Patterico's Pontifications

5/11/2006

More on That TV Column About Fox News and CNN Ratings

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 7:03 am



Remember that TV column in the L.A. Times that screamed about Fox News’s ratings decline and whispered about CNN’s much larger ratings plunge?

Independent Sources makes the case that, not only did the column provide the wrong emphasis, it also used the wrong facts. They say that the numbers for the column were cherry-picked and misleadingly described to paint Fox News in the worst light possible.

Really? At the L.A. Times?!

Their post cites to another piece that reports the ratings information fairly and accurately. That piece and the Times column are placed side by side so you can see with your own eyes how fairness looks when contrasted with rank distortion.

Good stuff, guys.

16 Responses to “More on That TV Column About Fox News and CNN Ratings”

  1. The Independent Sources piece was more perceptive. Instead of obsessing over Fox, it pointed out a huge downward trend for cable news in general, especially in the core demographic. Devoured by the Internet!

    Bradley J. Fikes (e619fc)

  2. Reporter publishes novel as Anonymous (lies about it) and gets pimped by Hugh Hewitt
    Patterico, I had to drop by to stop my head from spinning after a visit to Hugh’s place where I see that our tireless champion of New Media is trying to hide two of the most out-of-touch members of the so-called liberal elite Old Media (Klein and Cohen) behind his chiffon skirts. If Hugh could only get it through his little pointy head that New Media is not comprised of the Hewitt, Lileks, Steyn sewing circle, he’d be embarrassed by how transparent his hypocrisy is. New Media is a complexity, of course, but certainly one aspect of it is…well, the Old Democracy…the messy, passionate, noisy kind of democracy celebrated in poems by Whitman and films by Capra…and now, at long last, actually being practiced in America via the Internet. But where some folks see democracy in action, the frauds among us see “a fever swamp.” I’d ask Hugh, as the tireless champion of New Media, why he embarrasses himself by running cover for two worn-out hacks like Cohen and Klein at the expense of the clamoring, fervent voices of New Media, but alas Hugh’s a coward as well as a hypocrite, and his blog is a No Comments Zone (which makes Hugh the real pontificator).

    Which brings me to you, Pat, since it’s already been well established that you have the cojones (sorry for the bilingualism) to actually engage in New Media by allowing comments on your site. The following question is not rhetorical because I truly am interested in your answer. As I scroll over two or three pages here I notice a tremendous imbalance in the comments. Most of your posts garner well under 25 comments, and then every once in a while you hit triple figures. It’s been my distinct honor to be a participant…if not the subject…of at least two of those bonanzas. But aside from bundling “bin Laden, evil and lefties” in a headline, are there any other things you’ve noticed that goose up the ratings—days of the week, appearance of certain commenters, subject matter, etc? It seems that if you could regularly generate 150 comments per post, you’d be living large with the kos kids and hosting a big convention in Las Vegas, no? (Hmmm, I notice you just managed to nudge that turnip of a post on the LA Times coverage of FOX ratings to triple figures, and you’ve gone back to that well this morning…which has my head spinning again. Poor Fox. Victim of unfairness and imbalance? Say it isn’t so.)

    Asinistra (c493b3)

  3. Forgive me for butting in, Patterico, but I would like to give my opinion in answer to asinistra’s question about the number of comments on any particular post:

    Asinistra, just this once only:

    It seems to depends on the quality of the opposing viewpoint. For example, actus, Psyberian and aphrael make points worth responding to. You, blubonnet and charlie just seem to throw rocks so we I just ignore you. And … well … there’s only so much you can say about something.

    nk (50d578)

  4. Asinistra,

    Hugh wants to deal with you live on his show, not in a comments section.

    Let me tell you a little story. 13 years ago, Hugh was a complete illiterate when it came to the Internet and Computers. I was constantly offering to teach him, but he politely declined. I did get a job working for the Generalissimo. I had to give it up when I moved to Iowa. When Hugh got a website and his show syndicated and on the Internet, I couldn’t believe the change in him.

    As someone with a contrary view to reality, I’m sure if you want to joust with Hugh during his open phones, the Generalissimo would put you to the head of the line.

    PCD (f0d1f4)

  5. PCD, I believe radio is what they call “Old Media.” My question is about “New Media,” and Patterico’s experience of it specifically. (Hewitt’s failure to either fully understand it or embrace it is a matter between him and his savior, and I don’t envy him in that, knowing as I do how his savior feels about hypcocrisy).

    PS to NK: I’m afraid you missed my point.

    Asinistra (c493b3)

  6. Comparing primetime demos is not “using the wrong numbers.” There was a slightly worse FNC showing in the TVWeek article (19%/17%) than the LAT’s.

    “April marked FNC’s lowest-rated month in the 25-54 demographic since August 2001, according to Nielsen data.

    April was CNN’s lowest month for primetime demo viewers since December 2002. But by virtue of being #1, FNC has the most to lose.

    Total day, FNC averaged 208,000 demo viewers in April, down from 212,000 in March and 236,000 in February. April’s viewership was at its lowest level since 9/11. Year-to-date, FNC demo is down 26 percent from 2005, while CNN is down 21 percent.”

    -TVNewser.com

    My take is Anderson Cooper is a bust, Lou Dobbs is getting some traction and Fox & Friends is FNC’s runaway hit.

    Everything else is in shallow decline.

    steve (ffcb66)

  7. On a completely off-topic matter, saw this story by Susan Estrich on Foxnews.com. It address issue with the Dog Trainers that’s dear to your heart, the absolute fabrication of story and quotes by the paper.

    BigFire (8e4fcc)

  8. steve,

    Read the Independent Sources link. As I said in the post, the numbers were cherry-picked and misleadingly described.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  9. “Read the Independent Sources link.” – Patterico

    The one saying the LAT was “using the wrong numbers” singling out the highly desirable, 25-54 primetime demo.

    The one reprising your spat with Michael Hiltzik.

    The one calling FNC audience stats a “leveling off.”

    Yeah, that “Independent Sources” link.

    steve (ffcb66)

  10. The one saying the LAT was “using the wrong numbers” singling out the highly desirable, 25-54 primetime demo.

    The one reprising your spat with Michael Hiltzik.

    The one calling FNC audience stats a “leveling off.”

    Yeah, that “Independent Sources” link.

    The one with an independent link (an Independent Source!) showing that the LAT numbers were cherry-picked and misleadingly described.

    That Independent Sources link.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  11. Breaking my pledge (excessive courtesy has always been one of my major faults):

    Asinistra, your comment #5:

    I did not miss your point. You smothered the poor thing with “chiffon skirts”, “pointy head”, “worn-out hacks”, etc. In 35 lines, roughly, of what I call “rock-throwing”.(Your comment #2). Moreover, what on earth do comments have to do with visits? (If that is your point?) Is newspaper readership measured by letters to the editor?

    Content aside, you have obviously never practiced law before judges who only read the first three lines of any motion you bring instanter. (Not because they’re lazy but because they have 120 cases on their a.m. call.

    nk (57e995)

  12. Asinistra,

    What gooses the number of comments? I dunno. Ask the commenters.

    What boosts the readership is often different: a unique take or perspective. Few bloggers can muster that every day. I don’t think I always do. But I think I do it on occasion.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  13. Patterico,
    Yes, you do on occasion. And though I’d hoped for more, thanks for the answer. Maybe some time down the line, you’ll have time to peruse your archives and see if any patterns emerge…more for your benefit than mine, of course.

    P.S. to nk, I’m not practicing law, so I don’t give a damn what the reading habits of judges are. And you still didn’t get the point of the question because it had nothing to do with the number of comments I attact, but the number of comments Patterico attracts. Fortunately, he got the point and answered for himself.

    Asinistra (c493b3)

  14. I have an interesting question on my blog about Fox News, would anyone be able to answer? Come on over and have a go at trying:

    http://kashmiri-nomad.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-fox-news.html

    Kashmiri Nomad (2cddcc)

  15. This is slightly on topic… But it has to do with news online as opposed to ontelevision.

    Thanks to Google’s techie Google Trends feature, you can enter “FOX News, CNN, MSNBC” to get a comparison of search trends for the key words. What exactly does it prove? Well, nothing. I’m not even sure how Google is counting the searches for each one. You can limit your search to a specific site, say CNN.com, when you’re using Google’s search engine. I’m not even sure if that would count as a CNN search. Anyway, CNN is on top with FOX and MSNBC lagging way behind and for some odd reason, Birmingham is the top city for the searches.

    Of course, you can put your own key word(s) in there to see search trends for whatever else you’re interested in – which is one reason I brought this up.

    Here’s the site: http://www.google.com/trends.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0809 secs.