Fox Dominates Cable

Fox has experienced a resurgence in ratings and is slaughtering the competition.

Only Rachel Maddow tops them in her time slot.

Hannity by far the new leader !!

Scoreboard: Tuesday, August 22

25-54 demographic (Live +SD)

Total day: FNC: 420 | CNN: 303 | MSNBC: 288 | HLN: 82
Primetime: FNC: 777 | CNN: 499 | MSNBC: 631 | HLN: 98

a reply to: xuenchen

Sly.

a reply to: xuenchen


That's amazing (and good!), considering that Fox doesn't have the contracts with public establishments like CNN does. (Our health club has to show CNN. Can't show FOXNews.)

a reply to: xuenchen

Prior to Trump, Fox News had more than a 50% market share. What's its market share now? 27%? The big story here is how MSNBC has exploded thanks to Trump.

But hey, spin it however you want.

What's cable?

a reply to: xuenchen

Here you go.

Friday, August 22nd 2014:

Total day: FNC: 256 | MSNBC: 103 | CNN: 179 | HLN: 76
Primetime: FNC: 283 | MSNBC: 130 | CNN: 226 | HLN: 105

Friday, August 22nd 2017:

Total day: FNC: 420 | CNN: 303 | MSNBC: 288 | HLN: 82
Primetime: FNC: 777 | CNN: 499 | MSNBC: 631 | HLN: 98

Before Trump: 41.69%
After Trump: 27.75%

DOH?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Americans do love prime time reality television. Wish I was above it myself but I also tune into the riots and civil discourse.

They are all up in overall viewership.

a reply to: JinMI

It's a complete farce that "the media wants to get rid of Trump." Their viewership has skyrocketed. They love Trump.

Why would they want this gold rush to end?

the ratings go up whenever trump is on. Thats what people tune in for.... and Hannity along with tucker. The rest of Fox is pretty much a sham like any other news channel. fox and friends is a nice show because they are friendly and come across as normal people. Tucker is the most balanced IMO who promotes logic more than political ideology. Hannity has turned into a populace warrior for the most part which is why his viewers are loyal.

hannity will be gone once his contract is up though. I am guessing Ingram will replace him for the most part.

None of them hold a candle to Infowars IMO who are basically fearless with what they cover.

a reply to: theantediluvian

They absolutely do not. Remember when WWF wrestling was real?

What the media does however want is for their viewership to love or hate Trump. The more zealous, the better.

a reply to: theantediluvian


because their main purpose is not to make money its to influence public opinion.

a reply to: JinMI

I agree with that. And I also think that there's a feedback loop with the audience. Why would MSNBC outpace the others? Because they're more anti-Trump. They're meeting a demand. The people are polarized and they want polarized media outlets to keep feeding their polarization.

a reply to: agenda51

The revenue for Fox, CNN and MSNBC is about $5 billion a year and rising. What proof have you got that their "main purpose is to influence public opinion?"

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

Prior to Trump, Fox News had more than a 50% market share. What's its market share now? 27%? The big story here is how MSNBC has exploded thanks to Trump.

But hey, spin it however you want.

Why would good news be any "media" outlet taking a big slice?

I don't like Trump, but we're on ATS. And any entertainment media outlet is poison to the people.

Real journalism is more raw than the vitriol any of sensationalized outlets pushed.

This story is "people are still losing"

a reply to: theantediluvian

Also as we all know Fox caters to the other side. Would they be polarized without the divisive media?

I wonder where and how bad this presidency would truly be without the extreme bias. A little bias, sure. That's human nature. I don't think it would be a wild success but would there be healthy progress?

a reply to: theantediluvian

do your own research. I am not going to argue with you. Follow the money and trace it back to the CFR.

If they wanted higher ratings they would have Hannity types on every network.

They are supposed to report unbiased news.... that is the actual purpose.

I have found two sources of factual reporting....

weather channel and infowars.

Hannity is close but he is handcuffed on what he can report. Obvioussly he has a populist Pro american bias. How thats a negative I have no idea. Lou Dobbs has always been pretty straight up. Tucker is straight. Gretta was pretty good as well.

a reply to: agenda51

I have found two sources of factual reporting....

weather channel and infowars.

would that be 1999s invasion of america and europe by russia or the seth rich lie you base your factual reporting on?

a reply to: growler

his correct ratio is leaps and bounds compered to anyone else.

keep smearing him though... it only grows the populist movement. Alex isnt the only one on infowars either. lots of good people involved now in offshoots and the guests are second to none.

1999 was a long time ago since then he has evolved into almost a modern day william cooper. he doesnt fall into the traps like he did in the past.

Say what you want about jones but he is out there doing it and wont be intimidated. he is the biggest threat of in the media the illuminati have faced since Cooper (who was the master IMO).

infowars entire purpose is exposing the illuminati from both the left and the right. If you dont like that i dont know what to tell you.

I killed my television years ago.
It's all crap, with rare exception.

a reply to: xuenchen

So what you are saying is that Fox News lost to Rachel Maddow?