Ratings

Tucker Carlson: A Ratings Black Hole

Posted by on August 31, 2007 at 3:06 am. 18 Comments :

In the first half of 2007, MSNBC’s ratings surged more than 30 percent over the previous year. A fair amount of that progress was thanks to the breakout performance of Keith Olbermann’s Countdown. This comes at a time when competing cable news networks were struggling to maintain single-digit growth. But not all of the players on MSNBC’s team were pulling their weight. Looking at the schedule from 4:00p to 10:00p, there is an obvious underachiever in the mix.

The two poorest performing programs in the lineup are the ones hosted by Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson. There is something about his presence that, when broadcast, sucks the audience into a space/time continuum and disgorges them from the TV universe. And it isn’t just that he vaporizes viewers, he also has the dubious distinction of declining 9% while the network that employs him is enjoying a ratings revival.

It is a little surprising that, in the face of such manifest failure, the network brass cling so tenaciously to this loser. What do they see in Tucker that persuades them that he will ever deliver an audience that compares to his network colleagues? It certainly can’t be the detritus of his broadcast career that includes such notorious bombs as CNN’s Crossifre and PBS’ Unfiltered. Neither has he distinguished himself as an author or newspaper columnist. He couldn’t even survive the first round of his embarrassing outing on Dancing With the Stars, where his choreography consisted largely of his remaining seated. [About which, Olbermann chided, “Any dance a man spends part of which in a chair is, by definition, a lap dance!”]

As there is no professional explanation for MSNBC’s mysterious loyalty, there must be some other excuse for carrying Tucker’s dead weight in the midst of the network’s bull run. Perhaps it has something to do with his pedigree. Tucker is the son of Richard Warner Carlson, a former U.S. ambassador, director of the U.S. Information Agency, and president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He is currently Vice Chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-war, right-wing think tank whose Board of Advisors includes Gary Bauer, Bill Kristol, Zell Miller, and Richard Perle. Crime may or may not pay, but nepotism and having friends in high places certainly does.

If MSNBC were responsibly managing its resources, Tucker would be on the chopping block and the development team would be auditioning Olbermann clones. Wouldn’t it make sense to emulate a winner? When you consider the financial consequences at stake, it is incomprehensible that the network would abandon this time slot to a proven washout when they could significantly increase ad rates and sales by turning it over to a fresher, better informed, and more talented personality (The News Corpse Report?).

The problem may be that their development staff is even less talented than Tucker himself. It’s not as if they don’t have a broad variety of AAA players that could be called up: Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Miller, Sam Seder, Taylor Marsh, Jim Hightower, Laura Flanders, Harry Shearer, or any other of the many distinguished progressive commentators.

It should also be noted that there is no law against introducing some actual creativity into the process. How about shaping a new model for cable infotainment that incorporates some of the dynamics and vitality of these here InterTubes™? If I were VP of program development for MSNBC, I would be proposing a hybrid show that was not just a parade of talking (butting) heads robotically spinning predigested blathering points. It would be a multi-host program with distinct segments that draw on the wisdom of the crowd.

One segment would feature news on politics and popular culture ala The Huffington Post. Another would concentrate on investigative reporting that allows viewers to participate in the sort of citizen-powered journalism that Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo does so well. There would be a segment that holds the media accountable to higher standards by documenting its successes and failures as Media Matters does. And, finally, I would include community moderated stories that are promoted to the air by the recommendations of viewers in a manner similar to that on the Daily Kos.

The segments would not be of fixed duration, but would expand or contract as dictated by the urgency of the content. There should be a liberal sprinkling of humor where appropriate, with regular comic voices invited to appear. This format provides the opportunity to feature numerous hosts and guests that are not often granted airtime in today’s constricted TV environment. And all of the above segments should include heavy doses of viewer participation via an affiliated web site that permits users to post articles, comments, videos, and even fully produced stories.

Now, I’m a realist, and I don’t expect the toadies in TV development to suddenly grow spines and produce something that is innovative and challenging. This is a problem that is pandemic in the industry and not in any way limited to MSNBC. CNN is likewise coddling a ratings disaster named Glenn Beck. But I do believe that the studio bean counters know how to read a balance sheet, and if they have any inclination to actually do their jobs, then Tucker will shortly be canceled and the two daily hours that are currently being wasted on him will be put to better use. That’s not a particularly tall order when you consider that, next to Tucker, infomercials for Ginsu knives would qualify as better use.

Countdown Up On NBC

Posted by on August 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm. 4 Comments :

Last night’s broadcast of Countdown on the mothership, NBC, was a major coup for Keith Olbermann and his MSNBC program.

For all the clamoring for attention that goes on amongst the cable news kiddies, they are all fighting for slices of a relatively small pie. The ratings leader, Bill O’Reilly, averages about 2 million viewers a day. The lowest rated network news program (CBS) pulls in over 6 million. So graduating to the network opens millions of doors to a cablecaster.

Olbermann, not surprisingly, benefited from this. The early results show him with 4.1 million viewers. That only earned him a third place finish, behind “60 Minutes” and “America’s Funniest Videos,” but it was good enough to quadruple his average MSNBC audience. What’s more, (and this has to hurt) it is twice what Bill O’Reilly does on an average night. And this despite having been preempted in some fairly significant markets (i.e. Philadelphia, Baltimore) which could adversely impact Countdown’s numbers.

Glenn Beck WeakThis is a significant performance, because success is not guaranteed just by changing your address. Last month, Glenn Beck moved up to CNN from Headline News and barely scraped up the viewers he routinely got at his less-watched network. And he underperformed Paula Zahn, for whom he was filling in, by a whopping 23%.

The content of the show was not, in my opinion, representative of Olbermann’s best work. It seemed to me that either he, or the network, was holding back a bit. There were also extended humor segments that weighted the episode a little more to silliness than usual. Nonetheless, it may turn out to be the wise approach if viewers are more comfortable getting their news with a spoonful of aspartame. Still, I hope that if he gets another at bat, the network lets Olbermann be Olbermann. The show is the fastest growing program on cable news for a reason.

We Report. CNN/YouTube Decides

Posted by on July 25, 2007 at 1:53 pm. 2 Comments :

The one clearly positive aspect of this “ground-breaking” experiment in television journalism, is that watching cutesy citizens asking evasive candidates questions that hunky moderators won’t follow-up on, is still better than watching washed-up reporters asking the same questions even more boringly.

Many in the media have declared the experiment a success. The Washington Post proclaimed that, “The debate underscored the arrival of the Internet as a force in politics.” That’s if you don’t count Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004; or MoveOn.org; or George Allen’s “macaca moment” last year; and the list goes on.

What they might be touting as success is how effectively the debate did achieve one of its goals: They got young people to watch. With a total audience of 2.6 million, it was a notable showing for a debate so far in advance of an election. Also, CNN reported getting 45.5 million page views on its Web site. But the real coup is that 407,000 of those viewers were in the coveted 18-34 year old demographic. The CNN broadcast was the 9th most viewed (pdf) debate in history in that demo. Of the top ten, it was the only one broadcast this electoral season (the others were in 2004). It was also the only primary debate. And all nine of the others aired within five weeks of an election. That would have to be considered a respectable performance.


 
However, the performance of the editors at CNN leaves something to be desired. While they found the time to include a talking snowman and a singing inquirer, for some reason they chose not to present YouTube’s top question as determined by the YouTube community. Could it be because the question dared to raise the specter of (gasp) IMPEACHMENT?


We report. CNN/YouTube Decides

Glenn Beck’s Weak On CNN

Posted by on July 10, 2007 at 12:10 pm. 68 Comments :

Glenn Beck may not want you to know what a dismal failure he was when he ventured out from his perch on Headline News to replace Paula Zahn for a week on CNN. But here’s the bad news for Beck:


The bad news for the rest of us was that Beck was on CNN at all. And since his regular gig at HLN continued, he was on for 3 hours daily on CNN networks. What compelled the programmers at CNN to do such a thing is a mystery, but they got what they deserved.

Beck’s HLN program averaged 139,400 viewers in the 25-54 demo the week prior to his CNN stint. Moving to the much more widely viewed CNN, he was only able to increase his audience by 1.7%. Even worse, he under-performed the teetering Paula Zahn by over 23%. Zahn, it should be noted, is rumored to be on the way out because of her lackluster ratings.

What does that tell us about Beck, whose audience on HLN averaged a puny 82,000 demo viewers in the second quarter of 2007? Zahn for the same period averaged 191,000. And what does it tell us about CNN, who not only haven’t canceled this loser, but gave him even more air time to spew his brand of fact-free mental pollution?

Another Runaway Quarter For MSNBC

Posted by on July 4, 2007 at 2:34 am. 5 Comments :

The 2nd quarter of 2007 (PDF) has delivered another in a string of victories for MSNBC. The network’s growth of 50% over its 2006 performance far outshines CNN (4%) and Fox (5%).

The chart below tells the story for the past four quarters. While still in third place, there is no cable news network that is growing faster than MSNBC in primetime (Mon-Fri).


And, as usual, MSNBC’s growth is powered by a surging Countdown with Keith Olbermann. The most recent quarter continues a pattern of Countdown battering away at The Factor’s lead, just as it has been doing for the past year. The numbers for the 25-54 demo show the same trends.


It is no wonder that Olbermann is drawing crowds. His “Special Comments” are an inspiring rarity in television news. And the latest one delivered last night is no exception. In fact it may be the best yet. Calling on Bush and Cheney to resign, Olbermann spells out the universal disconnection between this president and the people he is failing to serve.

“In that moment [the Libby commutation], Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens – the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.”

MSNBC Growing Faster Than Fox, CNN

Posted by on May 31, 2007 at 3:00 pm. NO Comments :

The all-important May ratings (PDF) period has produced what is becoming a predictably recurrent theme: MSNBC is growing faster than any of its cable news rivals.

Primetime M-F CNN FOX HLN MSNBC
Persons 2+ -13% -2% +14% +51%
Persons 25-54 +8% +14 +22 +40%

Total Day CNN FOX HLN MSNBC
Persons 2+ -2% -4% +12% +14%
Persons 25-54 +4% +6% +11% +19%

Both Fox and CNN declined in persons 2+ for the total day as well as for primetime. Their numbers for the 25-54 demo were better, but still far below the increases at MSNBC. Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” again set the pace for growth at the network, advancing 63% (P2+) and 35% (25-54) over May 2006. Compare that with the O’Reilly Factor’s tepid 12% (25-54) rise, and an actual drop in total viewers of 1%. Two years ago O’Reilly had 4 times the audience that Olbermann had. Today that is down to 2 times. That’s still a hefty lead, but it’s also a preciptious drop. And since Countdown’s ascendency has not abated over these years, it suggests that the programs could be tied two years from now.

Much of the news this month seems tailor made for a Fox resurgence – a lot of sensationalism and gossip. There was the New Jersey “terrorist” threat (which Fox hammered on), Alberto Gonzalez’ congressional testimony (which Fox almost ignored), tornadoes in Kansas, the war supplemental bill, Jerry Falwell’s death, and, as always, Rosie, Lindsay, and American Idol. Fox also hosted the first Republican presidential primary debate. But none of these things boosted Fox’s performance as one might expect. The Republican debate, in fact, only matched the numbers that O’Reilly gets as the regular program in that time slot.

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that the story generating the most coverage in the first quarter of 2007 was Iraq. But while the rest of the media was reporting on Bush’s “surge” and what has become the deadliest month of the year to date in Iraq, Fox devoted less than half the airtime to these events than did MSNBC, who provided the most coverage. Could this be part of the reason that Fox viewership is tanking?

Results like these continue to show that there is an underserved market for news consumers who are tired of the antiquated stylings of CNN and repulsed by the scatological, fact-deficient fare that passes for news at Fox. It remains to be seen if the programming geniuses at any of these networks will recognize the obvious and bring back real news.

Fox News: War? What War?

Posted by on May 25, 2007 at 4:23 pm. 7 Comments :

The Project for Excellence in Journalism just published the results of their study of news coverage for the first quarter of 2007. The breakdown of stories covered, and the amount of time dedicated to those stories, reveals the priorities of the three main cable news networks. The standout amongst the statistics is that Fox News broadcast significantly less coverage of the war in Iraq than MSNBC or CNN. In fact, Fox devoted less than half the airtime to the subject than MSNBC, whose coverage led the pack.

Percent of Newshole Devoted To Four Major Stories on Cable TV
Dec. 31, ’06 – Mar. 31, ’07

Iraq War Total 2008 Presidential Campaign U.S. Attorney Firing Anna Nicole Smith
MSNBC 31 14 8 6
CNN 25 7 4 4
Fox News 15 9 2 10
All Cable 23% 9% 5% 7%

There is probably no one who would dispute that the war in Iraq, and the Washington debates fueled by it, is the single most important news event of the year (and several preceding years). It dominated the media producing about three times as much coverage as the next most covered story. And yet Fox relegates it to an also-ran, preferring to spend nearly as much time on Anna Nicole Smith as on the war.

Fox also minimized the most serious parade of scandal that has faced the U.S. Justice Department since the Nixon Administration (see John Mitchell and the Saturday Night Massacre). Practically ignoring the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firing of U.S. Attorneys by a partisanly-motivated Justice Department, the 2% of airtime Fox afforded the affair was half of what CNN gave it and a quarter of MSNBC’s scheduling.

The one area in which Fox excelled was in coverage of departed pin-up/heiress, Anna Nicole Smith. Fox’s coverage of Smith approximately doubled the coverage of CNN and MSNBC. Now we know why they had to leave the war footage on the cutting room floor.

These results are an affirmation of the Fox slogan, “We Report, You Decide,” so long as you leave out the first part. However, this may be consistent with their programming strategy which appears to be to drain their reports of as much substance as possible so that you are left unable to decide.

Update: The PEJ also released a study this week that measures the coverage of the presidential candidates. While there was more time spent on Democrats, don’t be too hasty drawing conclusions:

“…nearly two-thirds of the election coverage (61%) was specifically about candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. This was nearly three times those that focused on Republican candidates (24%). Another 13% dealt with both parties. […] conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage were the most Democratic focused of all-75% of their time on Democrats and only 13% focused mainly on Republicans.”

So while there was more “coverage” of Democrats, that extra focus really translates into more time bashing them. If you weren’t already confused, the right-wing media machine is more than happy to further muddy the waters.

O’Reilly Responds: ThinkProgress has a transcript of O’Reilly explaining that the reason Fox has less coverage of Iraq is because another bomb going off “doesn’t mean anything.” The rest of the transcript is equally as disgusting.

The Cult Of Foxonality™

Posted by on May 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm. 7 Comments :

The Republican presidential primary debate threw off some interesting bones for chewing. I’m not talking about Rudy Giuliani’s exploitation of 9/11 at every turn, especially his smack down of Ron Paul’s refreshingly rational attempt to offer up a more complex explanation for terrorism than, “they hate us for our freedom.” I’m not talking about Mitt Romney’s pandering to sadists with his applause-bait on Guantanamo and torture. I’m not talking about John McCain’s ludicrous and insensitive promise to be “the last man standing” in Iraq, as if he were volunteering for active duty. And I’m not even talking about the graphics and sound effects that seem to have been lifted from broadcasts of professional wrestling.

What I find interesting is that 2.4 million people watched the GOP debate that aired on the Republican News Network (aka Fox).That is just slightly more than the 2.3 million viewers who watched the Democrats debate on MSNBC. But when Republicans debated on MSNBC, they only managed to pull in 1.7 million viewers. Maybe that was because it was on opposite the O’Reilly Factor which itself snared 2.3 million. So Fox drew the same size audience for their Republican debate as O’Reilly did when Republicans were debating elsewhere.

What this tells us is that a little less than two and half million viewers will show up to watch Fox in that timeslot whether there is a debate on or not. It also tells us that Fox viewers will turn out to get their O’Reilly fix even if there is a Republican debate on another network. [See update in comments].

What this does not tell us is why O’Reilly performs 35% better than a Republican debate on MSNBC. And we can only speculate as to why the Republican debate on Fox performs no better than their daily scheduled program. My speculation to both questions is that Fox viewers are married to the channel and couldn’t care less what’s playing down the dial. Their hypnotic attachment filters out all other sensory stimulation, even if it’s something that would ordinarily excite them.

One way of looking at this would be to acknowledge the success of Fox’s marketing strategy for having developed a powerful brand that inspires loyalty. But I prefer a more paranoid analysis. Most liberals (and objective observers) recognize the tight-knit relationship between Fox and the GOP. However, while we fret about the Murdoch/RNC cabal, we may be missing an even more frightening scenario. Fox viewers appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism. This misdirected allegiance bestows a far more influential authority onto a media entity than ought ever to be considered. It suggests that the bombastic demagogues that Fox has shaped into celebrity anchors truly do weigh down their transfixed disciples.

Are Fox viewers more attached to their tele-mentors than to the party and politics they profess? The evidence suggests that this may be so. People who might ordinarily be considered reliable party stalwarts are straying from the pack to trail behind Fox pundits who have come to criticize the administration on issues like Iraq, immigration, and the federal budget. Granted, the criticism is emanating from an even further right stance than the DC GOP has taken, but the result is the same: It’s the Foxebrities that are leading, not elected representatives of the people.

Some may take the view that the people are voting with their remotes, but you have to wonder where all of this could end. Television personalities are still built by marketing and promotion, not principle. If Paris Hilton can command the chunk of media real estate that she does, then clearly intelligence, insight, talent, and vision, are irrelevant in determining who viewers admire. And when admiration swells to idolization in the political realm, how far down the road will fans follow the flickering object of the affection? And how far will the Pundicrats ask their flock to go?

Bill O’Beale: “I’m mad as Hell!”

Paddy Chayefky’s “Network” introduced us to Howard Beale, a new model newscaster that implored his audience to cast off their docility and think for themselves. But today’s Fox version would likely produce Beale’s polar opposite who would only inspire a feverish fealty to himself and his omnipotent infallibility. That is indeed a foreboding picture of a bleak future. Do we have the time and/or will to steer away from it? Or is it already upon us?

Fox News Implementing A Slow Growth Strategy

Posted by on April 6, 2007 at 2:22 am. NO Comments :

Continuing a pattern that goes back more than a year, Fox News is again underperforming its peers. The latest Nielsen data comparing the first quarter of 2007 with the same period of 2006 shows Fox growing at the slowest rate of any of the cable news nets.


This comes at a time when much of the Cable news community was obsessed with the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The concentration of reports on overtly tabloid subjects such as Smith is often justified by the media as providing the audience with what it wants. Wolf Blitzer told an exasperated Jack Cafferty on air that…

“I know a lot of people are complaining about [the Smith coverage]. But a lot of people are also watching.”

Bill O’Reilly, a creation of tabloid media himself, ironically mused…

“I’m looking at her and seeing a media creation.”

That wasn’t enough to prevent him and Fox from airing by far the most coverage of all things Smith. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has the details:

“The Fox News Channel spent about 400 minutes or 32% of its airtime, on this case. This was 50% higher than MSNBC which devoted 21% of its airtime to the story and more than double CNN’s coverage of 14%.”

Fox’s Smith habit even exceeded it’s coverage of that little distraction over in Iraq by 2 to 1. That’s right, for every minute Fox spent covering the war in Iraq, the soldiers, their families, the political skirmishes, etc., Fox spent two minutes probing the Smith affair. But if the public is clamoring for more Anna Nicole, it isn’t reflected in the ratings, since every other network devoted less time to Smith but grew more. One could make the argument that the public is actually thirsting for more relevant content that has a true impact on their lives.

Taking a look at Fox’s top personality reveals the same patterns as for the network as a whole. While still drawing far more viewers than his competition, O’Reilly is also still growing far slower.

But O’Reilly’s troubles extend beyond his competition. Although his gains are far below those of his arch nemesis, Keith Olbermann, they are also lower than his prime time colleagues on Fox, Hannity and Van Susteren. And the pressure seems to be getting to him. In the following clip, he exhibits the unrestrained rage of man who has totally lost control of his senses. Even his buddy Geraldo knows a meltdown when he sees one and tells O’Reilly not to, “obscure a tragedy to make a cheap political point.” But, of course, that’s typical O’Reilly.


The O’Reilly Fracture: Ratings Bad To The Bone

Posted by on February 28, 2007 at 4:54 am. NO Comments :



Bill O’Reilly just got some more bad news (pdf). His hairline isn’t the only thing that’s receding. The February ratings show that he has the slowest growing program (11%) of all the cable news primetime programs in the 25-54 demographic. And he is clearly bringing down the Fox network because the same is true for their whole primetime block. This despite the fact that Greta Van Susteren had the 2nd highest growth (49%) after Keith Olbermann’s Countdown (61%).

It’s revealing to look at the trend over the past year. The chart below shows the Factor’s percent growth/loss year over year for each of the last five ratings periods. And just for fun, let’s throw in a comparison to Countdown for the same stretch.

Feb 07 Nov 06 Jul 06 May 06 Feb 06
  2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54
Factor 11 17 -18 0 -9 -6 1 -10 -7 -21
Countdown 78 61 54 76 20 39 31 34 38 55

It can’t be making O’Reilly very comfortable knowing that four of the past five sweeps he has been losing viewers while Keith has been packing them in.

Fox itself must be feeling a little queasy. In the past few weeks they have been making some pretty desperate programming moves. Starting with the dorm room bull sessions of “Red Eye”, Fox takes a stab at attracting an audience that has yet to discover the joys of Depends. Then this past weekend they broadcast “Reel Politics,” a supposedly humorous look at Hollywood, cementing their reputation as purveyors of comedy (If they think Hollywood would run Washington into the ground, just wait till you see what politicians would do to Tinseltown). Also in that vein was their chronicle of Internet life, “It’s Out There,” a program aiming for the modernity of the 21st century with art direction from “My Favorite Martian.” At least they staffed it with a couple of babes from their sinking O’Reilly franchise, psuedo-Democrat Kirsten Powers and the noxious Michelle Malkin. Too bad neither of them could muster up the charisma of a banana slug. But the real programming genius was the embarrassingly cheesy, laugh track challenged “1/2 Hour News Hour.” If they had not told me in the title that the program is a half hour long I might have been confused. But in fact, it only seems like an hour.

This new direction for Fox must be roiling the Comedy Central nervous system. If they don’t act precipitously, they may find their territory invaded and occupied by the network that helped Bush to do the same thing to Iraq. I would advise CC to respond by hitting Fox hard where they are most vulnerable – right in the journalism. The obvious move would be to immediately launch an evening newscast. That would be a frontal assualt that Fox would neither expect nor be able to counter. Because even Comedy Central has more experience in news than Fox.