Posted on 01/27/2003 6:02:06 AM PST by Elkiejg
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:04:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW YORK -- This week marks an anniversary the people at CNN would prefer is observed quietly -- very quietly.
It was one year ago that Fox News Channel first beat CNN in the ratings, toppling the network that invented cable news and had enjoyed a monopoly for most of its existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at floridatoday.com ...
Other executives might get "golden parachutes," but at least Isaacson is lucky enough that he has the "think tank" as his safety net.
While he is at the think tank, maybe he will learn something about that mysterious exercise called "thinking."
This is a silly statement. Everyone knows Walton is thinking Paula Zahn but couldn't say such a sexist thing, so he quickly changes it to Hemmer.
Most guys wouldn't care to see Hemmer in a tight tee, but many women would watch Zahn in one for any of several reasons (the fashion statement, comparison with themselves, hints on what men like to ogle, etc.) IOW, Zahn in the tight tee-shirt probably would do better, ratings-wise, than Hemmer in one.
And this makes sense how? More viewers at Fox, but they can't charge more for spots?
True. Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Beltway Boys, etc. Excellent commentators like Mansoor Ijaz, Michelle Malkin. I see they have Ben Stein on the weekends. Nice pick. Even their early am show, "Fox and Friends" is good.
They went way over-the-top on the Beltway Sniper. And Geraldo is Geraldo.
But CNN still treats bus crashes in Bolivia on an equal par with the Bush tax cuts. I don't live in Bolivia. And I don't like pap-mouthing commentators speaking to me as if I were standing in a soup line when I really need a used coat.
We lose nothing when, instead of "disputing" CNN, we simply "ignore" CNN. Ignore CNN and let it drown in it's own cesspool of begala. There is nothing worth watching and there is nothing worth talking about.
It's spelled "Whorealdo".
You are absolutely correct IMO, but CNN is incapable of acknowledging it.
???
So that's what's on Jim Walton's mind?
Paula Zahn poses on the set of her CNN show, 'American Morning with Paula Zahn' in this undated publicity photo. CNN continues to lose its ratings battle with Fox News Channel in early 2003 despite new programs like Zahn's. (AP Photo/CNN)
CNN has a larger market penetration, being available on more cable systems and with its "1984"-ish, no-off-button versions, like "CNN Airport."
FNC started small, but has grown steadily. Within a year or two, it will have an availability equal to or larger than CNN. Then, watch its smoke.
Actually, in their heart of hearts, I think they "get it" just fine. They simply can't admit it.
And this makes sense how? More viewers at Fox, but they can't charge more for spots?
It's not just the number of viewers that matters to advertizers, it's the demographics of the viewers -- primarily age and income. Youngish folks with more disposable income are more desireable than old folks or poorer folks. Even rich old folks don't spend on the kinds of things marketed via TV ads like even moderately well to do younger folks (25-49).
There's a somewhat troublng thing in this report for FOX. CNN is half again more "believable" to people than FOX is. That suggests that some % of FOX' s audience is libs who are just checking out what they view as the enemy press and that comparatively less of CNN's audience is CONs checking out what they view as the enemy press.
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.