Jump to content

Rachel Maddow slays Sean Hannity in the Ratings

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted

If you put out a better product, the market will reward you. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2018/04/04/rachel-maddow-beats-sean-hannity-takes-title-as-most-watched-cable-news-host/

 

In March, The Rachel Maddow Show finished as the highest-rated show in cable news, with an average total audience of 3.058 million viewers--the show's best-ever performance in the 9 p.m. ET hour. FNC's Hannity was second, with 3.000 million viewers. Maddow also won among viewers 25-54, the demographic most valued by advertisers, finishing March with an average audience of 671,000 compared to Hannity's 616,000. CNN finished a distant third in the hour, with 382,000 viewers 25-54.

MSNBC has been experiencing a dramatic rise in ratings, finishing the first quarter of 2018 as the only cable news network to grow compared to Q1 2017: MSNBC ratings were up 30%, while both Fox News and CNN experienced declines.

In March, MSNBC's programming in prime time, daytime and total day all broke records for the network. The network's prime-time lineup averaged 2.398 million total viewers, finishing as the No. 2 network across all of cable TV. While Fox News continued its run as the top-rated network in cable news, MSNBC's prime lineup was up 8% from 2017, while both Fox (down 18 percent) and CNN (down 16 percent) were off year-over-year.

The March ratings results suggest Fox News' unrivaled status as the dominant force in cable news may be facing one of the strongest challenges in years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7676

Posted
Posted

All cable news is garbage. This is like claiming that urine tastes better than feces.

I know Hugo is just trolling with this post, but the last thing we need is for people to hold up cable fucking news ratings as some sort of symbol of righteousness. It's all poison for the brain, and we'd be better off as a country if both of those fucking hacks went out of business.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brian Fantana

Brian Fantana 6668

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TornACL said:

All cable news is garbage. This is like claiming that urine tastes better than feces.

I know Hugo is just trolling with this post, but the last thing we need is for people to hold up cable fucking news ratings as some sort of symbol of righteousness. It's all poison for the brain, and we'd be better off as a country if both of those fucking hacks went out of business.

Fox News and its loyal followers do this daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TornACL said:

All cable news is garbage. This is like claiming that urine tastes better than feces.

I know Hugo is just trolling with this post, but the last thing we need is for people to hold up cable fucking news ratings as some sort of symbol of righteousness. It's all poison for the brain, and we'd be better off as a country if both of those fucking hacks went out of business.

The Cable news problem is a lot like Facebook IMO.  They're motivated by entertainment (clicks) and reinforcing bias.  They're not going away but they can improve and the improvement can be consumer driven.  MSNBC and Fox News are much different than they used to be and they will continue to change over time with the interest of audiences.  If American consumers want more fact based coverage, they will migrate to it.  If they want bullshit and infotainment, they will stick with that. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted

The problem is calling either one of those shows "news."  "News" is reporting of facts and events.  What they each do is "some facts and events -- with a shitload of commentary slathered on."  Now, Maddow's commentary may be more educated, eloquent, and rational than Hannity's (damning her with faint praise indeed), but it's still COMMENTARY.  And sure, she provides significantly more facts, and more relevant ones, as her background...but again, her end product is her explanation of what those facts MEAN.

We the people mistake commentary for news.  That's a big fucking problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7676

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Cable news problem is a lot like Facebook IMO.  They're motivated by entertainment (clicks) and reinforcing bias.  They're not going away but they can improve and the improvement can be consumer driven.  MSNBC and Fox News are much different than they used to be and they will continue to change over time with the interest of audiences.  If American consumers want more fact based coverage, they will migrate to it.  If they want bullshit and infotainment, they will stick with that. 

Which is why your original article about MSNBC "beating" Fox News in ratings is completely pointless. They are both bullshit and infotainment so who gives a shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7676

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem is calling either one of those shows "news."  "News" is reporting of facts and events.  What they each do is "some facts and events -- with a shitload of commentary slathered on."  Now, Maddow's commentary may be more educated, eloquent, and rational than Hannity's (damning her with faint praise indeed), but it's still COMMENTARY.  And sure, she provides significantly more facts, and more relevant ones, as her background...but again, her end product is her explanation of what those facts MEAN.

We the people mistake commentary for news.  That's a big fucking problem.

Amen. It's really jarring when you watch an actual news (NOT cable news crap) program and see how, key facts are presented while not once bringing some blowhard onto set to yell "SEE, THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE DEMOCRATS /REPUBLICANS... BLAH BLAH BLAH" 

You have a brain, draw your own conclusions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted (edited)

Amen Brisket. 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem is calling either one of those shows "news."  "News" is reporting of facts and events.  What they each do is "some facts and events -- with a shitload of commentary slathered on."  . . . We the people mistake commentary for news.  That's a big fucking problem.

Journalism is in dire need of reform. We need a strong "Chinese Wall" between news professionals and entertainers. CBS - to their credit - kept that wall in place better than any other major news division for many years (they eventually had to give into market forces that required a melding of news and entertainment). 

The non-stop commentary provided by journalists on entertainment programs (Maddow/Hannity) creates the appearance that news professionals are biased. Reporters should report and rarely, if ever, provide their personal opinions on hard facts. And they should never become the story (see Jim Acosta's transformation from a reporter to a news topic). For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, there has been a fundamental shift in how news is reported. During Watergate, we were provided with original content (the actual hearings were broadcast in their entirety on most networks). The ability to access the information directly allowed the public to hear the evidence from the horse's mouth; today, we hear secondhand interpretations from reporters who provide their own spin of the news. There is very little difference between propaganda and opinion. Reporters need to stick to the facts and provide original source material whenever possible. The reliance on unnamed sources (with God knows what agenda they are pursuing) further weakens the credibility of reporters. Unnamed sources have their place in moving the news forward, but must be viewed with healthy skepticism and not be mistaken for fact-based news.

My last soapbox statement: the public craves facts. When reporters repeat the same angle on a story as the angle promoted by political operatives, the public should be skeptical of whether that news is biased and coordinated. The better reporters identify who is spinning what story. The best reporters also find non-establishment perspectives. 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22600

Posted
Posted
Just now, washparkhorn said:

My last soapbox statement: the public craves facts. 

In all honesty, I am not sure this is the case anymore.  And I think that is the scariest realization I have had over the past few years.

From what I see on social media, people crave two things: 1) their "team" winning and 2) reinforcement of previously held beliefs.  Facts are, at least in my opinion, a distant third to those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12568

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, it is called the Rachel Maddow Show, not The Nightly News with Rachel Maddow. She doesn’t purport to be a newscast.  It’s a commentary show. The fact that people treat her opinions as news is the issue. Same with Hannity. 

But again, this goes back to Neil Postman’s 30 year old masterpiece. When you use TV to convey information, it becomes entertainment. That’s why TV was created. To entertain. So that’s what CNN and Fox do in the guise of presenting news. 

Legit, unbiased news is still the realm of the printed word. But even that is being attacked as biased and fake.  That’s the most dangerous part of Trump’s tirades. Going after centuries old institutions like The NY Times and WaPo, as if their the same as TV stations. 

Edited by Jive Turkey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29793

Posted
Posted

Maddow has had an amazing rise. I think she's good when I watch her which isn't often. She manages to be genuine and genial while making solid arguments and observations.

Hannity is nuts. The surprising thing is that he has so many viewers in general and so many in the golden demographic. I'd think his style wouldn't work with them, but I'm clearly the idoit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7676

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

She's smart and competent but takes forever to get to the fucking point.  The absolute worst I've ever seen at dragging shit out to get a bunch of commercial breaks in. 

JFC, this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Maddow’s schtick is annoying as hell and she does drag shit out too much but much of her recent content is reporting from the print journalist like NYT, WSJ, Wapo, and Mcclatchy.  She’s the one defending journalists and journalism while Hannity seeks to discredit and destroy them.

There’s a big fucking difference, they’re not two sides of the same coin.  It’s not close.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Amen Brisket. 

Journalism is in dire need of reform. We need a strong "Chinese Wall" between news professionals and entertainers. CBS - to their credit - kept that wall in place better than any other major news division for many years (they eventually had to give into market forces that required a melding of news and entertainment). 

The non-stop commentary provided by journalists on entertainment programs (Maddow/Hannity) creates the appearance that news professionals are biased. Reporters should report and rarely, if ever, provide their personal opinions on hard facts. And they should never become the story (see Jim Acosta's transformation from a reporter to a news topic). For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, there has been a fundamental shift in how news is reported. During Watergate, we were provided with original content (the actual hearings were broadcast in their entirety on most networks). The ability to access the information directly allowed the public to hear the evidence from the horse's mouth; today, we hear secondhand interpretations from reporters who provide their own spin of the news. There is very little difference between propaganda and opinion. Reporters need to stick to the facts and provide original source material whenever possible. The reliance on unnamed sources (with God knows what agenda they are pursuing) further weakens the credibility of reporters. Unnamed sources have their place in moving the news forward, but must be viewed with healthy skepticism and not be mistaken for fact-based news.

My last soapbox statement: the public craves facts. When reporters repeat the same angle on a story as the angle promoted by political operatives, the public should be skeptical of whether that news is biased and coordinated. The better reporters identify who is spinning what story. The best reporters also find non-establishment perspectives. 

 

44 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

In all honesty, I am not sure this is the case anymore.  And I think that is the scariest realization I have had over the past few years.

From what I see on social media, people crave two things: 1) their "team" winning and 2) reinforcement of previously held beliefs.  Facts are, at least in my opinion, a distant third to those two.

This.  You can tell what the public craves by watching what they most voraciously consume.

The salad bar of facts is barely touched.  The buffet of deep-fried validation of existing beliefs, topped with a gravy of lies, has to be replenished every 5 minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ratings are a big part of the problem. All the cable stations are on the air 24/7, so they have many hours of programming to fill. There simply isn't enough news, most days, to fill that maw, and of course providing actual news is expensive, so they go to commentary, which is cheap; you can always get someone to come on the air and give their opinion about pretty much anything, whether they know anything about it or not. But the stations are striving for ratings above all, for the advertising revenue that higher ratings translate into, so of course the more controversial and willing to bash the other team their hosts and talking heads are, the more people will watch. From both teams; a good percentage of MSNBC's viewership is made up of Fox viewers who watch the opposition because they like getting angry. And vice versa, of course.

Edited by Bat Guano
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Amen Brisket. 

Journalism is in dire need of reform. We need a strong "Chinese Wall" between news professionals and entertainers. CBS - to their credit - kept that wall in place better than any other major news division for many years (they eventually had to give into market forces that required a melding of news and entertainment). 

The non-stop commentary provided by journalists on entertainment programs (Maddow/Hannity) creates the appearance that news professionals are biased. Reporters should report and rarely, if ever, provide their personal opinions on hard facts. And they should never become the story (see Jim Acosta's transformation from a reporter to a news topic). For those of us old enough to remember Watergate, there has been a fundamental shift in how news is reported. During Watergate, we were provided with original content (the actual hearings were broadcast in their entirety on most networks). The ability to access the information directly allowed the public to hear the evidence from the horse's mouth; today, we hear secondhand interpretations from reporters who provide their own spin of the news. There is very little difference between propaganda and opinion. Reporters need to stick to the facts and provide original source material whenever possible. The reliance on unnamed sources (with God knows what agenda they are pursuing) further weakens the credibility of reporters. Unnamed sources have their place in moving the news forward, but must be viewed with healthy skepticism and not be mistaken for fact-based news.

My last soapbox statement: the public craves facts. When reporters repeat the same angle on a story as the angle promoted by political operatives, the public should be skeptical of whether that news is biased and coordinated. The better reporters identify who is spinning what story. The best reporters also find non-establishment perspectives. 

are you the for really real washparkhorn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40665

Posted
Posted
Pretty sure just as many people watch WWE Smackdown as watch Hannity or Maddow. I'd hardly describe either one as slaying it.
That being said, congrats to Maddow, that young man has worked hard

It’s funny because she’s gay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10977

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

This.  You can tell what the public craves by watching what they most voraciously consume.

The salad bar of facts is barely touched.  The buffet of deep-fried validation of existing beliefs, topped with a gravy of lies, has to be replenished every 5 minutes.

What about the chocolate fountain of deceit and hubris?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, maybe i already asked the question elsewhere. it's been a long couple of weeks. i still would like to know, because the last washparkhorn post i saw was a bit harrowing on the old board.

I don't recall that post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21774

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The problem is calling either one of those shows "news."  "News" is reporting of facts and events.  What they each do is "some facts and events -- with a shitload of commentary slathered on."  Now, Maddow's commentary may be more educated, eloquent, and rational than Hannity's (damning her with faint praise indeed), but it's still COMMENTARY.  And sure, she provides significantly more facts, and more relevant ones, as her background...but again, her end product is her explanation of what those facts MEAN.

We the people mistake commentary for news.  That's a big fucking problem.

MSNBC used the slogan "Lean Forward."  Fox News says "Fair and Balanced."  One is completely dishonest, the other acknowledges a particular lean.  As with most things these days "both sides" doesn't work here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Star Horn

Lone Star Horn 2010

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chilly Water said:

Pretty sure just as many people watch WWE Smackdown as watch Hannity or Maddow. I'd hardly describe either one as slaying it.

That being said, congrats to Maddow, that young man has worked hard

I had to look it up, damn, WWE doesn't get as many but is somewhat close.

March 6, 2018 - 2,590,000 viewers
March 13, 2018 - 2,771,000 viewers
March 20, 2018 - 2,888,000 viewers
March 27, 2018 - 2,576,000 viewers

I am surprised

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27436

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Speaking of one shitty poster (V_M_W), that reminds me of another shitty poster. The bet with austintx71 was that he'd never post in the Cloak Room again. Well this isn't the Cloak Room. Has he made an appearance here yet?

If we don’t say his name 3 times I think we’re alright 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...