It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN's Ratings Collapse - Primetime Shows Draw Less Viewers Than Re-Runs Of "Yogi Bear"

page: 7
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The fact that 24/7 news channels are in the top 20 is sad enough, but it is just plain pathetic that of all people ATS members care and they are rooting for or against such brands.




posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vorian

originally posted by: weirdguy
a reply to: Konduit

I actually noticed this yesterday. CNN's live cast on youtube had about 60 viewers.


There are multiple CNN live casts on Youtube. Some are small some are big.


You are correct about multiple live casts, but I can't find any so called "big" ones. I'll keep looking, but it doesnt look too promising.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The fact that 24/7 news channels are in the top 20 is sad enough, but it is just plain pathetic that of all people ATS members care and they are rooting for or against such brands.


This is just cable network ratings, not actual tv shows, though the cable networks are rated by the shows on them.

There is a large misunderstanding by a lot of people as to how Nielsen ratings work.

My guess is a LOT of folks don't understand the research and data that are pulled in a very granular way and just how much goes in to doing such.

If you could view the ACTUAL data and the algorithms these folks work with to draw their conclusions...its mindblowing.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like I said, I'm just using the sources used by the OP.

Is there a direct Neilson link? Or just screen shots.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Vorian

=



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Here you go.


Link
From Nielsen. Note the dates at the bottom and the time slots. Now compare those Nielsen numbers with the ones from Nielsen to make sure they're right.

That CNN is failing is laughable. Trump is a golden goose for every media company, whether they're for him or against him. That isn't even debatable.


The Lead with Jake Tapper Up +54%

The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer Up +63%

Erin Burnett Outfront Up +65%

Anderson Cooper 360 Up +52%

CNN Tonight with Don Lemon Up +52%

New Day Grows the Most in Cable News in the Morning, Up +77%

CNN hit a ratings milestone this quarter, with the network posting its most-watched second quarter on record in total viewers, and its best second quarter among adults 25-54 in 14 years (since 2Q 2003) in Total Day. In prime time (M-Su and M-F), CNN averaged its highest 2Q delivery since 2003 (in both total viewers and among 25-54). During daytime (9am-4pm), CNN had its highest quarterly 25-54 delivery since 4Q 2008 and second highest total viewers level since 1Q 2003.


Their ratings might have dropped a tiny bit in the one section the gateway pundit (surprise!) takes out of context, but they're still some of the highest on record. It seems Trump has brought CNN an amount of viewers they haven't had since the last time we invaded Iraq.
edit on 14-7-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

I watched CNN for 30 minutes Thursday night.

Turned it on tonight at the same time. It was a duplicate of last night...

Summarized as: "When was Trump told about his son's visit with the Russian Lawyer? We're getting conflicting stories. This is an outrage! The public is consumed by this and deserve the truth...but they're not getting it! Arghhh!!"

No wonder Yogi Bear re-runs have more viewers.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like I said, I'm just using the sources used by the OP.

Is there a direct Neilson link? Or just screen shots.


You have to sign up at Nielsen to be able to view a link from Nielsen.

Here is a link to just this past week if you'd like to sign up. It is solely the top 10. FOX took 8 of the spots with ESPN AND BET taking the other 2.

www.nielsen.com...

Outside of you signing up, or me taking screen shots, that is the only way to get it.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vorian

I'm 52, 53 in a couple of months and I know full well how to stream whatever I want to watch.
By the way...do you think your generation invented the internet....or was it all those "old" people who were on it probably before you were born.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.


Huh?

Your link doesn't provide age range of viewership and even clearly states FOX News was the number 1 network for total viewers.

Actually almost every single day on the first page has them as such....i did not go beyond the first page btw....



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.


Actually, I just went through and clicked on every single link on the first and second page and FOX News Channel was the number on highest viewed channel in every single link.

Sure, a time slot here or there was beaten by a slim margin, but FNC held the top spot for viewership in every single one I clicked on.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Then don't report news. People either want news or to spend their time watching something else.

What CNN is is a fiction author. Problem is few are interested in their stories, never mind every chapter for about two years has simply repeated itself.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.


Huh?

Your link doesn't provide age range of viewership and even clearly states FOX News was the number 1 network for total viewers.

Actually almost every single day on the first page has them as such....i did not go beyond the first page btw....


Ugh, yes it does:



The graph clearly indicates that it is for the age group 25-54 and for the primetime slot. As you can see above, MSNBC is at 478 while Fox is at 440 for that same grouping on July 13.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.


Huh?

Your link doesn't provide age range of viewership and even clearly states FOX News was the number 1 network for total viewers.

Actually almost every single day on the first page has them as such....i did not go beyond the first page btw....


Ugh, yes it does:



The graph clearly indicates that it is for the age group 25-54 and for the primetime slot. As you can see above, MSNBC is at 478 while Fox is at 440 for that same grouping on July 13.



They only beat them with Maddow and O'Donnell at 9 and 10 pm in a specific age range.

Overall total viewership FNC leads in every single link from your link.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
This right-wing anti-cnn circle jerk is getting old fast. If this about views leaving because of fake news why is FOX NEWS still number 1?



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.


Huh?

Your link doesn't provide age range of viewership and even clearly states FOX News was the number 1 network for total viewers.

Actually almost every single day on the first page has them as such....i did not go beyond the first page btw....


Ugh, yes it does:



The graph clearly indicates that it is for the age group 25-54 and for the primetime slot. As you can see above, MSNBC is at 478 while Fox is at 440 for that same grouping on July 13.



They only beat them with Maddow and O'Donnell at 9 and 10 pm in a specific age range.

Overall total viewership FNC leads in every single link from your link.



Jesus.. fine, you win. You asked for the graph data, and I pointed you at the graph data. Have a good night.



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
This right-wing anti-cnn circle jerk is getting old fast. If this about views leaving because of fake news why is FOX NEWS still number 1?


Maybe because people are leaving news networks that are fake?

Numbers don't lie...so....



posted on Jul, 14 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redtic
If we're talking trends, I think this graph reveals a more accurate picture as to what's going on:



CNN and Fox are trending downward (though CNN posted its best quarter recently), while MSNBC is surging. So how do you spin that?

reasonandrevelationblog.wordpress.com...


Your link is a paid subscription.

Got anything that can be checked without paying for It?

Anyone can skew numbers on a graph and loosely base it on Nielsen....I'd like to see the figures they used because I have actually viewed the Nielsen rating and they show nothing like what this graph has posted.


No, the link is to a wordpress blog. It references the WSJ, which is indeed a paid subscription.

If you data to refute the graph, by all means, let's see it.


Yes, your are correct about it being a WordPress blog with a single graph and all of 200 words in it.

It has a link to where it says it got the graph (WSJ), which I am guessing you, like Vorian, didn't click on. That link is a paid subscription which doesn't allow the viewer to see anything about where they drew their data from

As expected...no real research.


Yes - by reference, I meant the link to the WSJ. And, yes, I did click on it and, no, I do not have a subscription.

Again, if you have data to refute the graph, please reference it. I'd very much like to see it.


I can't without knowing where they actually pulled their data from and how they crunched their numbers to make the graph.

I can make numbers look like anything I want if I make the dataset small enough and with the correct subset to skew it in my favor.

A blog with a graph linked to a subscription only site gives me nothing except a blog with a graph based on imaginary numbers unless I pay for them.

Anywho...as I've said earlier in this thread...the actual Nielsen numbers have been posted in this thread 5 times I believe, including the OP.


It appears you can extract those exact numbers from here:

www.adweek.com...

They give a breakdown day by day. I'm not going to do that. If you choose to believe the graph is bogus, that's fine - irrational, but fine. And we'll leave it at that.

* And btw, it appears the graph is slightly outdated. The numbers from July 13 show that MSNBC, for primetime age 25-54, has actually pulled ahead of Fox News. Go figure.


Huh?

Your link doesn't provide age range of viewership and even clearly states FOX News was the number 1 network for total viewers.

Actually almost every single day on the first page has them as such....i did not go beyond the first page btw....


Ugh, yes it does:



The graph clearly indicates that it is for the age group 25-54 and for the primetime slot. As you can see above, MSNBC is at 478 while Fox is at 440 for that same grouping on July 13.



They only beat them with Maddow and O'Donnell at 9 and 10 pm in a specific age range.

Overall total viewership FNC leads in every single link from your link.



Jesus.. fine, you win. You asked for the graph data, and I pointed you at the graph data. Have a good night.


Not trying to win....trying to find the ACTUAL data.

The graph you posted did not pull from that link. It actually says at the bottom of the graph it was based on Nielsen. I want to see where they pulled the data and what subset they used. It obviously was not the overall numbers based solely on the fact that FNC beats all of them every week.

What people don't realize is anyone can pull a subset of a dataset and make it work in their favor....i want to know what subset they pulled from Nielsens numbers.




top topics



 
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join