So people are watching — or at least were watching on Day 1. That shows interest and undercuts the boredom theory. But who was watching — pro- or anti-Trumpers?
Fox News had the biggest audience: "2.9 million viewers at any given time between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Wednesday." The typical day for them at that time would be 1.5 million. MSNBC had 2.7 million and a typical day would 1 million, so the elevation was greater for the anti-Trumpers. Fox had 1.4 million more in number and almost twice as many viewers than usual, and MSNBC had 1.7 more in number and more like 3 times as many viewers.
CNN had 1.85 million, and presumably these leaned anti-Trump. There was also ABC, CBS and NBC, PBS, and C-SPAN and all the live streaming on line and video clips.
The hearings are about to begin again. (Why was there a break yesterday?) So we proponents of the boredom theory can shift to Day 2. Sure, there was the novelty and excitement of Day 1, but boredom will set in now. We'll see about that.
ADDED: I'm reading "‘Is this an impeachment hearing or an episode of ‘Dance Moms?’’: Media roasted for saying event lacks ‘pizazz’" (WaPo). This is a good way to attack the boredom theory. You say it's supposed to be boring. It's a sober, serious, meticulous search for the truth. If it was exciting and interesting, that would be bad.
TONIGHT: We bring the pizzazz! #LSSC pic.twitter.com/rbGGCSYZk6— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) November 15, 2019
Posts
48 comments:
I like how they are admitting the important thing in all of this is television ratings.
Eyeballs = $$$
But of course they aren't trying to push a political outcome for their own financial benefit.
One indication of how useless the hearings were for the Democrats yesterday is that the top story in the Washington Post is Pelosi's remarks, rather than anything the witnesses said.
Getting ready for Christmas concerts and services, so I’ve been busy.
Have paid no attention beyond reading Althouse’s daily summary bit, and Instapundit headlines.
So one percent of the population turned on their TV instead of three quarters of population? We do know they weren't Jeopardy! contestants...but are ratings points really a good metric of interest? Let's see what other things we can find to draw conclusions about...
Equity markets hate uncertainty. Certainly the removal of a US President would create great uncertainty, yet the 5 day, 3 month, 6 month, one year returns of major market indexes are all higher. Doesn't seem like those with economic interests are all that concerned about the outcome...
If the country were really taking this shampeachment seriously, more than 5% of people would watch.
I presume that's what Eric Trump meant, not literally that "no one was watching", but I'm no CNN expert.
Who cares what tater said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/11/15/the_brennan_dossier_all_about_a_prime_mover_of_russiagate_121098.html?utm_source=RC+Investigations+Today&utm_campaign=4e491157f2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_11_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d042379c8d-4e491157f2-85665877&mc_cid=4e491157f2&mc_eid=3ce6f5bee0
Did he mention this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1195072913721790464?fbclid=IwAR1uWy-4l9GhQ6R9uTAt9PJoQB8Jr2-yj7ZJPKh08jxpgBzfG3uxNV3vVMA
The level of irony in today are hilarious. We are supposed to be upset that someone was smearing a US Ambassador. What, did they say she was colluding with Russians?
As a general rule, less than 1% is no one. Of course, in this case you probably need to narrow down the population to relevant population.
Oh, would CNN viewers count the number of hostages in airports?
IMO, those numbers back up Don Jr.'s claim that no one is watching.
Obviously, he didn't mean that literally not one person is watching. From the limited numbers you give, the increase in viewership is less than 10 million. Probably a lot less. Which means, of the approx. 250 million adults in the United States today, well over 90% are not watching at all and only about 3% of the public are watching because it is the impeachment hearings.
It's a sober, serious, meticulous search for the truth. If it was exciting and interesting, that would be bad.
One would expect it to be sober, serious, and meticulous. But Schiff's part was none of those things.
Today we are going to hear a sober, serious, testimony about an Ambassador being removed from office, which is completely within the president's purview.
three quarters of one percent...
Our Beloved Professor Althouse asks...
Why was there a break yesterday
So they could do some quick polls; OBVIOUSLY!
My wife leaves Fox on all day but she switched to old football games.
The Fox broadcast is broadly NeverTrump. So almost all of the ratings increases are from anti-Trump viewers.
""Reports Brian Stelter at CNN Business, in "Ratings for first impeachment hearing show healthy interest and a serious partisan divide.""
This is editorializing. I would say it is an unhealthy interest: People are hoping this dog-and-pony show becomes a spectacle. Anyway, it is a matter of opinion whether it is healthy or not to watch this thing.
Of course one would expect someone like Stelter to opine that it is some kind of solemn duty: He works for an organization that makes money off of people watching. Also, being a leftist, he is definitely for any event devoted to attacking a Republican.
SO a reporter from CNN Business says ratings are healthy. No conflict of interest in that reporting at all, I'm sure.
I suggest comparing the viewership numbers to the total votes cast for POTUS in 2016 as a more accurate assessment of the interest in this thing.
KGO preempts Armstrong and Getty for the hearings to I can testify myself that everybody turns it off.
Anyone who has spent significant time in a courthouse knows that a lot of testimony is boring. A lot. As a trial attorney, one of your jobs is to make sure that your presentation is interesting enough so that the jury does not fall asleep. Sometimes you need to purposely do something dramatic to wake them up just before the important parts come out. It is often not easy to keep it interesting, especially when documents are involved.
Someone remind Brian Stelter that even "All the King's Horses and All the King's Men" still constitutes a small demographic.
Sorry that it's off topic, but it has to be said: in an industry full of assholes and contemptible people Stelter is, without question, one of the worst. I'd say he's a piece of shit in human form but honestly shit is more useful.
MayBee said...
Today we are going to hear a sober, serious, testimony about an Ambassador being removed from office, which is completely within the president's purview.
We are? Sounds to me like all we're going to hear from Yovanovitch is how she's been "totin' dat barge and liftin' dat bale" in the Foreign Service all the years.
That's what Left-wing Democrat Brian Seltzer would say. BTW< many people just watch TV. No matter what. So you could put on a 6 hour square dance or pie eating contest, and if it was on 7 channels, they'd watch it.
But this report from The Hill says that the total viewership of 13 million for the impeachment inquiry's first day was down 32% from the viewership for James Comey's testimony in May 2017 (19 million). It was also down from the total viewership for former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's testimony in February 2019 (16 million). It was, however, roughly comparable to the 13 million who watched Robert Mueller's testimony this past July.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/470543-day-one-impeachment-hearings-draw-131m-viewers-down-32-percent-from-comey-2017
I wouldn't assume too much one way or another from those viewership numbers. It's a spectacle. It's on TV. The normal demographics for daytime TV primarily consist the unemployed, 3rd shifters and part-timers, homemakers, some college students, and the retired. So some percentage of those groups who might normally watch game shows, soaps, or surf Youtube instead tuned into the hearings and we're supposed to draw conlusions about that?
But honestly, I can't understand anyone who would want to watch congress critters grand stand and mug and perform. It's so silly. It's not like there's going to honestly be new information that wouldn't have been leaked already (Revelations! Bombshells!). It's all performance.
People who think Ukraine couldn't have interfered in our elections because Russia did need to embrace the power of *and*.
If there really is interest, the audience will be greater today, not less.
It didn't get or keep my interest. It's Dems, Dems, Dems, all the way down to the bottom, and now they're digging down through the bottom.
Hoodlum Doodlum, why not just come right out and say what you really think about Tater?
I agree that he is a boring little twerp. I came to that conclusion after watching him --one time. That was enough. Of course I'm also not impressed with Chris Hayes whose shtick is "These black horn rim glasses make me look like I know something", nor with Rachel The Queen of Snark.
I'm slightly more impressed with Sean Hannity--but not much. TV "news" is largely a waste of time.
I'd ask what the ratings were for the usual nonsense on those channels as opposed to the hearing.
Are not ratings based on even minor time on that channel? How many sat through the entire spectacle? That is why snippets are all most people will ever hear. That and "analysis" from,nearly universally, leftist pundits.
The Ambassador will be treated as compelling (remember the witnesses against Kavanaugh?) and credible. Oh the anguish of this poor, non-political WOMAN who was cast aside by that cad, Trump....
AA, that's one way of looking at it? But here's another view - these ratings are not that good when compared to the Comey hearings.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/trump-derangement-syndrome-fatigue-impeachment-viewership-32-lower-than-comey-hearings/
Americans have always loved a good trainwreck.
You'd think they could go by one without looking, but most traffic jams at rush hour prove that's not true.
"You say it's supposed to be boring. It's a sober, serious, meticulous search for the truth. If it was exciting and interesting, that would be bad."
No one with even a hint of intelligence could honestly call this "a sober, serious, meticulous search for the truth."
damikesc: I'd ask what the ratings were for the usual nonsense on those channels as opposed to the hearing.
That information is right up there in Althouse's post, so I'm not sure why you'd have to ask.
JAORE said...
The Ambassador will be treated as compelling (remember the witnesses against Kavanaugh?) and credible. Oh the anguish of this poor, non-political WOMAN who was cast aside by that cad, Trump....
If someone can hold in their mind that non-political and ambassador apply to the same person, there's something very wrong with that mind.
AA, here's another ratings nugget from Axios.
https://www.axios.com/first-televised-impeachment-hearing-13-million-viewers-1f472afe-e63f-4e8b-a47a-642a4da77290.html
According to Axios, Wednesday’s lackluster impeachment hearing drew just 13 million viewers. The number pales in comparison to those who viewed former FBI Director James Comey’s June 2017 testimony and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s September 2018 hearing, which saw 19.5 million viewers and 20 million viewers, respectively.
"Boring" and "interesting" have a different meaning for somebody who thinks counting the spelling mistakes in Trumps tweets is an interesting and worthwhile pursuit.
Thirteen million?
More people watched Peppa Pig last week.
This blog, Tucker Carlson, Mollie Hemmingway and a few others are all I need. The networks are a leftist circle jerk. Journolist lives!
This headline is Republicans admitting that they rely on Americans to have short attention spans and a low-information knowledge base in order to win.
So just as always, this is another contest between Republicans vs. the American people. Will the American people wise up in enough time to realize that not everything is about entertainment and that the Repubicans are playing them?
Republicans really aren't any different than the owners of the Roman coliseums. Except a number of them like wrestling and are pedophiles - Jim Jordan, Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, etc. The Republican Wrestling Sex Crimes Squad. What a joke.
yes, most everything are blank pages, like in they live,
Ritmo is very certain that we will all see that Russia evidence any minute now.
Tomorrow Never Dies? Wicked media magnate. It's for the ratings. I thought I recognized the plot.
Interestingly hes supposedto be based moreon the late robert maxwell (than rupert murdoch, in several respects(
I understand that all the late-night NPC agitproppers are "liberals" (using that once-honorable term in its current bastardized sense), but Colbert seems like the biggest State-fellator in the bunch.
Post a Comment