tonnyb's Blog

Just Who's Winning the White House/Fox News Cable War? You'll be Surprised!

2009-11-06T19:48:05Z

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.

Finally I plotted the 5 pm to 10 pm cable shows to look at the ratings trendlines over the same period of time. The following chart displays the changes in the trendlines from the beginning to the end of that period of time.

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.

How Long Before the Right Blames Obama for Fort Hood

2009-11-06T15:29:59Z

You know it's coming.

Carrie Prejean does XXX Film

2009-11-05T03:16:55Z

It's the story that keeps on giving. Miss California pageant officials got a hold of the film several months ago. Apparently, the film convinced Carrie to withdraw her law suit against them. Gay marriage bad, XXX good? I wonder how the religious conservatives, right wing nuts, and Donald Trump will spin this?

CBO: Public Option Premiums Higher than Private Plans

2009-10-30T14:40:08Z

Here's the story. Designed to fail? Will we ever catch a break? Feels like Alice in Wonderland.

How Will PO Supporters React When They Find Out They Don't Qualify?

2009-10-26T21:51:15Z

They will likely be upset and feel deceived. Some are likely to abandon the CHANGE, at least for awhile.

At least some of their concerns are beginning to be considered. Like executive compensation --the fact that we are paying for those multi-million dollar bonuses -- and consumer protection.

Goldman Advisor: "Income Inequality Will Lead to Prosperity for All." He May be Right.

2009-10-21T20:09:30Z

ROTFLOL!!!!!!

Well you know, the public has been duped ever since the actor became President. Maybe enough people will believe it?

On second thought, he's may be right! The last time we had extreme income distribution (1920's), the ensuing crash lead to Glass-Steagal Act which prevented banks from owning financial companies and vice-versa. Roosevelt came into office and tax the bankers and their friends over 80% income tax. It took a while, but after our WWII success we experience 40 years of expanding wealth for the middle class.

He just may be right.

Should the White House Punch Down?

2009-10-19T18:30:44Z

Morning Joe, like many of his right wing buddies, frequently equates right and left wing extremists as the same stating that "extremists on the left did the same when Bush was President, calling him Hitler."(paraphrased) Mika frets whenever a story appears to be hitting the right wing's extremists over some looney claim (eg. birthers) without reminding everyone that extremists on the left called Bush II Hitler, when he was in office. She likes equivalence even when its false.

Please tell me if my memory serves me right. During the Clinton and Bush II eras, I don't remember hearing anything about Clinton murdering Vince Foster or Bush being called Hitler in the mainstream media. I remember seeing 30 seconds or so of mainstream coverage on the million (more than fringe) person anti-war demonstration in England, weeks before BUSH II invaded Iraq. The left-wing fringes who believe that Bush II let Al Queda hit the WTC towers in order to invade Iraq and steal their oil also received little coverage except after Rosie O'Donnell pushed it on her show and later on "The View." Even then I don't think it got much coverage.

Neither the left-wing or the right-wing fringes got much mainstream coverage in the Clinton and Bush II eras. At least that's my memory. But with Obama, it seems like the extremists on the right are going mainstream. The town halls, birthers and teabaggers made their way into mainstream venues when in the past they would have been largely ignored. If so, doesn't that make "them" very different from their counterparts on the left?

Those of us who follow politics closer are likely to be aware of most of these stories. When these stories go mainstream, it lends some credence to the story and influences a percentage of the population, even if its a small percentage. If anything, during most of Bush II's tenure, the right-wing and its extremists moved more mainstream, left-wing extremists were ignored and more moderate liberals were marginalized. So much for the liberal media.

So why is the mainstream media covering such nonsense? Obviously, the media needs controversy to draw an audience. The fact that this is what they have turned to, speaks to the powerlessness of the Republican party in general, and the weakness of moderate republicans. It isn't that no reasonable leader in the Republican Party exist, but the party will not accept a reasonable Republican as their leader. Additionally, more moderate outlets, see Fox New's success and hope to improve their ratings by inching in their direction. More extreme views make it onto CNN and other outlets.

IMO, the White House has good reason to break tradition and push back against the mainstreaming of these extremists, including Fox News because more and more, the fringes are gaining mainstream attention and that attention is likely to influence a percentage of the population. If you keep getting hit, and ignore the attacks, ala Sen. Kerry's swift-boating, then you run the risk of appearing weak and losing support.

Gallup headlines that Obama's September '09 media blitz had no effect on the President's job approval. Said another way the slow, long-term drop in the President's approval was halted after the media blitz. There was a point to the blitz and it was somewhat successful.

Fox's ratings rose after the White House's comments last week. Some view this as a win for Fox news and a lost for the White House. I don't think so. Those viewers are tuning in to see what the White House is talking about. I think shining more light on Glenn Beck is good. Perhaps it will help keep CNN from needing to slide further to the right.

If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.

Modified and reposted.

Olympia's Snow Job?

2009-10-14T14:20:12Z

I was listening to Olympia Snowe on Morning Joke this morning and was stunned by her explanation of why she would not support a public option.

She presented four reasons:

1) the public option would create an unfair advantage against the insurance companies.
2) the public option, like all government programs, would cost more.
3) government run programs are less effective.
4) this would create another bloated government bureaucracy.

Items 1 & 2: A public option would create an unfair advantage and would cost more. Huh! Since the public option would have to pay for itself -- the money collected by the program would pay for the medical services provided -- I don't see how a public option that cost more than private insurance would create an unfair advantage? The price of the public option would be set by the cost of the services provided. Sounds like double talk to me. Am I missing something?

Insurance industry profits have increase 428% in the past 8 years or so. The public option could function without the need for profit. I think it would cost less. A lot less.

Item 3: Government run programs are less effective.

Here is a partial list of successful government programs.

Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
National Park Service
Medicaid
Medicare
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
Social Security
Family & Medical Leave Act
National Weather Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Government Grants
Food & Drug Administration
Americans with Disabilities Act
Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI bill)
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (another GI bill)
Peace Corps
European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS or cash for clunkers)
Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act
Public Broadcasting
Public Schools & Universities
Public Transportation (it has a lot of faults but a lot of people need it to get around)
Public Libraries
Fire Department
Workers' Compensation (ex Sate Compensation Insurance Fund of California)
Rural Utilities Service
Community Development Block Grant
Housing & Urban Development (HUD)

Item 4: The public option would create another bloated government bureaucracy.

Who cares? Obviously some people do. But if the public option cost less and pays for itself than what difference does it make?

Her objections to the public option are just a regurgitation of the Republican/conservative memes against government.

If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.

Doesn't the Opt-Out Public Option Equal the Public Option?

2009-10-08T19:44:10Z

Well the press is reporting that the opt-out public option compromise proposed by Senator Tom Carper (D) from Delaware is gaining steam. But practical speaking is there any difference between the two. Certainly, moderate Senators can make a claim of limiting government influence on their constituents medical lives by insisting on the Opt-out. But once this legislation passes, which states are going to opt out of the public option? With 65% of the public supporting the option which states governors and/or legislatures are going to reject for their constituents the benefit of lower medical costs and insurance rates? Is there a state that over time has more to gain by opting out?

Maybe our good old governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal will find some way to opt-out and opt-in at the same time, similar to what he did with stimulus money. How about our good old trail hiker governor from the South Carolina; he could publicly reject the plan, while his state legislature works to undermine his decision as they did with their stimulus package. Texas? Minnesota?

If in fact some states decide to opt-out how will the surrounding opt-in states deal with border crossers looking for medical care at opt-in rates?

Controlling the Message: Healthcare vs. "Presidential Propaganda"

2009-09-04T13:49:07Z

Seems to me the White House should delay the address to students for a week?

Insurance Industry Double Talk: Don't Demonize Us or Else

2009-08-10T17:40:43Z

Vilification Of Insurance Industry = Defeat of Healthcare Reform. Where have I heard this kind of double talk before?

Oh yeah. From Republican politicians and operatives in the news. Like Stephen Hawkins not surviving American healthcare reform, death squads and all, but somehow living his whole life in England and surviving Britain's socialist healthcare system. Somehow, Hawkins must have eluded the british healthcare authorities who would have certainly had him euthanized.

Pelosi States the Obvious: Healthcare Reform Could Leave GOP Powerless for Decades

2009-07-24T15:00:46Z

"Pelosi, in painting the debate in starkly political terms, was careful to say clearly that it was the Republican Party that did so first. But underlying her remarks is a belief held by many in both parties that if Democrats can pass health care legislation that expands coverage and brings down cost they can lock up the majority for years to come, much as the party did after implementing the New Deal reforms."

Was Hawaii a State When Obama was Born?

2009-07-21T21:24:14Z

Obama was born August 4th, 1961, at least that's what he says. Maybe the birthers don't believe that Hawaii is part of the REAL America. Maybe they don't know that the state was admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959. Maybe they don't believe that it really is a state, all those brown people and all.

HEY HAWAII ... SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

The 1.5 Trillion Lie - AP in Legion with Faux News

2009-07-16T17:17:20Z

Things must be slow at the old AP. Nothing like stirring up a little controversy with a lie or two, to get the readership up.

Conservative Randall Terry Abandons Personal Responsibility Clause of the Right-Wing Manisfesto .. for Now

2009-06-12T14:55:20Z

Anti-abortionist extremist Randall Terry now blames Obama for his extremist compatriots coming off the rails. He wants Obama to take the blame for the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the security guard at the Washington Holocaust Museum.

When was personal responsibility abandoned by the right wing conservatives? Seems like with some conservatives, ring-wing principles fall prey to relativism, which, of course, is a bad word in conservative circles.

Seems like with some conservatives, liberal who commit crimes are responsible for their actions, period; conservatives who kill are not. When non-conservatives ask why young Muslims are joining Al Qaeda and taking up arms against the US, conservatives consider those questions of no consequence. Understanding the enemy isn't important. When conservatives take up arms and kill other Americans, then it becomes important to search for the reason why. Obama is their reason.