All I have to say is
Posted on 01/23/2005 8:07:22 AM PST by Leofl
CNN LOSES 63% OF AUDIENCE OVER INAUGURATION 2001 Fri Jan 21 2005 23:52:24 2005
CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.
Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.
In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.
PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01) CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01) MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)
Good thing our hotel offered Fox News. I can't stomach CNN. There was a time when that was all there was. Thank God for FreeRepublic. That's where I get my news 1st. Then I check Drudge.
I won't be happy until it's 100%.
Dont forget that cnn was started by the piece of sh*t ted turner, how utterly tainted with dung can you get ?
This is a HUGE percentage. Networks have fretted about losing 2-3% of their viewership for a particular event.
One would think that heads would roll and changes would be made at the network as a result of these numbers. But we're dealing with leftists who don't believe in mid-life corrections.
What a coincidence! 63% of CNN's audience can neither comprehend what they are hearing, nor can they pay attention for more than a few moments anyway! It's amazing how these things correlate!
I guess this means that Begala is still a CNN "journalist."
Gee, do ya think viewers turned CNN off because they featured a segment where a protester continually yelled "F--- Bush!" and they refused to cut away?
All I have to say is
As much as we might like this, it would be a bad thing. It would be what conservatism suffered back in the days of the liberal MSM stranglehold, in reverse. All ideas need to be aired, even if they're ridiculous lib "ideas." Both sides of every issue need to be shown & debated -- a contrast is needed or else corruption and complacency will set in. Maybe 90% would suffice?
My friend and I always argue over the issue about news being opinion versus "hard news."
"Hard news" is supposed to cover facts. She says it does. I always argue that WHAT is shown, HOW MUCH of what is shown, what is NOT shown, COMMENTS made, etc., really do make "hard" news FAR MORE opinion than anything else.
That is ESPECIALLY true in politics, economics, foreign countries (bad guys/good guys), religion, jobs...hmmm, just everything. Lol.
At which point we'd need another maverick news channel to keep them from going the same way as have their current competitors.
I stopped watching CNN on Sept 12, 2001 when their talking heads explained that it was now the new network policy NOT to call the men who flew into the towers "terrorists" because they had not been convicted of anything. ( As a former prosecutor, I was unaware that the term terrorist required a criminal conviction.) If the network won't call a spade a spade, then I don't see much percentage in watching their "news" coverage. Oh, and I also got tired of Judy Woodruff's constant tearful (!) whining about the possiblity that we might strike back. (As a retired Air Force officer, I think hitting back is a good idea!) All those who thought Afghanistan was nevertheless a good idea, say Aye. That was also when we began pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. Anyone watching the carnage in Iraq want to still pretend that? (That was my only quibble with Bush's inagural speech: mentioning the Koran as a source of guidance for Americans. This is a Judeo-Christian nation.)
This should be reflected by a decrease in the ability of CNN to pull in advertising dollars. That type of thing tends to catch the eye of management. Perhaps they could fire the current crop of news "directors" and hire some less partisan folks to work on erasing the bias evident in their reporting.
You drive a hard bargain- how about a "sea of red ink" yielding 95% reduction? Besides, there's always CBS, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, and NBC to step into that role.
63 neglected cats?
CNN lost me with Paul Begala and Carville. They don't even try to be fair and balanced. They thought they were the leaders and now they are the followers. Msnbc is right down there too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.