Posted on 11/04/2004 7:03:00 AM PST by Pikamax
Other Networks' Election Loss Is Fox News's Big Gain
By Lisa de Moraes
Thursday, November 4, 2004; Page C07
A record number of voters may have turned out for the presidential election Tuesday, but they didn't translate to record audiences for the broadcast networks' election night coverage.
On the other hand, Tuesday was a very good night for Fox News Channel, which logged its biggest prime-time audience ever.
Collectively, the broadcast networks fumbled about 8 million of the viewers who had watched their prime time on election night in 2000. Ironically, the only broadcast network that can boast an increase is Fox, which doesn't even have a news division. Fox broadcast network clocked an average of 4.7 million viewers from 8 to 10 p.m. Tuesday with election coverage provided by Fox News Channel and helmed by Shepard Smith. (Fox News Channel's own coverage was helmed by Brit Hume.)
An average of 15.2 million people watched Tom Brokaw's last presidential election in the NBC anchor chair during prime time, Nielsen Media Research reports. In 2000, NBC had averaged more than 18 million viewers in prime time on election night.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Goawd!!! Fox needs more "spice?!" Yikes. Maybe add teletubbie graphics to an already massively overloaded and obnoxious screen? I love Special Report and Cavuto, but the rest of it causes me a reflex reaction to hit "OFF."
once they pulled the plug on the exit polls data they were the first to call Ohio!! and the election
I wish Tony Snow had been included. Maybe they could have rotated? Surprisingly, I am getting to like Chris Wallace. He could have been rotated also.
Juan needed to be there all the time though. I just loved watching his "deer in the headlight" eyes.
I've gotta agree. Barone was excellent and got better & better the later it got.
Fox coverage on Special Report told me all I needed to know about the rest of the night's coverage, and I didn't feel like killing another TV.
I heard this a.m. that ol' Dan has called Ms. Mapes to get her input...he may be considering calling Ohio for W.
It was mentioned on Fox that the margin of error had to be ... 300 to 1 ... before they would announce any results.
IMHO Fox was a bit cowardly. They refused to give Nevada to Bush until word of Kerry's concession came down. Clearly they were afraid to call the election for Bush out of a fear of being branded the GOP Channel. But facts are facts, and that is what the news channels are supposed to report. If Bush won Nevada report it. It has nothing to do with a potential contest over Ohio.
I am not talking about the graphics, I am talking about the format. I liked CNN's big screen format but Larry King as the old senile father in the crowd was hilarious.
MSNBC had an awful panel except for Joe Scarborough but the crowd in the background gave the show some energy. I don't think there is any way FOX could do this because the leftist would do something stupid and could be harmful to the staff.
FOX had no energy in the show and needed something. No more graphics please.
I can feel a small pang of compassion for SKerry. Can you imagine, he probably went through most of the afternoon just knowing he was going to win and then the truth hit, ha, ha. Okay, maybe I don't feel bad.
Then cutaway to Charles Krauthammer beat the hell outta Juanie Whiner Williams!!! Oh. I guess they already do that.
Poor little Jrong Juan...again.
i remain mildly pissed about FOX not having the nards to call the election when NV was clearly Bush's, but a few FREEPER comments have me back to taking big breaths and thinking of calmer thoughts.. go GW!!<<<<<<<<<
I am with you on this. They had the little roundish male appendages to call OHIO and stick to it and then didn't have it to REPORT NV after 100% of the vote was counted because it would have put Bush over. It was excrutiating to watch them intentionally avoid even talking about NV while they agonized about NM and IA.
I totally agree. I've been saying this for years. In a short time, ABC, NBC and CBS would be eating FOX's dust.
(Put Brit Hume voice here):
"Er, er, ah, ah, ah, . . . Juan, are you saying, . . . er, ah, are you saying KARL ROVE released this data? Ah, er, ah, . . . are you saying THAT?"
I couldn't agree more. I watch Fox not for spice but for the news. I love Brit Hume for that reason. I watched other stations for comparison but none compared to FNC. Not even close. Fox's graphics were more precise and easier to read with more info. They caught on early in the evening that the exit poll stats were bogus and threw them away. Mort actually read what the exit polls were saying so that their listeners would understand what was going on. They're not supposed to do that and Bill Kristol gave him dirty looks a plenty. Great TV! And I do agree with everyone that Michael Barone was stellar.
I thought FOX was horrble Tuesday night. I was watching the roundtable and thought it was a eulogy for Bush. They got totally tricked by the exit polls, they should have known they would be worthless.
Brit looked tired. But considering he had probably already worked a full day before ever sitting down in the anchor chair on Tuesday evening, I can see why.
Most of his work, starting in the evening, came at an hour of the clock where he is usually not on the air. He also worked until 3:00 a.m. EST.
In short - I don't blame him for being tired.
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.