News Corpse » Fox News Ratings Fall Off A Cliff In 2011:

Does this mean that people are waking up to the LIES coming from Fox 'News'....or do they just miss their favorite psycho, Glenn Beck?

redfan

I do believe so, people are getting real tired of their lies and contortions of the true.

Good bye Fox

It's nice to see that a regular MediaMatters poster got some cred in this article. He's always good for an electroshock to the right wing hypocrisy. Fox lies and I see a lot of their attacks used here on this site by "librul" haters.

For all of you Fox lovers..There are plenty of sites where you can join in with the station's Yes concert. FoxNation is loaded with erudite pundits and truth tellers.///

Stupid wears pretty thin after a while eh?

This means that the far right wing crowd is migrating toward Jabba the Rush, the banana slug from outer space?

This is seriously good news -- Faux Spews has single-handedly destroyed the public discourse. Their "reporters" and "news" anchors lie outrageously, babble like caged hyenas, and teach their minions a phrasebook of "retorts" meant to shut other people up, destroying any chance of information or idea exchange. Their rudeness and interrupting is often emulated by those that watch-- making ordinary conversation in ordinary homes and community groups containing Faux groupies, nigh impossible. The world will be a better place when Faux goes away -- and a 16% reduction is a good start!

Oh my. Guess the Gallup poll stating that Fox was number 1 amongst cable 'news' shows had it wrong?

Why read the article? The headline and the comments say it all. Fox bashing, wow! How utterly unusual and strange to have an article bashing Fox and then note all the gleeful comments. Guess the Al Sharpton show is something to look forward to?

mygirl1

Oh my. Guess the Gallup poll stating that Fox was number 1 amongst cable 'news' shows had it wrong?

Well it is one of two things, Entertainment or a lot of gullable people out there, Fox is NOT news. Have you ever watched it?

Why read the article?

Does that mean you are just trolling?

Maybe their viewers are finally realizing that even Obama can't possibly ALWAYS be wrong.

Why read the article?

Yeah, why read the article? Why comment on an article you didn't read? I can see it now: "I watched the propoganda ads, I'm going to vote now."

Of the three main cable news networks, Fox News is the only one that went down compared to their ratings in 2010. And a double-digit decline at that. FoxPods will, as usual, point out that Fox is still the top cable news network, but that is beside the point

So how is the fact that Fox news is still number 1 beside the point? Could this be trying to pre-deflect the facts before their brought out.

While Fox is the #1 cable news network, they lag far behind the broadcast nets. In fact, the highest rated program on Fox (O’Reilly Factor) has about half the viewers of the lowest rated broadcast news program (CBS Evening news).

Gee, no @!$%#? Could that be because not everyone has cable. The people without cable dont have a whole lot to choose from. NBC nightly news or CBS Evening news. Thats it.

Beck brought Fox viewers to the ocean bottom, where they were forced to feed from. Seeing the light of day so far above them, taunting them from above, must have become to much, forcing them to head for the surface to get some ever-so-needed oxygen to their brains... /s

This is kind of an odd article. I'm looking for the support for their claim, but I can't find it. The link in the story attached to the words "taken a steep dive" takes you to a story about how CNN's ratings are way up. The word "Fox" does not even appear in this story.

Either way, remember that the story is about change in ratings - not the ratings themselves. If you're already winning or losing by a lot, any change is going to look dramatic even if the standings don't change.

I'm glad to see CNN's ratings going up. I think it's a reflection of the fact that they are trying to get away from a lot of the silly crap they were doing and just doing the news. Also, when you get a big international story like the Tsunami or all the Arab riots, people still assume CNN has the most people and cameras in obscure places.

So if Fox's ratings are falling while CNN's go up, that's not much of a surprise. MSNBC isn't going to change much. They've been terrible for a while. If five more people started watching, it would probably look like a double digit increase.

Meanwhile Fox is still way ahead in actual ratings for the day. Here's a link.

The word "Fox" does not even appear in this story.

No, but "FNC" does.

If you're already winning or losing by a lot, any change is going to look dramatic even if the standings don't change.

I'd argue otherwise. If you're winning (or losing) by a lot - then it takes a significant change to 'look dramatic'. Small changes will be unnoticeable. You seem to recognize this when you talk about MSNBC's change.

MSNBC isn't going to change much.

I think the article says that MSNBC changed +5% (total viewers) - not much, but at least positive.

It also seems to say that the total audience for FNC is 82.8 million, while the total audience for MSNBC is 80.7 million. That's closer than I had thought.

Has FauxNews recieved any awards in journalism for their in-depth investigative reporting on the New Black Panthers and their National campaign to overthrow the Gov on behalf of our Kenyan Prez yet? /S

(No /S) Maybe it's events like this which have turned away many of the more casual viewers of FauxNews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRH15YtW0E4&feature=related

Gee, I wonder why FauxNews cut Beck? Could it have anything to do with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlLVAncX1lY

@StoneyT

Could that be because not everyone has cable.

You're right.

Depending on whose numbers you use somewhere between < 80% and >90% of homes in America have either cable...satellite...or Fiber to the Node/Premises...or a combination of services.

The people without cable dont have a whole lot to choose from.

Not true. We "unplugged" last year...bought a $65 antenna...we recieve about 48 channels, most (30+) in HD. Better quality HD than we used to pay for, I might add!

Additionally I can stream (or download and watch) any video content...including news...which is available on the web.

The word "Fox" does not even appear in this story.

No, but "FNC" does.

Ahh Haa! Thank you!

Depending on whose numbers you use somewhere between < 80% and >90% of homes in America have either cable...satellite

Lets see some links to that. I cant find any numbers even close to that high.

we recieve about 48 channels

Well, then you arent in southern Indiana. Because if you dont have cable you might get 12-15 channels and maybe half will come in. And even if you got all 15 there is still only 3 for news. ABC, NBC, and CBS.

Additionally I can stream (or download and watch) any video content...including news...which is available on the web.

Maybe its hard for you to believe but there are a helluva lot of people that dont have the internet. And alot that do still have dial up so they probably arent watching alot of news over their connection.

Why read the article?

Maybe to become familiar with the material being discussed? Or, should I assume that would be out of the ordinary for defenders of Fox News?

You really do not need to answer; I think I pretty much know already.

Lets see some links to that. I cant find any numbers even close to that high.

Happily.

First we have to establish a baseline. The US Census Bureau estimates there are <116 million "households" in America. (Rounding up a bit since 2010 figures are the latest I could find).

We can use that number...or the Census "total housing units" (<132 million) and back out the unoccupied properties 18.4 million...for a total of <114 million.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association places the number of "Basic" and "Digital" cable subscribers ...including satellite providers at a combined, 104 million. Here's a breakdown of the Top 25 providers....whose subscriber base totals 104 million.

Even using the larger denominator of 116....that gives us roughly 90.43%

The lower range number I quoted (<80%) came from this survey...which is now well out of date. I'm getting old...cause I thought the number was much more current.

Well, then you arent in southern Indiana.

No. I split time between Chicago and San Francisco. Although I have spent many happy hours in Floyds Knob, IN.

there are a helluva lot of people that dont have the internet.

True. But that number is getting to be fewer and fewer all the time

Your math is a little fuzzy.

Your 104 million subscriber base doesnt take into account businesses.

Pretty much every bar, restaurant, private club, doctors office, sports bar, hospital, dentist, hotel, and motel has cable.

Nice try though.

I gotta wonder....what was the lie that was just one step too far? Fox viewers have a multitude to choose from so what happened in 2011 that made that many people say "I am out!"

Your math is a little fuzzy.

Stoney, while appreciate you pointing out that I omitted an important factor... that omission doesn't make my math 'fuzzy'. Nice try though!

The "survey" link I provided, while old, still established the low range number for "home" subscribers as I indicated.

And, this Nielsen report here puts the cable/satellite "home" subscriber number at 90.3 million.

Additionally, it's unclear if this calculation includes fiber optic (FTTH) subscription services, which account for another 7.6 million users. (U-verse 3.6 million...Fios4 million). It does not appear to as they fall into a separate category of subscribers.

If the home vs. business subscriber percentages are similar (90.3/104=86.8%)...than 6.6 million of the 7.6 are home users.

If the 90.3 calculation does include FTTH:

90.3/116 is 77.8%...similar to the survey link provided.

If the 90.3 calculation does not include FTTH, we need to add 6.6 million:

96.9/116 is 83.5%

My high end estimate of >90% was a bit overly aggressive (however if I used the lowest possible legitimate denominator instead of the highest, the 2nd calculation would be at about 86%!).

Can we agree that around 80% of homes have cable/sat tv?

Trolling? Nah. Just commenting on the predictability of responses to stories. Something bad said about Obama and you get either the conservative calling for impeachment or the liberals defending him unto the death. Ditto a lot of other topics.

Frankly, most television news has become editorializing. rather than journalism. Talking heads and interviews where people shout over one another with the ever present 'celebrity' touting a new movie or book. Unless there is something of true news-worthiness, like the Japanese tsunami or the protests in Egypt, most of it is mind-numbing filler. Rather read a book.

Can we agree that around 80% of homes have cable/sat tv?

Yes, around there.