Olbermann Tops O’Reilly Again

It happened again last Friday. Keith Olbermann’s Countdown beat Bill O’Reilly’s Factor in the key 25-54 demo. And this time it was without the benefit of an NBC appearance to boost Olbermann’s numbers.

10/19/07 5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC BigStory: Hume: Shep: O’Reilly: H&C: Greta: O’Reilly:
  143 201 257 238 248 253 218
CNN Blitzer: Dobbs: Blitzer: Honest: King: Cooper: Cooper:
  197 229 190 172 283 136 150
MSNBC Hardball: Tucker: Hardball: Countdo.: Investig.: Investig.: Investig.:
  110 58 113 263 186 251 325

O’Reilly has been chalking up some high numbers recently, but he is still vulnerable and Olbermann is still growing at a much faster rate.

When CNN Presents Actual News…

A little over a year ago, I noted the success that CNN had with a program on Osama Bin Laden that was part of its “CNN Presents” series of long-form news. The program was number one in its time period and was one of the few occasions that CNN bested its arch-rival Fox. At the time I asked:

“What are the odds that the editors at CNN will correctly analyze what happened here? […} will they figure out that there is a news vacuum in America that is crying out to be filled?”


Apparently not. In the past year, CNN has barely budged its place in the cable news net rankings. It actually declined 9%. In the same span of time, MSNBC has increased its viewership 53%, led by the Olbermann locomotive with a 73% rise. For the record, Fox News Channel was down 10%.

Now, the question I asked last year needs to asked again. In the latest report (pdf) for the the 3rd quarter of 2007, the number one program in the 25-54 demo is CNN Presents. It is also number two in total viewers, and is one of only two programs in the top 10 that is not from Fox (the other is CNN’s Larry King Live at #8).

Will CNN now recognize that the best way to compete with Fox’s tabloid coverage of car chases, missing white girls, and bashing Democrats, is to give the audience substance in the form of news that is accurate and relevant to their lives? Why is this such a difficult lesson to learn? Week after week, the networks competing with the Fox Propaganda Channel seem to be in a race to the bottom of the journalism barrel. Their meager attempts to emulate the worst of all possible role models cannot help but fail. Not only because it is a poor strategy, but because they can’t hope to woo viewers away from Fox’s authentic garbage with their own brand of contrived garbage.

Americans are thirsting for honest journalism that informs and enlightens. They want their news to be placed in a context that respects the integrity of the subject matter and the intelligence of the audience. When this is done, the networks get viewers and advertisers, as this quarter’s CNN Presents demonstrates. When it is not done they get Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. Carlson, by the way, came in dead last in the 3-net beauty contest.

So pay attention CNN, and any other wannabe responsible news organizations. Try as you might with the likes of Nancy Grace or Lou Dobbs, the only time you come out ahead is when you give the people what they’re clamoring for. Honesty, integrity, and a commitment to ethics and excellence, is the path to success. CNN Presents is not a fluke. It is the only program that has prevailed against Foxic waste, and it has now done so twice. Are you getting the message?

Democratic Response Draws More Viewers Than Bush

When Bush addressed the nation last Thursday to persist in pushing his failed war agenda, he succeeded in pulling in a sizable portion of the television viewing audience. The only problem for him is that the response by Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed pulled in 7% more viewers.

Presidential Address – Thursday, September 13, 2007 (000’s)
Network Bush Address Dem Response
Fox News 745 813
MSNBC 455 446
CNN 454 507
Totals 1654 1766

Ordinarily, the opposition party response to a presidential address would be expected to lose viewers relative to the headliner from the White House. Just being competetive would be considered a victory of sorts. Consequently, these numbers demonstrate that there is significant curiosity in the TV viewing public as to the alternatives to administration talking points. The fact that the President can’t easily outperform an obscure senator that most of the country has never heard of, is proof that people are dissatisfied with his tired rhetoric.

It’s interesting to note that the greatest divergence in viewers in favor of the Democrats occurs on Fox News. So even Fox News viewers seem to be open to fresh perspectives and policies on ending the war. It’s too bad the folks at the Fox Entertainment Network didn’t think their audience deserved to hear Reed’s response. They were the only broadcast network to decline to air the Senator’s remarks. Still, more viewers in the cable news universe were exposed to an alternative perspective than to another of Bush’s robotic recitations of his standard pro-war litany.

This may also mean that the audience for the paid-for response by John Edwards might have drawn a larger than expected audience, validating his strategy and expanding the reach of the anti-war message. The other candidates, and the Democratic Party, should pay attention to these results and develop new tactics that make effective use of them.

The O’Reilly Fracture: Countdown To Victory Edition

Keith Olbermann’s Countdown has reached a milestone that many thought was out of reach. After getting a boost from an airing during the pre-season football broadcast on NBC a couple of weeks ago, Countdown has burst into a real competition with its nemesis, The O’Reilly Factor.

The highpoint of the week for Olbermann was Friday when he bested O’Reilly in the 25-54 demo by 39,000 viewers. But the trend has been heading this way for a while. On Thursday, O’Reilly took the hour, but Olbermann had won the first half (Countdown: 408K – Factor: 373K). An average of all airings for the shows for the week gave O’Reilly a lead of just 11.7K demo viewers. A year ago O’Reilly was clobbering Olbermann by 279K. Are the walls closing in around you Billy?

The first full week after Olbermann’s NBC appearance, Countdown spiked 17% over its 2nd quarter 2007 average. This week that bump is 37%, so there is no evidence that this train is losing speed. The Factor, on the other hand, is still under-performing its 2nd quarter average by 16%. O’Reilly is quickly becoming the Little Train That Couldn’t.

A key point in this victory is that, while last week’s success was achieved with O’Reilly on vacation, this week Bill was on duty and he still got his loofah handed to him. Also, for the record, Olbermann appeared during halftime on the Saints-Colts game Thursday which might have given him an extra push on Friday. And the week was shortened by the Labor Day holiday (Countdown did not air on Monday but O’Reilly did. The Factor pulled in just 329K which was its 2nd worst number for the week).

All of this leads me to quote from the insightful analysis of a truly visionary media scholar:

Hopefully NBC will recognize what’s happening here. And it isn’t just that Olbermann is a phenomenon who warrants additional network attention (although that’s true). It is also that there is a vastly underserved market for mainstream progressive news that is factual and compelling. That is a message that all of the media should heed and act on. It’s time to stop coddling losers like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. It’s time to stop pandering to rightist, corporate media. It’s time to start reshaping the media into something more diverse and representative of America.

Mark @ News Corpse ~ September 4, 2007

By the way…Happy Birthday Bill-O.

Post NBC: Countdown Jumps, O’Reilly Slumps

On August 26, 2007, Keith Olbermann’s Countdown was broadcast on NBC. Despite a scattered schedule wherein the program was delayed or preempted in many markets, it performed respectably, delivering 4.1 million viewers. But what I was waiting for, was to see if there would be any afterglow that reflected on his MSNBC airing. There was:

For the week ending August 31, Countdown averaged 278,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demo. That’s a 17% increase over the program average for the 2nd quarter of 2007. It is fair to conclude that this spike was due almost entirely to the promotional value of the NBC broadcast. None of the other programs on MSNBC’s schedule enjoyed a comparable bounce. Olbermann’s numbers exceeded his 2nd quarter average (230K) as well as his prior week average (242K).

At the same time, The O’Reilly Factor suffered a rather severe slump. For the same week, it was off its 2nd quarter average by 51%. As result, Countdown came close to beating the Factor on Monday and Wednesday. But the piece de resistance came Thursday when Countdown actually fractured the Factor, topping it by a whopping 94,000 demo viewers. That’s not merely a win, it’s a rout.

It should be noted that Bill O’Reilly was on vacation last week and that explains at least part of the weakness in his ratings. But even comparing last week’s Countdown to the Factor’s 2nd quarter average shows that Olbermann cut a good 10% off of O’Reilly’s lead in just five days. O’Reilly has taken plenty of vacations that did not result in him losing to Countdown. That fact underscores the significance of last week’s performance of both shows.

Hopefully NBC will recognize what’s happening here. And it isn’t just that Olbermann is a phenomenon who warrants additional network attention (although that’s true). It is also that there is a vastly underserved market for mainstream progressive news that is factual and compelling. That is a message that all of the media should heed and act on. It’s time to stop coddling losers like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. It’s time to stop pandering to rightist, corporate media. It’s time to start reshaping the media into something more diverse and representative of America.

Tucker Carlson: A Ratings Black Hole

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

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

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

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

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.”