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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.