What’s on your mind?
CNN is noting its February ratings…
CNN’S RATINGS MOMENTUM CONTINUES; NETWORK POSTS BIG GAINS OVER LAST YEAR
CNN Beats MSNBC for Eighth Straight Month
New Day Outperforms MSNBC’s Morning Joe Again; Tops by Largest Demo Margin Ever
MSNBC Sheds Viewers by Large Margins; Hits Decade Lows
Lost 55% of Primetime and 66% of Daytime Audience
CNN’s ratings momentum continued in February, with the network ranking #2 in cable news in total day in both total viewers and the demo 25-54, easily topping MSNBC. CNN also beat MSNBC once again in both M-Su and M-F primetime (demo 25-54) this month. The network has now outperformed MSNBC for eight straight months in total day (among both viewers and demo) and in M-Su/M-F prime (demo) — the longest streak across these dayparts in over six years (since November 2008).
CNN had big ratings gains this month, with all dayparts up significantly from year-ago levels, posting the largest growth in cable news. MSNBC continued to shed viewers, decreasing double-digits in all three key dayparts among P2+ and 25-54, posting the largest declines. CNN also posted the largest increases in daytime (9a-4p) among both total viewers and demo, while MSNBC daytime is down a whopping -66% to 36k in the demo, its lowest delivery in over 15 years.
Politico’s Dylan Byers does a pretty good job explaining why the Falklands story hasn’t stuck very well to Bill O’Reilly…
Had O’Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn’t, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was “in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands,” which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for “in the Falklands War” — especially because O’Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. “I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was,” O’Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn’t really been disputed since.
Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O’Reilly was actually in “a war zone” or a “combat situation,” as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn’t. He was present at a violent protest — or “a riot,” or “a demonstration” — that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that “Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O’Reilly.”)
This was never Brian Williams Part 2. Whatever happened in Argentina with O’Reilly, it doesn’t equate to what has been documented about Williams. And that’s the fundamental problem here because O’Reilly’s antagonists were playing long ball swinging for the fences…and not making it out of the park…the equivalent of a pop-up flyball. There are legitimate questions that could be raised about what O’Reilly claimed…and his response to the charges…but they don’t appear to amount to out and out falsehoods. So by claiming them as such, O’Reilly was able to credibly defend himself to those charges…while at the same time being able to dodge any legitimate questions on the theory that the well had been poisoned. It’s a classic tactic. If you can discredit your opponent legitimately, you can then parry the discussion to your opponents credibility. Then everyone starts talking about that and not whatever legitimate questions still remain because the oxygen gets sucked up.
The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove seems to think Chris Hayes will be the next to get the axe…
In the longer term, these sources said, the Rev. Al Sharpton—a larger than life personality who attracts a 35 percent African-American audience but continues, after 3½ years of nightly practice, to wrestle with his Teleprompter–could eventually be moved from his weeknight 6 p.m. slot to a weekend time period, as MNSBC President Phil Griffin attempts to reverse significant viewership slides by accentuating straight news over left-leaning opinion.
“Everybody in the food chain from top to bottom understands that the Olbermann era is over,” said an MSNBC source, referring to the glory days during George W. Bush’s administration when incendiary liberal Keith Olbermann regularly attracted a million viewers—many of them seeking refuge from White House and Republican talking points.
The MSNBC source said, “Going left was a brilliant strategy while it lasted and made hundreds of millions of dollars for Comcast, but now it doesn’t work any more…The goal is to move away from left-wing TV.”
“[Corn] is going to fail, because he’s lying, and I can prove it,” O’Reilly told Deadline. “But that does not mean he’s not going to try … and some will believe him.”
Great Bill. When do you start…trying to “prove it”? So far all I’ve seen is you do is huff and puff, thump your chest, use terminology one would associate with a pending lawsuit (not gonna happen), blame MSNBC for something it had no part of, and generally make a big big stink. When will you start refuting Corn’s piece…allegation by allegation? That’s the only way you’ll make this go away…if you are indeed right.
I say: Yeah, Don regularly makes regrettable gaffes. This, however, wasn’t one of them. He was quoting O’Reilly, and it’s not like it was during daytime programming. Grow up and move on, folks.
To quote Don Lemon…BULLSHIT!
Lemon had a choice…the same choice news anchors and news organizations have everywhere…to bleep or not to bleep. He could have quoted O’Reilly and then stated that he wasn’t going to use the word O’Reilly did. That’s something most anchors -those who don’t check put their brain into idle when the lights go on – do. But not Don Lemon. Add this to the growing list of Lemon embarrassments.