Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

***Official MSNBC Thread***

Recommended Posts

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q1-2017-ratings-msnbc-has-best-quarter-ever/324683

Q1 2017 Ratings: MSNBC Has Best Quarter Ever

It was a record-setting quarter for MSNBC, one which included the network’s largest total quarterly audience ever in many key dayparts, including its weekday prime time and total day. In addition, MSNBC earned a quarterly victory over CNN in total prime time viewers.

MSNBC is now the fastest growing cable news network, up +61 percent in prime time viewers and up +49 percent in the prime time demo versus the same quarter in 2016.

In Total Day, MSNBC was up +55 percent in total viewers and +40 percent in the demo.

Here are MSNBC’s ratings for Q1 of 2017:

  • Prime time (Mon-Sun): 1,434,000 total viewers / 337,000 A25-54
  • Total Day (Mon-Sun): 776,000 total viewers / 183,000 A25-54

Rachel Maddow, the dominant voice for progressives on cable news, may be benefiting the most from the Trump administration’s first 100 days. Q1 2017 was the most-watched quarter ever for Maddow’s show. While the quarter was significant for Maddow, the month of March was even more noteworthy. Her program ranked No. 1 across cable news among adults 25-54. MSNBC had never scored a 9 p.m. monthly win over Fox News among adults 25-54 in network history until this past month. Not only was March 2017 Maddow’s best month ever from a ratings perspective, but it provided MSNBC with its best monthly audience delivery for any program in the network’s 20-year history.

Morning Joe posted its most-watched quarter ever, and the largest 6 – 9 a.m. quarterly audience in network history. Joe and Mika also capped off March 2017 by beating CNN in total viewers for the 25th straight month and posting a year-over-year total viewer gain of +43 percent.

One of the newest members of the MSNBC family, Greta Van Susteren provided the network with solid numbers in the 6 p.m. hour. For the Record delivered the time period’s best total viewer and A25-54 audiences for a quarter since Q4, 2012. While MSNBC remains behind Fox News and CNN at 6 p.m., it delivered more year-over-year audience growth than its competition: up +59 percent in total viewers, and up +74 percent in the A25-54 demo.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Oh Squissy

It's actually sort of sad at this point.  

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cable News Ratings: Fox News Breaks Records, MSNBC Posts Significant Growth

Rachel Maddow Bill O'Reilly

REX/Shutterstock

Fox News finished far and above its competition in the ratings for the first quarter of 2017, with the network putting up the highest-rated quarter ever in cable news history in the total day viewership measure, according to Nielsen data released Tuesday. This marks 61 consecutive quarters that Fox News has finished number one among cable news networks in total day and primetime viewership.

Fox News averaged 1.72 million total day viewers, with 359,000 of those falling in the key adults 25-54 demo. CNN finished second with 826,000 total day viewers and 266,000 viewers in the demo. MSNBC came in third with 781,000 total day viewers and 185,000 viewers in the demo. Yet despite finishing third, MSNBC definitely has reason to celebrate. The network grew its viewership by 55 percent in total day viewers and 40 percent in the key demo compared to quarter one of 2016, no doubt boosted in part thanks to a surge in the ratings of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

Fox News grew 27 percent in total day viewers compared to last year and CNN grew 13 percent. In the key demo, Fox News was up 32 percent from the first quarter of 2016 while CNN grew 22 percent. It should be noted for comparison purposes, however, that during quarter one of 2016 CNN aired 13 presidential town halls and debates, which drew significant ratings for the network. But CNN did have its most-watched first quarter in 14 years, both in the key demo and in total viewers.

Fox News also finished number one in both primetime and daytime measures. In primetime, the network averaged 2.89 million viewers for the quarter, with 588,000 of those in the key demo. CNN was third in primetime viewers with 1.19 million viewers, but second in the demo with 411,000. MSNBC came in second in primetime viewers with 1.46 million million viewers and third in the demo with 347,000. In the daytime measure, Fox News averaged 1.99 million viewers, with 388,000 in the demo. CNN was second with 896,000 viewers and 253,000 in the demo. MSNBC finished third with 737,000 viewers and 147,000 in the demo.

In addition, Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” not only had its highest-rated quarter ever, but it broke all previous records in cable news history for the highest-viewership ever for any given program in a quarter. “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on CNN was also up in both key measures. Tapper is up 56 percent in the demo compared to the first quarter last year, and 39 percent in total viewers.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Nowhere to go but up.  Getting Al Sharpton off prime time TV was a step in the right direction. 

Al Sharpton was never on in prime time. His show was at 6:00PM ET - prime time is from 8:00PM to 11:00PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

I wish they still had Olberman 

They probably do too. He was at his best during the Bush administration and was not afraid to take the gloves off, which is what they need now. I like Maddow and Chris Hayes, but they have a restrained quality which undercuts what they have to say IMO.

Olbermann actually did enter into talks with MSNBC before the 2016 election season to rejoin the network, but they never went anywhere (reportedly they lowballed him on the salary). I think adding Brian Williams to the lineup had a lot to do with it, as he became the lead anchor of the coverage for the primaries, convention and general election, which wouldn't have left that much for Olbermann and I doubt neither would be comfortable sharing the duties.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like saying "Hey, the Cleveland Browns won their game by 17 points!" while sitting at 1-15.

The only records they are breaking are the amount of garbage and propaganda they spew on a nightly basis, further feeding the hysteria by the American Left.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, squistion said:

They probably do too. He was at this best during the Bush administration and was not afraid to take the gloves off, which is what they need now. I like Maddow and Chris Hayes, but they have a restrained quality which undercuts what they have to say IMO.

Olbermann actually did enter into talks with MSNBC before the 2016 election season to rejoin the network, but they never went anywhere (reportedly they lowballed him on the salary). I think adding Brian Williams to the lineup had a lot to do with it, as he became the lead anchor of the coverage for the primaries, convention and general election, which wouldn't have left that much for Olbermann and I doubt neither would be comfortable sharing the duties.

I used to love that little spiel he gave every night telling how many days since Bush declared mission accomplished. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Da Guru said:

Keith's faux anger got to be a little too much..

It wasn't faux, he really was angry, which was maybe why he got the ratings he did as it came across as sincere to most viewers.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squistion said:

Al Sharpton was never on in prime time. His show was at 6:00PM ET - prime time is from 8:00PM to 11:00PM

No it isn't. Hint: There's a reason it's called prime time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walking Boot said:

 

Quote

3 hours ago, squistion said:

Al Sharpton was never on in prime time. His show was at 6:00PM ET - prime time is from 8:00PM to 11:00PM

No it isn't. Hint: There's a reason it's called prime time. 

Wrong.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2011/what-time-is-really-primetime.html

Traditional primetime is eight to 11 o'clock at night, Monday through Friday, but Nielsen finds that more Americans tune in from 9:15pm to 9:30pm than any other period during primetime. The tail end of primetime—10:45 to 11:00pm—is when the fewest viewers use their televisions.Sep 13, 2011

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Wrong.

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2011/what-time-is-really-primetime.html

Traditional primetime is eight to 11 o'clock at night, Monday through Friday, but Nielsen finds that more Americans tune in from 9:15pm to 9:30pm than any other period during primetime. The tail end of primetime—10:45 to 11:00pm—is when the fewest viewers use their televisions.Sep 13, 2011

 

Wrong.

The FCC defined Prime Time in law as the FOUR hours between 7 and 11 PM (those are prime numbers) when they established the Prime Time Access Rule in 1970.

 

Quote

It restricted these stations from broadcasting more than three hours of network programming during the four-hour prime-time block each evening and established the first hour of prime time (7:00–8:00 p.m. Eastern Time and Pacific Time, 6:00–7:00 p.m. Central, Mountain, Alaska and Hawaii–Aleutian Time) as the "prime access hour".

By the early 1980s, the PTAR had introduced a policy amendment prohibiting stations in the 50 television markets with the highest prime time viewership from broadcasting more than three hours of network programming during the four-hour "prime time" block. Stations had to find original programming to fill during the "prime time" fraction. However, the rule exempted certain types of programming, such as overruns of live sports events, special news, documentary and children's programming, and certain sports and network programming of a special nature.

 

The first hour of "Prime Time", 7-8pm, was owned by the local affiliate, and not the network, which is why that hour is traditionally filled with local or syndicated programming (Jeopardy, Entertainment Tonight, TMZ, etc) not affiliated with the network.

Your Nielsen quote only applies to the times they track, the three hours owned by the network, because those are synchronized nationally. It's up to each affiliate to fill the first hour on their own, making it difficult to count how each separate market handles that hour, and they don't apply to Nielsen's 'National Ratings'.

Edited by Walking Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, squistion said:

Al Sharpton was never on in prime time. His show was at 6:00PM ET - prime time is from 8:00PM to 11:00PM

Wow, you sure showed him.

Edit: You actually kept going with this, too. :lmao:

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Walking Boot said:

Wrong.

The FCC defined Prime Time in law as the FOUR hours between 7 and 11 PM (those are prime numbers) when they established the Prime Time Access Rule in 1970.

And Sharpton's show was at 6PM ET, so he was not in Prime Time even under your expanded definition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more bad news for America. We sure know how to pick'em these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

You went to bed, got up 8 hours later, and immediately picked up right where you left off on the accepted understanding of the term "prime time."

The point was originally made that the reason for MSNBC's 1st quarter record ratings was due to Al Sharpton being taken off a prime time slot.

Except there could be no cause and effect relationship, because

A) He was never on in prime time.

B) His show was moved to Sunday mornings in October 2015, well before 2017 1st quarter ratings period, so any rise in rating would have occurred in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, squistion said:

It wasn't faux, he really was angry, which was maybe why he got the ratings he did as it came across as sincere to most viewers.

Well if it was not faux then he has anger management issues.  To be that angry and come on the air 5 nights a week frothing at the mouth and eyes popping out of his head is not a good lifestyle.   Still think the anger all was all shtick.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

Well if it was not faux then he has anger management issues.  To be that angry and come on the air 5 nights a week frothing at the mouth and eyes popping out of his head is not a good lifestyle.   Still think the anger all was all shtick.

Read the reports of people who worked on his show (all anonymous for obvious reasons) and if it was shtick it carried over before and after airtime. And his colleges going back to his first gig with ESPN generally have nothing good to say about him on a personal level (except Dan Patrick). Cenk Uygur, of The Young Turks incurred his wrath during their days on Current - when Olbermann got upset that Uyger's lead in show was getting better ratings. Uygur was named in Olbermann's lawsuit against Current and couldn't publically say anything about him until the suit was settled, and then he simply said "Keith has issues".

I like Olbermann as a journalist and I think that Countdown was the best liberal/progressive opinion show ever. But I would never care to sit down and have a beer with Keith - not that he would either, as despite his being for the 99% in his politics, in real life he is elitist and snobbish (actually complained about the limo drivers Current hired to ferry him to and from the station for talking to him or trying to make conversation).

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, squistion said:

They probably do too. He was at his best during the Bush administration and was not afraid to take the gloves off, which is what they need now. 

Yeah, if only the country had someone, anyone really, that would step up and criticize the current administration. What a breathe of fresh air that would be! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Read the reports of people who worked on his show (all anonymous for obvious reasons) and if it was shtick it carried over before and after airtime. And his colleges going back to his first gig with ESPN generally have nothing good to say about him on a personal level (except Dan Patrick). Cenk Uygur, of The Young Turks incurred his wrath during their days on Current - when Olbermann got upset that Uyger's lead in show was getting better ratings. Uygur was named in Olbermann's lawsuit against Current and couldn't publically say anything about him until the suit was settled, and then he simply said "Keith has issues".

I like Olbermann as a journalist and I think that Countdown was the best liberal/progressive opinion show ever. But I would never care to sit down and have a beer with Keith - not that he would either, as despite his being for the 99% in his politics, in real life he is elitist and snobbish (actually complained about the limo drivers Current hired to ferry him to and from the station for talking to him or trying to make conversation).

I think it is a stretch to call Oblermann (or O'Reilly, Hannity, et al) a journalist. More of a talk show host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As every other outlet reported her tax scoop, before she finally got to it, I had to turn her off.  Can anyone tell me when she opened Capone's vault were there more than two pages?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

Yeah, if only the country had someone, anyone really, that would step up and criticize the current administration. What a breathe of fresh air that would be! 

It is a matter of degree. Sure there is plenty of criticism in the media, but it is lacking the enthusiasm and passion that Olbermann brings to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, squistion said:

The point was originally made that the reason for MSNBC's 1st quarter record ratings was due to Al Sharpton being taken off a prime time slot.

To clarify, you took that as a serious point, not as a joke?  And you decided that the fatal flaw in Ghost Rider's thesis was in his understanding of the term "prime time" as applied to television scheduling?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dickies said:

This is a stupid thread

Well, we have heard here in this forum for years the meme that Nobody Watches MSNBC and the current ratings seems to disprove that by their besting CNN in prime time viewing.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Willie Neslon said:

What an odd thing to celebrate.

You would think he would save a stupid thread like this for one of his aliases like tone1 or scooter

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is... it's a therapeutic safe space for unhinged lefties. Their world has been rocked recently and the folks at MSNBC are doing their best to settle the herd. This is not surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Willie Neslon said:

What an odd thing to celebrate.

Beating CNN in ratings on a network that for years we have heard that nobody watches? People have dismissed and trivialized MSNBC in the last decade as being a minor player that has no real audience. And while they pale in comparison to Fox's ratings, this indeed is something for progressives/liberals to celebrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Rachel.  She has purty teeth.

And all the male hosts on fox have that fake tan glow that I find off-putting.  I'm perfectly fine with all the female babe fox hosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, squistion said:

Beating CNN in ratings on a network that for years we have heard that nobody watches? People have dismissed and trivialized MSNBC in the last decade as being a minor player that has no real audience. And while they pale in comparison to Fox's ratings, this indeed is something for progressives/liberals to celebrate.

Do you have stock in the company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's wait until next quarter when the ratings are released.  After the she massively hyped DJT Tax returns and failed to deliver, I'm expecting the numbers to go right back in the basement where they belong since everyone has now found out what an absolute fraud she is.

Edited by MaxThreshold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MaxThreshold said:

Let's wait until next quarter when the ratings are released.  After the she massively hyped DJT Tax returns and failed to deliver, I'm expecting the numbers to go right back in the basement where they belong since everyone has now found out what an absolute fraud she is.

CNN is trying to catch MSNBC at who can be more anti-Trump.  Acosta is an outright anti-Trump activist at this point.  

But try as they might, CNN is still for those who hate Trump that might want to pretend they don't hate him, and MSNBC is still the champ for those who hate him and aren't afraid to admit it-- and that's probably why MSNBC is winning now.  

Meanwhile, where do those go who usually disagree with Trump but don't like the way the media puts their fingers on the scale and wish they'd just report it straight?  Nowhere.

 

 

Edited by Tango
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

To clarify, you took that as a serious point, not as a joke?  And you decided that the fatal flaw in Ghost Rider's thesis was in his understanding of the term "prime time" as applied to television scheduling?

Amazing, isn't it? :lol: 

2 hours ago, MaxThreshold said:

Let's wait until next quarter when the ratings are released.  After the she massively hyped DJT Tax returns and failed to deliver, I'm expecting the numbers to go right back in the basement where they belong since everyone has now found out what an absolute fraud she is.

I doubt it.  I suspect most people who watch her shows are left-leaning peeps who love the red meat she throws to them every night, and will excuse that incident as "Well, at least she was trying to nail Trump."  Not sure how many independents watch her show - I never do - but I'd be surprised if a lot of them were turned off by that.  She is obviously very intelligent, but is too snarky and condescending, so while it was funny to laugh at her oops, I doubt it will cost her many viewers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MaxThreshold said:

Let's wait until next quarter when the ratings are released.  After the she massively hyped DJT Tax returns and failed to deliver, I'm expecting the numbers to go right back in the basement where they belong since everyone has now found out what an absolute fraud she is.

Massively hyped? :lol:

MSNBC did do not one single promo for the tax returns ahead of the show, not even for 15 seconds.

Maddow made no announcements until she did a tweet an hour and a half before air time that day announcing she had DJT tax returns. She then clarified that a half hour before show time that she had the 2005 returns only.

Sorry, two tweets. one an hour and a half before the show aired, and the other a half hour before, do not qualify as massive hype under anyone's definition.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood the whole liberal media bias.

Why wouldnt you look to the people who actually cover these topics day to day.

The majority tend to lean one way?  Should tell you something.

They are college educated.  That a bad thing?

An exaggeration to an EXTENT.  But like putting doctors into conservative and liberal camps.

The conservative slant is liberal college professors left these indelible mark on all their students.  Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Daywalker said:

I never understood the whole liberal media bias.

Why wouldnt you look to the people who actually cover these topics day to day.

The majority tend to lean one way?  Should tell you something.

They are college educated.  That a bad thing?

An exaggeration to an EXTENT.  But like putting doctors into conservative and liberal camps.

The conservative slant is liberal college professors left these indelible mark on all their students.  Give me a break.

WTFack are you babbling about?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Paulymaggs said:

WTFack are you babbling about?

Educated people who cover the nation's coming and goings are said to be mainly liberal

Why is that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daywalker said:

Educated people who cover the nation's coming and goings are said to be mainly liberal

Why is that?

It is pointless to explain it to you because you already are convinced of what you believe is why and simply dismiss other explainations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.