Just Who's Winning the White House/Fox News Cable War? You'll be Surprised!
Here is the untold story. While the media has largely focused on Fox News' ratings, they have missed the real story behind the cable news wars. I watched Meet the Press and Chris Matthews Show on the Sunday, October
18th, and listen to Joe Scarbourough, Tavis Smiley and others discuss
Fox news ratings as "shooting through the roof" as a result of the
White House's attack on Fox News. I thought it ludicrous to make such claims so soon after the attacks, and suspected that these commentators were simply repeating the unsubstantiated claim. I decided to review and track the ratings for Fox News and the other cable shows to see if I could determine a change in cable news viewership.
The following graphs displays the results of cable news program ratings
trends over a 5 week period starting on September 28th, 2009 and ending
October 30th, 2009. This time span encompasses the White House's recent
criticisms about Fox New's right wing bias. The 5 week span begins two
weeks prior to Anita Dunn's
"the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological... what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party."The following charts exclude weekends.
Daily Ratings - Dates are the Monday of each week.
As you can see the trends in daily ratings are rising for MSNBC. Both Fox News and CNN ratings are trending downward.
Prime Time Ratings - Dates are the Monday of each week.
Likewise the trends in prime time ratings favor MSNBC. Both Fox News and CNN ratings are trending downward.
Obviously, these graphs represent a ratings snapshot and cannot be
predictive. What they do suggests is that the White Houses calling out
Fox News has not lead to the ratings "boom" that Fox News has claimed
and the many in the media have assumed to be the case.
MSNBC is clearly doing better during the past 5 weeks.
The discussion about the effects of the White House's attacks have been largely concentrated on Fox News ratings. You might remember that the White House met with Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on Monday the October 16th right in the middle of the White House's coordinated attack on Fox. No ones talking, so we don't know what transpired, but you have to wonder if these coordinated attacks, that fly in the face of "conventional wisdom," and defied conventional wisdom(it would help Fox News), may have benefited MSNBC in the end.
If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.
Just remember when Fox creates facts such as 'our ratings have gone through the roof', other mainstream media reports it as fact...with the exception often of MSNBC.
I credit that to a little more fact checking.
Fox makes up BS and the MSM perpetuates the lies.
November 6, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one reason BTW that Rachel Maddow will yet again be on Meet The Press this weekend, Synch. She has added something new to the mix: reporting, as opposed to reciting unchecked allegations or "concerns" or "questions are now being raised" as you say.
There has been a large ratings spike every time Rachel is on Meet the Press by the way.
November 7, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am very happy to hear that OT. I hope that it lets the network know that we want more 'reporting' such as Rachel Maddow offers and less of the Fox-Lite that Mornin' Joe puts out.
November 7, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be quite a thing to behold, wouldn't it?
What a concept!
November 7, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We expect the truth from the likes of Smiley...that is reaching...Please
November 7, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's Smiley?
November 7, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to disparage your effort but I read essentially the same information on the web, a couple of days ago.
In addition to many of the same points you make that blog pointed out that the reports of an increase in the Fox audience simply compared two non comparable periods.Only one of the periods contained a weeked end with its drastically dfferent TV-watching characteristics.
I'll take this opportunity to state my position on the Obama administration's action. It's right.
What they've done is call a spade a spade. The alternative was to maintain the pretence that Fox is a news organization. It isn't any more than is The Nation or Rush. Like them Fox's intention is to promote a specific view -which in its case is that the Obama administation should be hindered in every possible ways. It would be craven for Obama to assist them. And , any interview -or question opportunity-the Adminstraton gives Fox does just that. And is a bullet aimed right its own heart. It's time for the Great Ignore.
November 6, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, and as I've been saying for a long time, the normal advice here doesn't apply.
Normally you should never attack the media. Fox wants to use that as a get of jail free card for these capers, though, and here's why they can't.
The reason you try to show respect and don't attack the media is because if you attack, they'll come after you and they've got the readers/viewers. Here, though, no matter what you do they'll still come after you. That's their raison d'etre.
So that leaves as the only consideration what you say: go on and you are legitimizing them and why would you want to do that? Just as you say.
November 7, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are talking about media matters article. COuld you provide a reference? Thanks.
November 7, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think so. I'll try to find the link.
November 7, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004
November 7, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although there is A little overlap, I think you miss the point of either my post or the mediamatters article. For instance, who is winning the cable war? Where is MSNBC or CNN mentioned? Where is the breakdown of the individual shows? Where is the mention of a decline in CNN? ....
November 7, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah , I didn't get beyond the debunking of the faux Fox surge.
November 7, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a long-term role for leadership that has been ignored here, and it may be detrimental to Fox over time.
The Fox viewers are uneducated (or insane like our former Vice President0 and some of them mean well or mean to be good citizens. If the President tells them that this is not news, that means something to some of them. He's the President, the head of state. He's used the power of his office to say this is not news. If it isn't, and when they see the President isn't on there giving interviews, maybe they should watch something else to get news. They're uneducated, but they'd like to at least by able to say that they watch the news sometime. And when people switch, others are likely to follow to some degree.
It is the right position for the White House to take in any event. Teenagers/younger people who are just beginning to look at news programs to some degree are entitled to hear from the White House about this, for example. Which programs are news are which aren't? I recently blogged on similar issues at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/11/msm-has-delighted-in-repeating.php
Nice job, and rec'd!
November 7, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
One last thing: I'm an MSNBC junky and I'm glad for them if their numbers are up. But as a citizen, that is not the issue of course. Fox's numbers being down is what matters. Let the viewers turn to the networks or CNN, whatever. As long as it's not propaganda. For the White House to help them make that distinction is good for the citizenry.
November 7, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And when all else fails, there's something to be said for telling the truth. Fox is a Potemkin News Organization. Or perhaps a Video Wizard of Oz (ooz?).Altho that comparison's not fair to that nice old fraud.
To be completely honest I can see the appeal of Rushfoxes. Unfortunately , that glib certainty is seductive. In Point Counterpoint Huxley describes the appeal that the uniformed fascists of the 30s had even for the educated who should have known better.
November 7, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And when all else fails, there's something to be said for telling the truth."
Yes, this is right! The people are entitled to the truth from the White House. It's an old-timey concept, but there was a day when people wanted to hear the truth from their leaders instead of, say, the race-baiting that has become the Republicans stock in trade. Some people still want to hear the truth from the Head of State. And it is amazing the degree that the media has been goading the White House to continue to lie about this ("Oh, come on, I have known you for seventeen years, WHY would you want to pick a fight with Fox News for heaven's sake." -- accurate paraphrase of incredulous John King of CNN.) They are saying, Oh come on, let's all continue the lie and play the game together. And these are *journalists* for God's sake! This would suggest that things had gotten, if anything, worse than one may have realized, and thus the truth intervention was urgently need.
November 7, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If CNN's downward trend continues, they may reconsider their lunge towards the right. Mr. Dobbs may have to go.
November 7, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for doing this tonnyb. Charts we can believe in, I must say!
November 7, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell, I left you a long comment to your comment on my blog yesterday. A couple actually. (hope you get this - or someone flags you!)
November 7, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, just finished my second reply to you. Got interrupted by a visitor after the first and then just peeked at a few blogs before coming back to the main course!
November 7, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink