and therefore it can’t stand. Here’s, again, where we are. According to oral argument analysis today, Justice Kennedy twice asked whether the best thing here would be just not to rule, i.e., dismiss the case. A previous prediction from SCOTUS said of Justice Kennedy that he just doesn’t have it in him to invalidate Prop 8. He can’t bring himself to vote to invalidate it, i.e., agree with the Ninth Circus. He believes in the will of the people. That’s what they’re telling us. It’s a wild guess, it’s an interpretation, ’cause he didn’t ever say that. They’re just basing it on oral arguments, comments, questions, so forth.

    But in the process of invalidating it, or dismissing it, rather, then if the court says, “You know what, we’re not taking the case, that’s it, it’s over with,” then the last legal ruling stands, and that would be the Ninth Circus, which would mean in a Proposition 8 would be overturned, which would mean yet again the will of the people doesn’t matter. And that’s what the United States Supreme Court will be saying if they dismiss the case, that the will of the people doesn’t matter.

    Now, the Limbaugh Theorem may apply here. The Limbaugh Theorem explains with ontological certitude how Barack Obama gets away with inflicting his agenda on the country without the people realizing it. Same thing here. Justice Kennedy may in fact want to invalidate Prop 8 but doesn’t want fingerprints on it. So, he can accomplish invalidation without voting on it by urging the court to dismiss it. And that would be how the Limbaugh Theorem enters into this. Proposition 8 was approved by a 52-47% margin. And that number is even more remarkable when you consider that Obama won California with 61% of the vote. Prop 8 went against the way the state voted for Obama.

  • Matthew

    Not sure how old you are but everytime you post, I think of one of my favorite songs by Tom Petty Won’t Back Down

    That sounds about right. Every time she posts, ‘petty’ is the first thing that pops into my head as well.

  • TheBoss1

    @Chrisee … How is your life living in a bubble, under a rock? Do you ever get lonely?

  • Chriscee

    @Chriscee
    Not sure how old you are but everytime you post, I think of one of my favorite songs by Tom Petty Won’t Back Down
    We can’t post links but here are the words:
    Songwriters: PETTY, TOM / LYNNE, JEFF
    By Tom Petty

    Let’s just say I’m OLD ENOUGH to remember the day that song was released. LOL

    We have 3 children..the oldest is 31….we have 5 grandsons and they all will all be here for Easter Sunday Dinner. weeeeee!!

    YOU DO THE MATH!! lolol!!

  • Chriscee

    And for the record libbies…I WON’T EVER BACK DOWN!! Attack Attack Attack me all you want…it’s what YOU liberals do best…it’s why your party will FAIL will in 2014.

  • TheBoss1

    @lbsles … Are you still living your loser life listening to that pain-killing drug addict, Rush Limbaugh? So how’s the oxycodeine?

  • Letmethink

    @Matthew–funny that is what I always think of you–petty and arrogant—yawn–

  • lbsles

    No Standing at the Ninth Circus?

    RUSH: Let’s not forget one key element here. If the court dismisses the case, then it would avoid having same-sex marriage nationalized and imposed on every state. If the court dismisses and thus denies standing — saying the litigants have no standing — then they can’t issue a ruling if they dismiss it. They obviously can’t issue a ruling which would legalize gay marriage across the country. In that sense, you could say that having the case dismissed would be avoiding, or dodging, a huge bullet. So there is that. Now, we’ve got a litigator, an appellate litigator in Los Angeles on the phone named Anthony. Anthony, hi. I’m glad you called. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.

    CALLER: Anyway, to the standing issue in the case. It’s kind of conflicted, but here’s the crux of the issue. When prop eight was determined, the opponents of Prop 8 went into federal court and they said, “This is unconstitutional.” The state at that point was required to defend the proposition, the state government, which was run by Jerry Brown at the time.

    CALLER: I believe it was Jerry Brown because he was the attorney general. They defended Prop 8. I’m not sure they put up a vigorous defense. It may have been halfhearted, I don’t recall, so I’m not gonna make any statements one way or the other. But the court ultimately said Prop 8’s unconstitutional. When the case went up on appeal, the State of California said, “We’re not gonna defend Prop 8 anymore,” and by the state of California dropping out, it created a question: Is there really a controversy anymore, because no one’s opposing the ruling below that said Prop 8 is unconstitutional?

    So what the Ninth Circuit did was it said the proponents of the ballot proposition, the people who put the ballot proposition on the ballot could actually go into the appellate court and defend the proposition. The Ninth Circuit said, “They have standing to do that,” and once the Ninth Circuit made that standing determination, it went on to consider the merits of Prop 8, and it determined that Prop 8 was unconstitutional — and it fudged it a little bit. It didn’t declare Prop 8 unconstitutional because —

    CALLER: All right. Just based on your comments, what it seems like is either it’s one of two things would happen: The Supreme Court was considering to reverse the Ninth Circuit on the standing issue, which would mean the Ninth Circuit opinion would actually be vacated, and the only opinion left would be the trial court decision, but I don’t know what that means because this is such an odd situation.

    RUSH: You’re right. This is all up for grabs, and it’s very premature because it’s all speculation. But I haven’t seen anything that at all refers to this court determining whether or not they’re gonna overturn the Ninth. They should, but I haven’t seen that that was interpreted by anybody watching this as something that was being considered by the Supreme Court.

    RUSH: I really didn’t have enough time for Anthony to get to the point that he was really trying to make. What Anthony, our litigator from California, was saying was: The original litigants, the state of California, dropped out of the case as it went before the Ninth Circus and another group came in, and it is that case that the Ninth ruled on. So if this new group, as I understood Anthony’s point — and this could be all wrong, too. I’m just sharing with you. We had a caller, and you may not understood what his point was.

    I’m trying to elucidate it for him since he didn’t have time to squeeze it in. Essentially this new group did not have standing, and if that is the basis of a Supreme Court ruling, then the Ninth Circuit case ruling would be invalidated and Prop 8 would be upheld. Now, all of this is why I am profoundly confused, because it’s all speculation. There’s nobody here today anywhere that can tell you what any of this that happened today means because there is no vote, and there’s not gonna be a vote until June.

    So we are left to the analysis of so-called experts whose lives are devoted to analyzing what the justices say and mean during oral arguments and so forth. So the standing question, in other words, goes back to whether the original proponents of Prop 8 had a right to defend it in court once Schwarzenegger and Brown dropped the state from defending Prop 8, which is what Anthony said happened. The Ninth Circuit said that they did and then ruled against them.

    But if they had no standing, then the Ninth ruling should go away, too. So it is possible — and this is why there’s confusion. It’s possible, as it’s known now, that dismissing the case could either uphold the Ninth Circus or invalidate it, and until I have a better grasp on the whole concept of standing in this case — who has it and who doesn’t or who the court might rule has standing and who doesn’t to even bring the case… Because Kennedy was saying, I just wonder if this case was properly granted.

    That means, does anybody here have standing to even bring this case to us based on what he was hearing from the people participating in oral arguments. Now, the proponents of Prop 8, for what it’s worth, are called “the National Organization for Marriage.” Now, while all this is going on, the low-information voters out there are wondering what happened or is happening to Amanda Knox. We haven’t delved into that. So, anyway, I just wanted to clear up what Anthony, our caller from California, was talking about.

    It does come down to this standing issue and who has it and who doesn’t, and what the court might rule. The original interpretation was that the Ninth Circuit could be upheld if they dismiss the case. But now Anthony said, “No, wait a minute. Wait a minute. It depends on who’s got standing here and who doesn’t.”

  • TheBoss1

    @leslbe … Who really gives a **** what oxycodeine-addicted Rush Limbaugh says?

  • Matthew

    @Matthew–funny that is what I always think of you–petty and arrogant—yawn–

    Considering that you are the only person, in my entire history of posting on this website, who tried to insult me for the state of my personal life rather than my manners/the content of my posts, you have no room to talk. And Chriscee, someone who is hold enough to have grandchildren mind you, admitted that she takes pride in being an Internet troll, which is pretty much the text-book definition of being petty. Anyway, have a nice evening :mrgreen:

  • TheBoss1

    Hey Chrissie … The liberals kicked your ass in 2012 and they will kick your reactionary, right-wing ass again in 2014.

  • Matthew

    ^*old enough

  • Matthew

    Party on, Garth

  • Mark2

    @Chriscee “Gas When Bush Left Office, $1.78 — Gas Today, $3.64 ”

    I guess you didn’t read a word I posted, so here you go again: Under Bush, the National Gas average was as high as $4.12 a gallon. In fact, it was over $4.00 a gallon during the summer of 2008 right before he left office. However, soon after the stock market crash, gas prices fell from over $4.00 to under $2.00. During that same period of drops in gas prices, the stock market dropped from over 14,000 to below 7,000. Again, Gas prices have a very strong correlation to the Dow Jones…the higher the Stock Market, the higher gas prices will be.

    DOW Jones when Bush left office = 7,949
    DOW Jones today = 14,578

    Thank You President Obama

  • d.d.

    Obama’s China solar model fails
    – –
    Watchdog.org has an article about the decline worldwide of solar power.
    – –
    President Obama in several of his early speeches talked about emulating China in solar energy. “Now, the future for clean energy, solar in particular, isn’t as bright as the president hoped.

    Just last week, China’s Suntech Power Holdings, once the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels, quietly shoved its largest subsidiary into bankruptcy proceedings.The company still owes creditors upwards of $1.1 billion.

    But it’s not just Chinese manufacturers that will struggle through the next few years as the industry shakes out weaker competitors. An industry report released last October by GTM Research predicted that as many as 180 panel-makers would be out of business by 2015.

    American solar manufacturers might also experience trouble, GTM warned, and panel production in the U.S. could cease by the end of 2013.

    America carves another path, a route reliant on natural gas. Some important figures see natural gas as the energy of the future for America and others.”

    —————-

    Little-known surveillance tool raises concerns by judges, privacy activists
    – –
    Federal investigators in Northern California routinely used a sophisticated surveillance system to scoop up data from cellphones and other wireless devices in an effort to track criminal suspects — but failed to detail the practice to judges authorizing the probes.

    The investigations used a device known as a StingRay, which simulates a cellphone tower and enables agents to collect the serial numbers of individual cellphones and then locate them.
    Privacy groups and some judges have raised concerns that the technology is so invasive — in some cases effectively penetrating the walls of homes — that its use should require a warrant.

    The increasing lack of personal privacy concerns me, for it seems to me, that our space is being invaded in all areas, from Common Core data collection of our students, to drones , to cameras watching your every move , to Google house views , etc. Where does it stop & what are our rights ?

    ————

    Hi, Boss. Have a nice night TVBTN’s posters.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures