Fox News Chief tells hosts "Shut Up - Tone it Down"

[chance1]

You like apples?

How about these?

thanks rareboy - knew u could do it

numbers are funny

lotsa ways to look at them

for sure, declining #s are never good but ........

if u look at fox vs. msnbc you can see that despite declining #s at fox, head to head they destroy

oreilly vs. keith o - bill does 3x keith's #
hannity more than doubles up maddow
greta beats odonnel by a little less than 2x
shep smith more than doubles chris matthews

so you're right, foxies don't like to have less to sell but

frankly fox news has more sellable grps than they can sell - which is why u see DR on their air - DR are direct response ads that are bottom of barrell price wise

1-800 etc.

too many grps frankly reduces the value of each - so not terrible

if im fox and im taking to advertisers i say .........

"msnbc which is our closest competitor ............ does less than 1/2 our # in primetime"

just saying

 

[laikaNYC]

Ailes deserve cancer not pity.

And here is yet another piece of evidence that proves how nasty and hateful the far-Left truly is.

 

[laikaNYC]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/01/22/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-january-21-2010/39838

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...gan-gets-little-help-from-ricky-gervais/79685

And for the comparable P2+ numbers for January 20, 2011 versus January 21, 2010:

Beck -(1,543,000) -46.43%
Hannity -(1,336,000) -39.12%
O'Reilly -(1,920,000) -39.68%
Shep -(1,058,000) -37.2%
Baier -(1,125,000) -36.7%
Greta -(236,000) -13.9%

And of course..........there's Fox and Fellow Travellers in the morning...-(553,000) -39.8%...........

Oh Sweet Jesus. Please make the hurting stop.......a loss of 7,218,000 viewers.

What is that worth in ad revenue?

Do you have any idea how pathetic your rationale is? You're comparing ONE day in 2010 to another random day in 2011. Great work!

 

[rareboy]

No Sweetie.

I'm comparing the same day in two years.

I've been expecting you to turn up and try to spin this, but it doesn't matter which way you turn. The daily, weekly and quarterly year over year results show the same thing.

The FOX shows are haemorrhaging viewers.

Viewers have grown tired of the same old, same old strident nonsense from the morning until night.

 

[chance1]

No Sweetie.

I'm comparing the same day in two years.

I've been expecting you to turn up and try to spin this, but it doesn't matter which way you turn. The daily, weekly and quarterly year over year results show the same thing.

The FOX shows are haemorrhaging viewers.

Viewers have grown tired of the same old, same old strident nonsense from the morning until night.

with all those "losses", they still kick beat the nearest competitor by a ton - see my post above

as in they're 2x the audience of msnbc

so please be "fair and balanced" about ur #s

 

[laikaNYC]

No Sweetie.

I'm comparing the same day in two years.

I've been expecting you to turn up and try to spin this, but it doesn't matter which way you turn. The daily, weekly and quarterly year over year results show the same thing.

The FOX shows are haemorrhaging viewers.

Viewers have grown tired of the same old, same old strident nonsense from the morning until night.

You can also find another day from January 2010 and compare it to the same date in 2011 and it will show an increase in ratings. See how silly your rationale is? You're really splitting hairs here. But what can i really expect from a FOX News hating left-wing ideologue.

 

[rareboy]

You can also find another day from January 2010 and compare it to the same date in 2011 and it will show an increase in ratings. See how silly your rationale is? You're really splitting hairs here. But what can i really expect from a FOX News hating left-wing ideologue.

No. It won't.

Didn't you read the quarterly comparison? And year over year?

Facts are facts.

I know that your 'uncle' Roger, must be very worried about how his circus freak sideshow is playing these days.

I know you must be crushed.

And Chance.

While I know it must be disappointing to you as well, the numbers for FOX news network, compared to the numbers for NBC, ABC and CBS are miniscule. Huffing and puffing about how FOX is still pulling twice the viewers of MSNBC is just plain silly.

I've also pointed out on many occasions Chance, that MSNBC has not been part of a basic cable package, while FOX has been from almost day one. If the FOX demographic had to pay separately for FOX, their numbers would drop like a stone as well.

The two of you are blustering about the wrong thing.

The fact is, FOX has lost a huge number of viewers and their strategy of ginning up their mostly older white male demographic is failing them. And that is why Ailes and Murdoch are trying to tone their opinionated primates down and stop flinging their poop at passersby, so that FOX might attract more moderate viewers to watch them perform.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

I watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox but only to see what crazy shit is being stirred up by the conservatives.

 

[rareboy]

You can also find another day from January 2010 and compare it to the same date in 2011 and it will show an increase in ratings. See how silly your rationale is? You're really splitting hairs here. But what can i really expect from a FOX News hating left-wing ideologue.

Just a follow-up here.

I guess I've been giving you too much credit for your media savvy. Because you'd either have to be incredibly cynical to pretend you don't understand how ratings periods work or you flunked out of TeleMedia 101.

The fact is, the ratings numbers help define the advertising rates for the companies that sponsor television programming. They are calculated for specific days or weeks each year with Neilson being the gold standard of the industry.

Your proposition that there can be as much as a 46% swing in audience share over a few days is also is simply laughable. These programs don't rely on episodic audiences; They're not television specials... they have to have a steady viewer base. Which they're losing. But your premise would again seem to indicate thet you don't really understand how television works. You might want to focus on this if you are planning to be someone's apparatchik or run for political office yourself.

The end result for FOX News Network will be an advertising firesale for more dubious companies marketing vegetable seeds for the post-apocalypse garden and Q-ray bracelets.

 

[BostonPirate]

there is only one place for conservatives to go for their fix of spin, and that is FOX.

Their marketing strategy is brilliant. You hire people like palin, who has a journalism degree, to bash ALL of their commercial competition. In spite of Palin's ramblings about the lamestream media, that was once her career of choice. You frame yourself as the ONLY source of real news, scare the crap out of people and get money.

But Liberals and centrists like examining many different avenues of thought. Hearing a few different sides to an issue before making up their minds. they are not wed ideologically to one source.

FOX ratings does not in any way reflect that they are producing a superior product.

IF thats the case we all need to say that snuggies are the geniuses of the fashion world.

You cannot define standards with ratings.

FOX has four of the five republican presidential contenders on their payroll. That is NOT fair and ballanced. It is biased.

 

[Kulindahr]

Correct me if I've gotten this wrong, but the numbers here sound like the number of viewers for ALL these shows and channels, FOX and competitors both, are down.

Where have all the viewers gone?

 

[rareboy]

^ I think that when there is no real news, people quite simply reach a saturation point listening to opinion day in and day out, all day long. Particularly when it isn't uplifting or satisfying.

9/11 and the Iraq war were intoxicating days for the cable news networks. News junkies could sit there chainsmoking in their Barcaloungers covered in Cheeto dust or Donut sugar all day long and get opinions about everything hurled at them with the latest pics.

But just as the bubble began to collapse until the 2008 election cycle started and the media invented new and exciting stuff to trouble their viewers with. The recession was a gift, because every person with investments and retirement savings was glued to media while they tried to figure out what was going to happen.

But then, suddenly the president was elected, the hard work of cleaning up the economic mess was underway and the markets began a slow recovery. I know that even I went from monitoring about 6 hours of business news each day on TV to zero over about 6 months. And I wasn't alone.

And a lot of the older viewers of 2001 who tuned into cable news from morning to night are now in nursing homes. Or dead. And the younger ones have better things to do with their time than be scared all the time about everything.

And a lot of younger people now turn to websites to get the news and information they need without the show biz personalities getting in the way.

So. Unless there is an event of such magnitude as to hook a post 9/11, post black presidential election, post economic apocalypse viewing audience, the bleeding out will continue.

 

[chance1]

No. It won't.

And Chance.

While I know it must be disappointing to you as well, the numbers for FOX news network, compared to the numbers for NBC, ABC and CBS are miniscule. Huffing and puffing about how FOX is still pulling twice the viewers of MSNBC is just plain silly.

I've also pointed out on many occasions Chance, that MSNBC has not been part of a basic cable package, while FOX has been from almost day one. If the FOX demographic had to pay separately for FOX, their numbers would drop like a stone as well.

The two of you are blustering about the wrong thing.

The fact is, FOX has lost a huge number of viewers and their strategy of ginning up their mostly older white male demographic is failing them. And that is why Ailes and Murdoch are trying to tone their opinionated primates down and stop flinging their poop at passersby, so that FOX might attract more moderate viewers to watch them perform.

Just a follow-up here.

I guess I've been giving you too much credit for your media savvy. Because you'd either have to be incredibly cynical to pretend you don't understand how ratings periods work or you flunked out of TeleMedia 101.

The fact is, the ratings numbers help define the advertising rates for the companies that sponsor television programming. They are calculated for specific days or weeks each year with Neilson being the gold standard of the industry.

Your proposition that there can be as much as a 46% swing in audience share over a few days is also is simply laughable. These programs don't rely on episodic audiences; They're not television specials... they have to have a steady viewer base. Which they're losing. But your premise would again seem to indicate thet you don't really understand how television works. You might want to focus on this if you are planning to be someone's apparatchik or run for political office yourself.

The end result for FOX News Network will be an advertising firesale for more dubious companies marketing vegetable seeds for the post-apocalypse garden and Q-ray bracelets.

rareboy,

i responded to your "saavy media posts" because u exhibited the opposite

you originally compared Bear Daddy's single day in January 2011 to a 3Q historical quarterly figure - yeeesh

then you go on and on about Fox's losses? forgetting the real truth that Fox dominates viewership in cable news - i guess i would ask would u rather be Fox or MSNBC if ur goal was viewership?

anyway .........

ur response to laika giving him grief about his lack of media knowledge is sorta lame

NEWS viewership is very up and down - due to real current US and world events - election cycles etc. If you save a CNN ratings graph for the past several years u would see spikes and valleys and more spikes and more valleys and u could pinpoint stories/events that created the peaks

more to come but i will leave u with this

ur fox is down story is incomplete at best - disingenuous at worst

will let jubbers decide

and for the record, fox's ratings are not disappointing nor uplifting to me

nice try (not really) to throw that in but as with many of ur posts ........... whiff

back to real life we go

 

[Kulindahr]

^ I think that when there is no real news, people quite simply reach a saturation point listening to opinion day in and day out, all day long. Particularly when it isn't uplifting or satisfying.

9/11 and the Iraq war were intoxicating days for the cable news networks. News junkies could sit there chainsmoking in their Barcaloungers covered in Cheeto dust or Donut sugar all day long and get opinions about everything hurled at them with the latest pics.

But just as the bubble began to collapse until the 2008 election cycle started and the media invented new and exciting stuff to trouble their viewers with. The recession was a gift, because every person with investments and retirement savings was glued to media while they tried to figure out what was going to happen.

But then, suddenly the president was elected, the hard work of cleaning up the economic mess was underway and the markets began a slow recovery. I went from monitoring about 6 hours of business news each day on TV to zero over about 6 months. And I wasn't alone.

And a lot of the older viewers of 2001 who tuned into cable news from morning to night are now in nursing homes. Or dead. And the younger ones have better things to do with their time than be scared all the time about everything.

And a lot of younger people now turn to websites to get the news and information they need without the show biz personalities getting in the way.

So. Unless there is an event of such magnitude as to hook a post 9/11, post black presidential election, post economic apocalypse viewing audience, the bleeding out will continue.

That makes sense. It would cover Laika's claim of being able to find spikes, too -- some event that suddenly drew people to turn on the tube.

I tend to get my news from Reuters and BBC, except for what's on at dinnertime which is local guys, so I'm generally out of touch with FOX, MSNBC, and all the rest.

 

[chance1]

there is only one place for conservatives to go for their fix of spin, and that is FOX.

Their marketing strategy is brilliant. You hire people like palin, who has a journalism degree, to bash ALL of their commercial competition. In spite of Palin's ramblings about the lamestream media, that was once her career of choice. You frame yourself as the ONLY source of real news, scare the crap out of people and get money.

But Liberals and centrists like examining many different avenues of thought. Hearing a few different sides to an issue before making up their minds. they are not wed ideologically to one source.

FOX ratings does not in any way reflect that they are producing a superior product.

IF thats the case we all need to say that snuggies are the geniuses of the fashion world.

You cannot define standards with ratings.

FOX has four of the five republican presidential contenders on their payroll. That is NOT fair and ballanced. It is biased.

not all conservatives want spin - just saying

agreed that fox marketing is sharp - its sorta easy - very one note - higher profile repub/conservative hosts and guests - huckabee, palin, santorum (hate hime), kascich used to be on, etc.

i think u give liberals far too much credit

they have more choices yes - cnn leans left, msnbc is far left, nbc, cbs and abc all lean left - to say liberals think more and want more options ........ hmmm

well i think u would say that but it doesn't make it true

my bf worked in cinci politics and he said the diff between dems and repubs was that the dems could debate all day long about what to do and the repubs would just make a decision

ratings does not equal quality - agreed

many of the top rated tv shows are reality based - cheaply produced and w/o soul and of poor quality

 

[BostonPirate]

rareboy,

i responded to your "saavy media posts" because u exhibited the opposite

you originally compared Bear Daddy's single day in January 2011 to a 3Q historical quarterly figure - yeeesh

then you go on and on about Fox's losses? forgetting the real truth that Fox dominates viewership in cable news - i guess i would ask would u rather be Fox or MSNBC if ur goal was viewership?

anyway .........

ur response to laika giving him grief about his lack of media knowledge is sorta lame

NEWS viewership is very up and down - due to real current US and world events - election cycles etc. If you save a CNN ratings graph for the past several years u would see spikes and valleys and more spikes and more valleys and u could pinpoint stories/events that created the peaks

more to come but i will leave u with this

ur fox is down story is incomplete at best - disingenuous at worst

will let jubbers decide

and for the record, fox's ratings are not disappointing nor uplifting to me

nice try (not really) to throw that in but as with many of ur posts ........... whiff

back to real life we go

he's not disingenuous and that was not a really productive comment

And I thought the news had a lofty goal of integrity and public service, not profitting off of fear.

dude read a few threads... JUBbers have decided

FOX is diminishing in appeal, and has never been respected as a real news source.

It just hasn't. Pretending that it is when four of the five republican presidential candidates are in their employ, and yet, no liberal counterpart is there to ballance that sort of throws that fair and ballanced line out of the window

and I have a question for you... why do you post in phrases? do you post from your phone? Do you always do this or what.

 

[chance1]

he's not disingenuous and that was not a really productive comment

And I thought the news had a lofty goal of integrity and public service, not profitting off of fear.

dude read a few threads... JUBbers have decided

FOX is diminishing in appeal, and has never been respected as a real news source.

It just hasn't. Pretending that it is when four of the five republican presidential candidates are in their employ, and yet, no liberal counterpart is there to ballance that sort of throws that fair and ballanced line out of the window

and I have a question for you... why do you post in phrases? do you post from your phone? Do you always do this or what.

sorry but my strong sense from rareboy is not so good - based on previous commentary and a nastiness that far exceeds my benign referencde

harping on fox "losses" while not reflecting their enormous dominance seems partisan

as for my posting "style" ........ not sure - just the way i do it

sort of think/type

i have taken a fair amount of grief for it ............. please don't jump on the pile

 

[BostonPirate]

Its not dominance in my opinion.

Its like saying McDonalds has the best food and is great cuisine because it sells more hamburgers

people go to mcd's because its predictable and its easy... because its good.

IF you follow FOX's theory that they are different and therefore better... the only fair and ballanced...then you may buy this line of thinking that they are a dominant force in media.

Two thoughts...

one... If you add all the other media together, and call them the lamestream media, and then look at FOX numbers you would have a more accurate idea of what is happening in america. FOX viewers distrust every other news channel. FOX engenders and promotes that lack of trust. They help their viewers embrace the idea of using them as a sole source of information.

Two... the real way to find who dominates the media world is to look at who is most celebrated, or awarded within its community. Who has the most respect amongst its peers. Who has the highest standards of excellence in broadcasting.

You are pitching fox as a major player in the world of news. Just having alot of people watch thjeir political editorializing does not make them dominant in anything other than entertainment.

 

[rareboy]

rareboy,

i responded to your "saavy media posts" because u exhibited the opposite

you originally compared Bear Daddy's single day in January 2011 to a 3Q historical quarterly figure - yeeesh

then you go on and on about Fox's losses? forgetting the real truth that Fox dominates viewership in cable news - i guess i would ask would u rather be Fox or MSNBC if ur goal was viewership?

anyway .........

ur response to laika giving him grief about his lack of media knowledge is sorta lame

NEWS viewership is very up and down - due to real current US and world events - election cycles etc. If you save a CNN ratings graph for the past several years u would see spikes and valleys and more spikes and more valleys and u could pinpoint stories/events that created the peaks

more to come but i will leave u with this

ur fox is down story is incomplete at best - disingenuous at worst

will let jubbers decide

and for the record, fox's ratings are not disappointing nor uplifting to me

nice try (not really) to throw that in but as with many of ur posts ........... whiff

back to real life we go

Because BD had not posted his citation originally, I mistakenly (and, I admit rather carelessly) assumed it was the results for the 3rd quarter. But then, it didn't take me long, did it, to get the quarterly info and to do the year over year. Both of which demonstrated the same point.....FOX has lost viewers by the hearse load.

And you're still not getting it. If the cable audience continues to get smaller and smaller... a share of a very small audience isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. So the constant grinding that you and Laika do about how FOX is always out in front of its two very lame cable news competitors always seems to conveniently ignore that altogether, the Cable guys represent a very, very small share of the total American audience for news. For the nightly news, an average of 5.745 million viewers were watching NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN compared to the 1.784 for Shep over the last week.

And where Shep has lost almost 37% of his viewers over the year, the big three only lost 9% of their news viewers.

If FOX, MSNBC and CNN can't attract the talent they need to get viewers away from the big networks or Huffington Post, etc., being at FOX will be like deciding what level of Hell you'd like to be on.

You also apparently haven't bothered to read my predictions for the episodic recovery of Fox in 2012 or why the networks are all losing viewers. To summarize:
Fox needs a hotly contested election, a war or a disaster to build up another generation of a long term consistent audience like they were able to after 9/11 and during the Iraq war.

But the underlying reality is that younger viewers are not finding FOX appealing.

And FOX News, with the oldest, whitest predominantly male demographic of all the networks will simply wither like CNN unless they can figure out how to get the viewers back. Stirring the patriotic loins of southern and middle America by funding and promoting the TeaBaggers worked a bit, but as a result, they now have a climate where the Repubs are the ones that have to prove themselves in Congress and it is harder for FOX to retain their outraged ranting and still attract back moderate viewers.

And so back to your original post and premise.

Ailes and Murdoch are trying to use civility as a means of growing their numbers again. If they thought that public executions by their staff would do the trick, they'd be going that route. It is television.

And settle down. I've put about 100 times more effort into your thread than you have in actually doing some research to back up my hypothesis that FOX's dropping viewership has to be giving them pause for thought.

While you say no, it seems as though the decline of FOX troubles you greatly. Not as much as the in-denial Laika, but certainly I always have the feeling that you are experiencing personal hurt when FOX is under the microscope..

Chin up. Maybe there will be some disaster somewhere that will have the viewers tuning in to Shep....but I think that unless Obama can be proven to have been born in Iran and has sold them nuclear weapons capability, he's no longer going to be grist for the FOX mill....much to the dismay of Beck and Hannity who desperately need a hook for their brand of crazy.

 

[chance1]

Its not dominance in my opinion.

Its like saying McDonalds has the best food and is great cuisine because it sells more hamburgers

people go to mcd's because its predictable and its easy... because its good.

IF you follow FOX's theory that they are different and therefore better... the only fair and ballanced...then you may buy this line of thinking that they are a dominant force in media.

Two thoughts...

one... If you add all the other media together, and call them the lamestream media, and then look at FOX numbers you would have a more accurate idea of what is happening in america. FOX viewers distrust every other news channel. FOX engenders and promotes that lack of trust. They help their viewers embrace the idea of using them as a sole source of information.

Two... the real way to find who dominates the media world is to look at who is most celebrated, or awarded within its community. Who has the most respect amongst its peers. Who has the highest standards of excellence in broadcasting.

You are pitching fox as a major player in the world of news. Just having alot of people watch thjeir political editorializing does not make them dominant in anything other than entertainment.

in, media of all kinds they have "rankers" - where they list highest to lowest - shows of the week, the month, the year

all networks want to be 1st - in order to sell a higher rating showing advertisers that more people watch - there is a power to MORE viewers - popularity, etc.

i agree that it does not equate to quality but .......

by any measure, Fox dominates cable news - with more than 2x the delivery of their nearest competitor

in daytime soaps, in primetime, in network news, latenight - the gap between # 1 and #2 is minimal and sometimes it even varies

cable news is an anomaly - diff from the rest

i think to say ....... cnn + msnbc + other cable news nets = > fox

well that's numerical masturbation

as for awards, well i think its odd that more people watching fox doesn't make them dominant but some panel saying cable net xyz is great does?

i guess you're sorta making the comparison between avatar and "the kings speech" - the latter is a great great movie but will box office much less than avatar

so i hear u

BUT

i think its unfair to paint all fox viewers as less than worthy or less intelligent

but maybe its not just a "news" thing - more of a hybrid "news/entertainment" thing - so sorta agree with u there

my fingers r tired