Nitwork Newsers are losers ... again ... still ... as always ... ping.
Posted on 05/23/2012 7:17:36 AM PDT by Qbert
At Media Bistro earlier today, the news about the combined average total audience for the Big Three TV networks' evening news was grim enough, coming in at a combined 20.15 million (NBC, 7.52 million; ABC, 7.14 million; CBS, 5.49 million).
But the news about the audience in the key 25-54 demographic was, from what I can tell, either an all-time low or darned close to it. I couldn't find an example of one that was lower in searches through previous overall audience low points covered in prior posts at NewsBusters and or my home blog. Last week and other weeks which were almost as low in the 25-54 deme follow the jump:
- 5/14/12 -- 5.42 million (NBC, 2.04 million; ABC, 1.83 million; CBS, 1.55 million)
- 5/18/09 -- 5.52 million (NBC, 2.09 million; ABC, 1.92 million; CBS, 1.51 million)
- 5/3/10 -- 5.68 million (NBC, 2.18 million; ABC, 1.97 million; CBS, 1.53 million)
- 3/29/10 -- 5.71 million (NBC, 2.26 million; ABC, 1.89 million; CBS, 1.56 million)
- 4/12/10 -- 5.81 million (NBC, 2.31 million; ABC, 1.94 million; CBS, 1.56 million)
Since advertising rates are largely driven by the 25-54 demo audience, the cratering in that group is especially hurtful.
What I wrote almost six years ago about the networks, the evening news programs and those who produce and broadcast them still seems to hold true:
All three nightly broadcasts most likely lose money, when isolated from their morning counterparts (Today, Good Morning America, CBS Morning Show) and their documentary shows (Dateline, 60 Minutes, 20/20, etc.). At a minimum, none makes an acceptable level of profit.BUT, the news operations of each of the Big 3 networks are very small parts of very large organizations ... so small that apparently no one at any of the three parent companies cares enough to do anything about the continued hemorrhaging in their evening new shows, as long as the news operations themselves are profitable.
So because those other parts of the news operations make money, the nightly news programs can chug right along, oblivious to normal profitability expectations.
The journalists who put together the nightly news programs could care less if the broadcasts are profitable. It’s obvious that their agenda is more important.
Because of all of the above, the ever-shrinking audience for these broadcasts will be spoon-fed biased reporting ... and conservative-bashing for the foreseeable future.
As long as all of this continues to hold true, may the hemorrhaging at the outposts of Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, and Scott Pelley continue.
Like one wants to watch hours (or even days) old news read by some bottom of the SAT barrel journalism major.
There’s anecdotal evidence that lots of young people watch Jon Stewart and his satirical “news” show, and that is their major source for news on TV.
Maybe they become aware of some issues by seeing what Jon Stewart is making fun of, however, remember too that Jon Stewart is liberal, so anyone watching him is still getting liberal propaganda.
Why waste prime dog walking time watching stale propaganda?
Nitwork Newsers are losers ... again ... still ... as always ... ping.
Not just a liberal but a self described socialist ( Per Roger Ailes)
Fox News has about 1m viewers per day. This means that the network news shows beat Fox News 20 to 1. When you throw in cable news, that’s 21 to 1. Until Fox News moves its fair and balanced coverage into network news, it’s nothing more than a tiny niche player.
Nice! Okay Nelson let’s hear it, “Ha ha!”
Not a good sign either for the doomed Obama and the doomed 'Rats, for whom the network newsies are major cheerleaders.
Thanks for the ping!
That's a key point, one which I have long held and subsequently was always wondering why so many Freepers thought that Fox News was the cat's meow. It is--and has always been--an unimportant news outlet.
P.S. Why do you reference Fox News as "fair and balanced"? I don't watch TV but I do read here that it leans left nowadays.
Every time a body bag is driven away from a nursery home; the network news loses another viewer...every one I know that still watches their BS is over 70.
I think it's the product of unrelenting liberal media hysteria about Fox News. They figure if liberals are all riled up, Fox News must be a giant rather than the midget it is. In reality, liberals are simply enraged that one media news outlet is diverging somewhat from the liberal party line.
P.S. Why do you reference Fox News as "fair and balanced"? I don't watch TV but I do read here that it leans left nowadays.
That was irony. Every news outlet has its slant, but the reality of contemporary news media is an ideological range covering middle-of-the-road to full blown Marxism-Leninism. I think Fox is slightly left-wing, which is something you can't avoid when people who go into journalism are almost monolithically left-wing*. It's also probably as right-wing as it is possible to get, given that most TV reporters don't want to limit their career possibilities to one news channel.
* Back when I was in college, everyone who worked at the college paper was a fellow traveler. The trendy narrative was that Soviet proxies were misunderstood agrarian reformers, and we were the bad guys perennially propping up right-wing governments. Weirdly-enough, when the Soviet Union collapsed, most of its Communist client state regimes collapsed along with it. So were we propping up client states, or were the Soviets doing so? Unfortunately, most of those commie sympathizers are now working for the major news outlets. Which is why we get an unending chorus of hosannas in the news about liberal policies and politicians, regardless of the outlet.
Thanks for your informative post.
Yes, I think that as long as print, radio and TV journalism is populated by the typical leftist types coming out of journalism school, there is no prospect of the American citizen receiving balanced reports of news. The only media working against them are the Internet’s blogs and news/commentary sites such as FR and they seem to be growing substantially.
As the older folks who get their news almost exclusively from commercial TV outlets, both national and local, die off, the prospects for our winning the ideological wars increase, it seems to me.
It's a possibility. Weirdly enough, stateside, the UK's Daily Mail is probably the conservative standard bearer for print-based news media with an online presence. With respect to the volume of web traffic to its site, its US rank is #88, compared to WaPo's #81 and NYT's #34 (rankings are from alexa.com). Forum-wise, DU is ranked #1322 stateside compared to FR's #1234, which surprised me greatly. However, it has to be said that liberal websites also outnumber conservative ones, so who knows?
Why, just because they have no credibility and mostly report fluff and hype? Just because their pretense of objectivity becomes more and more transparent every day? So what. Watch them. They’re pretty.
Thanks justiceseeker93. Gosh, who knew that manufacturing consent for the Democratic Party talking points would have such dismal results?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.