MSNBC Overtakes Fox
I’m not crazy about the specious conventional wisdom that MSNBC is some “Fox News for Liberals” as it utterly ignores that fact that, unlike FOX, MSNBC confines its reporting to things that happen in reality.
That said – suck it Fox News.
MSNBC #1:
MSNBC finished as the most-watched network in all of basic cable in primetime on Monday, for the first time in its 21-year history, according to Nielsen Research.
The Comcast-owned network averaged 2.34 million viewers, edging Fox News and its average of 2.25 million. Disney’s 1.74 million viewers, USA Network’s 1.57 million viewers and HGTV’s 1.51 million viewers rounded out the top five.
The Maddow Effect:
New daily developments regarding investigations into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with Trump campaign associates has been a boon for progressive MSNBC, particularly host Rachel Maddow. Maddow again had the No. 1 program of the week in cable news, averaging 2.94 million total viewers and 711,000 in the key 25-54 demographic advertisers covet most.
Retired, brain-dead idiots still love Fox’s 24/7 Clinton bashing:
Fox News still finished first in the “Total Day” (6 a.m. to 6 a.m.) category, extending its winning streak over all basic cable channels to 29 consecutive weeks, averaging 1.4 million viewers.
CNN is predictably shitty chasing fake objectivity by giving “2+2=22” zealots equal time with “2+2=4” advocates:
Cable news rival CNN finished ninth behind the Discovery Channel in total viewers in primetime, averaging 875,000 viewers.
Wow, WEHT CNN?
Shorter CNN: If some claim that 2+2 is 22, and others assert that it equals 4, the answer must lie in the middle between those positions, so 2+2 is equal to 13.
And BTW – That math also describes Tom Carper style bipartisanship.
Lawrence O’Donnell is the voice of reason I need to sleep well.
Does he put you to sleep? Or is he that reassuring virtual glass of warm milk?
His energy level is appropriate to his time slot.
Remember, if that numbnuts Andy Lack had gotten his way McConnell would be out, replaced by a conservative. That’s what happens when you’re owned by Comcast, shittiest corporation in America as judged by customers.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/350979/comcast-is-americas-most-hated-company
you think every cnn commentator who doesn’t agree with liberal positions is a “2+2=22” person? a lot of them are, but some of them just have a different opinion. and cnn certainly doesn’t give the crazies (or even routine conservatives) anything close to equal time. besides, I like to know what the other guys are saying. keeps us sharp. but I agree it’s more entertaining to watch a channel that agrees with everything you believe.
“…but some of them just have a different opinion. and cnn certainly doesn’t give the crazies (or even routine conservatives) anything close to equal time….”
Oh please. 2+2=13 at CNN always has, always will. Thats why nobody watches.
nobody watches because everybody’s a rabid partisan these days. by the way, trump would be amused (if he were capable of any feeling except rage and pride) to hear that cnn is not liberal enough.
It isn’t about liberal/conservative. It is about pretending that everything is a debate between two equally valid points and calling that objectivity.
There are actual facts, but you wouldn’t know it from watching CNN.
ok, but please tell me the kind of facts you think they’re leaving out or distorting. cnn reports some news in a way that’s more or less objective and then talks about it all day. that could be boring, but it’s not an affront.
Nude woman runs out of house house fire holding a burning bra, click in this link… Too much of that kind of stuff
Tonight on the Situation Room “This PhD Climate scientist with 40 years in her field explains the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere, but THIS blogger and Pastor from West Texas says it’s all leftist feminist crap. who’s right? We’ll never know. Also, is your child a secret porn star??? all that and MORE”
ben: that’s a pretty extreme hypothetical debate you’re talking about, and it would be rare. if you did see one like it, are you so weak-minded that you’d be swayed by the science-denier argument? wouldn’t that debate mainly just encourage people to mock science-deniers? do you think any sensible person would have his mind changed about the climate?
climate-change deniers are ridiculous and non-scientific, of course. but I wonder if you just object to the airing of any view you don’t agree with. and/or you’re a grind who doesn’t like soft news of any kind anywhere (“is your child a secret porn star”). I’d just change the channel if that came on, but some soft news is fun. I’m sure you’ve found some wonky, sober-minded, ideological publications to spend your time with.
cnn is hardly a paragon of news operations, but I imagine you have the same complaints about the New York times. at least cnn provides an ongoing critique of trump’s assault on democratic institutions — which include the media. the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
@redux: It’s called hyperbole. Look it up.
I understand hyperbole (“that’s a pretty extreme hypothetical debate you’re taking about”). he was using it to make a point I don’t agree with.
So what, you just attack a point you dont agree with without considering every angle? Are you really that weak-minded?
I was also only being SLIGHTLY hyperbolic. Just because a POV exists, doesnt mean it gets equal air-time with actual facts. It’s “everyone should be treated fairly” extremists that are to blame for flat-earthers being given equal credibility with actual scientists. If your opinions are trash, you get treated like trash. dont be a snowflake.
I think I expressed my loathing for climate-change deniers. that wasn’t the point.
you know who’s really hyperbolic? that HyperbolicDem on the other blog, I bet.