"Insiders also claim not to be surprised that the conclusion of the long-awaited Mueller report—or at least the Trump-appointed attorney general's summary—was a whimper, not a bang for an outlet that has invested so much time and energy, in primetime and throughout its dayparts, in the notion that Trump is unworthy of the Oval Office and might at some point be forced to give it up. And it’s also possible that the Mueller disappointment drove loyal viewers away in much the same way that people avoid looking at their 401(k)s when the stock market is down. Maddow, who has consistently vied for the first or second top-rated cable news program, was sixth on Monday evening, down almost 500,000 total viewers from the previous Monday, as was MSNBC’s second top-rated program in primetime,
The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell.... The hope now is that Trump’s conduct as president, along with the ramping up of the 2020 presidential campaign, will prove powerful storylines that will give MSNBC the opportunity to regroup.... 'This stuff ebbs and flows,' said one network insider. 'I think we’re ebbing.'"
From
"MSNBC’s Trump-Russia Ratings Fizzle: ‘Time to Pivot to 2020’/The Mueller report and its potential implications have driven the network’s coverage—and monster ratings—for two years. Now it’s ended with a whimper, leaving execs in a bind" (Daily Beast).
Maddow was way down on Monday night, but I watched, and I hadn't watched Maddow in months. I wonder how many of her Monday viewers were people like me, who have not been feeding on collusion delusion and wanted to see how it looks when a collusion delusionist deflates. But one night of that was enough. It's not as funny as you might think. It's boring.
ADDED: I learned a new word there:
"dayparts."
ALSO:
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Who knew this whole Russian thing was done for ratings?
If the horse is dead, its time to dismount.
MSDNC is a fraud. Only morons would like to be lied to, will continue to watch.
MSNBC and all lefty/LLR media have to keep the lefty lie-based programming and talking points going if they are going to maintain momentum for the dems to win in 2020.
We already see this tripling and quadrupling down at the lefty billionaire funded and directed The Bulwark, 1/2 of National Review in addition to the traditional far left sources.
Is it just me or does she blink faster when she's lying?
Maddow looked like she ate a bad clam. Perhaps she had.
10 million dollars is a nice paycheck for dutiful leftist bullshit.
They're figuring out what will attract the audience, not what's a true story, like always.
Dayparts are what culture allows women to expose in daytime.
I generally deplore boycotts, but am kinda supporting the idea that Republicans should just cut MSNBC and CNN from the channels they will appear on. But our side never does anything in solidarity except sing the national anthem.
So it turns out that people like having their biases confirmed and dislike having them contradicted by reality. Shocking, I know. I don't particularly like watching or reading about things that don't confirm my biases, but if it feels truthy I'll force myself to do so anyway. But most people won't do that.
There's almost a paradox about the idea of news reporting and news commentary. It oestensibly is about telling the truth, but the truth isn't always something that people want to hear.
Just as well Maddow's ratings aren't based on the opinions of high school boys.
Dayparts sounds better than daytranche, especially wrt her, though it does bring "ladyparts" to mind.
Growing up where a goodly number of the Catholic priests were Irish-born, I was already familiar with the "dayparted" (in deserving cases, referred to as the "dearly dayparted".)
Prime time star?
She is losing her time slot, recently.
MSNBC is a loss leader for GE and Vivendi.
GE is tanked.
French- and Canadian-owned Vivendi has a history of financial difficulties.
You are adding new posts too fast to keep up, Althouse!
"when a collusion delusionist deflates"
For future historians, if future prog victories allow history to be written, the sheer brazenness of the deep-state coup attempt--the malicious use of a fabricated dossier, the widespread unmasking and wiretapping, the running of foreign operatives against an American campaign, the special-counsel with hunt, and so on--will be fodder for analysis of the greatest scandal in American political history.
But the inflation and deflation of the collusion narrative will merit more than a footnote: it is the most striking recent instance of politically motivated mass delusion, deliberately cultivated across a range of media, eagerly fueled by former public officials, used to delegitimate an administration and gain victory in mid-term elections, and becoming a defining feature of a political party. Besides lower ratings, how will they cope with deflation? The first stage, as we can already see in blog comments, is denial. The second?
Did you make a list of the shows sponsors? That’s on my agenda for tonight. Then a politely worded non-threatening communication to each of them explaining why I won’t be using their product or service.
It's all about the benjamins then? They weren't saving the republic? They were lining their pockets with the anxieties of Chuck, David Brock, Inga, Ben Wikler and R/V?
O tempora. O mores!
Truly, politics makes louts of us all.
And it’s also possible that the Mueller disappointment drove loyal viewers away in much the same way that people avoid looking at their 401(k)s when the stock market is down.
Yeah, and it's also possible that when people find out you've been lying through yer fuckin' teeth to them for 2 1/2 years, they stop listening to you.
Dayparting is not exclusive to broadcast media like radio and TV. It's a common strategy on the web too. For example, let's say an advertiser is bidding on ads to display at the Althouse blog. They might be willing to pay more first thing in the morning because they think your visitors are the most engaged at that time when you post new content.
Is there a way to make "Big News" less reliant on advertising and sponsors? I know you started to show ads again recently after some hemming and hawing. Does that make your posts less trustworthy? Works for me since I don't think your ads are very intrusive.
MSNBC is like a restaurant whose customers find out that the avocado toast doesn't actually have any avocado.
MSNBC should embrace the suck and openly surrender all its pretensions and bogus claims and cuck chest-thumping to being a "news channel" or a "current events reportage outlet" or any sort of institution or enterprise normally discussed in J-schools back in ancient times when J-schools taught J. That would free Comcast to redefine MSNBC to fit a market more suitable to its audience — a 24-hour fantasy channel for geriatric SCA types no long able to wear their costumes in public due to the ever-growing paunch that precedes each one like a herald.
Fizzled? Hit by the firetrucks assembled for a 24 alarm fire, I'd say.
I did the same thing. I decided to try to watch Rachel the night after. It had been a couple of years since I had stopped watching MSNBC. I turned it on and...I lasted maybe 5 minutes. Seemed like much longer, and may have been. But nothing was said. A lot of hyperbole. A lot of very serious looks with her famous half-crooked mouth yawing open.
I wanted to get riled up- either with her or against her, but I got the same thing from her show that I always used to get: Nothing. She speaks. I hear words coming out. But they seem like someone reading a serious fiction story. Nothing interesting at all. And nothing more.
She could be an Albanian talk show host for all I can make of it.
Ann, thanks for sharing dayparts. Very different than ladyparts.
If I were in charge of MSNBC I would pray that Trump gets the DoJ to go medieval on Obama and the Clintons and the rest of their criminal gang. Their ratings would go through the roof with their viewers.
On one of your blog posts yesterday I saw that the average age of MSNBC viewers was 65. Ms. Maddow's shtick is snark. I would have thought that most 65 year olds had gotten over an appetite for sophomoric snark. I watch part of Ms. Maddow's show perhaps three times a quarter. I can usually stand no more than five minutes of it at a time.
The Mueller report didn't "fizzle." He exploded ... just not in the way MSNBC and the cabal wanted.
But, but, but, you promised us indictments! You promised us jail time! You promised to protect us from that bad orange man. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
"On one of your blog posts yesterday I saw that the average age of MSNBC viewers was 65."
Maybe Maddow's audience really was made up of people who were clinging to life solely to see Mueller take Trump down?
the average age of MSNBC viewers was 65.
The median, not average, but still shockingly high. Probably lots of Maddow-aged and younger viewers and Peter Paul and Mary fans, not much in between.
... for the moment.
When items must be legally redacted are legally redacted, they'll be back in business.
COVERUP!!!!
I wonder how many of her Monday viewers were people like me, who have not been feeding on collusion delusion and wanted to see how it looks when a collusion delusionist deflates.
Schadenratings.
Remember, the MSM like good ratings. But they love the Democratic Party.
I stopped watching all TV/cable news a year ago. I can't stand the CNN/MSNBC crew, so I decided to watch Fox News post-Mueller. I lasted for 10 minutes.
Cable news is past its pull-by date. The good bits are dragged up by various blogs. The bad bits are too numerous and too painful to sit through.
I never cared for Rose personally (especially his off sense of humor) but I very much miss his PBS show. Great guests talking sense.
They will have a substantial audience.
Collusion Truthers are like 9-11 Truthers. They will never be convinced
of anything else and will cling to MSNBC/CNN for anything that keeps their hopes
alive.
Again - the fresh new conspiracy is that the Mueller report really did indict Trump and name he and his entire family as conspirators in stealing the election from its rightful owner. (with help from the evil Russians - who were not evil when Obama was prez and Hillary was making $$$$)
Barr and Rosenstein are lying and Mueller and his team and letting them! Amazing.
Yes. Really. mmmmmmmm koooolaiiiidddeee.
What is LLR?
Cue the Sad Trombone music.
"Cue the Sad Trombone music."
I prefer Nelson Muntz's "HA-HA!"
Strange word. It caused me to think of "mouthparts.
No deeper meaning is intended here.
Curious George said... Remember, the MSM like good ratings. But they love the Democratic Party.
... and if you can combine both - it is orgasmic bliss
cubanbob said... If I were in charge of MSNBC I would pray that Trump gets the DoJ to go medieval on Obama and the Clintons and the rest of their criminal gang. Their ratings would go through the roof with their viewers.
????? more like splody heads
it's as awkward as after Alexandria, for her,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mark-levin-on-mueller-barack-obamas-government-did-all-this
Skeptical Voter said...
On one of your blog posts yesterday I saw that the average age of MSNBC viewers was 65. Ms. Maddow's shtick is snark. I would have thought that most 65 year olds had gotten over an appetite for sophomoric snark.
The 65-year-olds watching MSNBC are aging hippies who never grew out of it. These are the sort of people who follow Robert Reich's Facebook page in order to get a smart take on current events, and who all comment the same "clever" retort to any given NPR story that 20 other people also thought of and rushed to comment.
Rachel Maddow could take a page out of the Trump playbook, continue to make all the Democratic Presidential candidates for 2020 come kiss her ring, rebuild her primetime show ratings for a couple of years, maybe launch some type of webcast that gets her into a CEO role that's out from under the corporate media thumb (I've already got a name for it, The RAM), then run for President in 2024. She'll be 50 on April 1, 2023.
Think of that, Rachel Anne Maddow, successful entrepreneur and socialist, running for President.
LLR is an acronym for “life long Republican” a statusclaimed by a prolific commenter here named Chuck, who is a never, never, never Trump person. Some doubt his bona fides.
Nancy: "What is LLR?"
It's shorthand for the entirety of fake conservatives who have been exposed as complete left-wing tools. They are those within the "conservative" movement who worked tirelessly to undermine real conservative policy success for decades. They were quite successful in undermining the repeal of obamacare and then wall funding, amongst other things.
They often will utilize the term "lifelong republican" for themselves in an attempt to establish bona fides before launching into their daily lefty policy/pro-dem love fest rants.
The Weekly Standard went 100% "LLR" and went out of business. They are all over at The Bulwark now pushing one lefty policy and narrative after another, including infanticide, how the New Green Deal is totally cool, how pro-lifers are terrible, etc.
Their exposure has resulted in ONLY lefty activist billionaires funding their efforts and those billionaires expect lefty results from their investment, and they believe they are getting it.
Another tactic employed by these lefty billionaires, as lefty billionaire Reid Hoffman admitted occurred in the Alabama Senate race, is to fund "LLR's" posting on popular blogsites and then using that supposed LLR status to attack Trump/conservatives and undermine republican/conservative moral and efforts.
We see that sort of thing quite often here on Althouse blog as well. No doubt a sign that the left/LLR's recognize the growing popularity of this blog and its potential for persuading people that the far left/LLR isn't the side that makes any sense. Thus the "attacks" by the far left as well as the 5th Columnists "LLR's".
It's not really a secret and its not a new tactic. Who can forget how, way back when, Dick Morris, when he worked with democrats, used to hold seminars to train lefties how to call into radio shows and pretend to be conservatives and then spout lefty talking points.
This is what is happening across blogsites today, including here.
They have a plan.
I do believe in collusion, I do. I do.
MSNBC is like a restaurant whose customers find out that the avocado toast doesn't actually have any avocado.
@Yancey Ward, for God’s sake please don’t tell me Beto O’Rourke was in the kitchen!
I generally deplore boycotts, but am kinda supporting the idea that Republicans should just cut MSNBC and CNN from the channels they will appear on.
I couldn't find either of those stations on my cable line-up if I tried. Does that count?
Temujin: "But nothing was said. A lot of hyperbole. A lot of very serious looks with her famous half-crooked mouth yawing open"
You don't have to waste that much time watching Maddow to get that.
Just a take a gander at the pro-Pelosi headlines at the Bulwark for the same look and feel.
What is LLR?
That's shorthand for a sockpuppet agitator/troll who posts here regularly (but not so much since the end of the Mueller Switch Project) who calls itself "Chuck" and claims to be a "Lifelong Republican" (its words, not mine) and a lawyer, but doesn't exhibit much knowledge or respect for the law, (not very conclusive, however, see US v. Avenatti, Michael) and posts some of the most contemptible crap seen on Althouse. He's neither witty, nor congenial, nor especially incisive — just abusive. An example:
eric [sic] I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him.
Since it admits its unfair animus, we don't give LLR (i.e. Chuck) any respect, poultry sauce and all that, but we welcome its contributions as they make ours look like the output of protean geniuses by comparison.
(BTW, there's a lowercase chuck whose stuff is worthy of reading, so please don't confuse chuck with LLR.)
Scott Adams predicts they will find a new hoax — “they pretty much have to”. We will see if a new hoax is gestating.
@Nancy, one of the regular Althouse commentators proclaims himself a Life-Long Republican, and he tries to phrase his comments as though he is what we call a “country club Republican.” However he can’t really bring it off, and the news that a left-wing billionaire named Reid Hoffman has been paying lefty extremists to portray themselves on Facebook as conservative Republicans disgruntled by Trump has raised our suspicions to a near certainty.
@Nancy: From the Althouse Unabridged Dictionary, 3rd Edition:
LLR : abbreviation or noun
Definition of LLR
1 : Life Long Republican -- refers to anyone who claims to have always voted for the Republican party
2 informal : a term of derision used to refer to someone who claims to support conservative values, but who appears to support Democrat or Progressive political positions
"It is funny how fast the left/LLR's shifted to their next wave of talking points isn't it. Fortunately, the majority of american's have already moved on and the left and their LLR lap poodles will not be able to recover." -- @Drago
BTW, if you really want an objective source to understand the collusion hoax, it is a waste of time visiting The Bulwark, the left wing site funded by lefties, as it is neck-deep in collusion with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS for their stories, going all the way back to their Fake Conservative days at The Weekly Standard.
@glenn, if you get that list please share it. Thx
Maddow's most introspective and thoughtful reportage...
After her ratings decline and else fails, Rachel should employ the Eric Stratton defense from Animal House.
Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
LLRs are Bush republicans who won't vote for Trump. They are the remainder from the addition by subtraction "common corpse" math deplorables used to retain the House in 2018.
Think of that, Rachel Anne Maddow, successful entrepreneur and socialist, running for President.
How did that work for Al Sharpton?
Does that count?
Hell yeah. That’s what I wanna hear.
Why bother to visit MSNBC or Bulwark? If one wants to really mainline lefty propaganda just hit Democratic Underground for one-stop shopping..
Maddow, the couple of times I have forced myself to watch two consecutive blocks, is boring, condescending and ignorant of history. Her lectures are pendatic and the times I've watched proved exactly opposite of the point she makes.
Due to huge swaths of the nation being illiterate of history, her schtick works for the audience.
Right now 3:30 cdt msDNC is off on some rant about President Trumps budget defunding the Special Olympics. Never mentioning the fact the Special Olympics are run by a private corporation to the tune of over $200 million. They also state as fact the SO serves over 200,000 kids. Again failing to mention the majority of the participants are adults. The SO do great work, I have no idea what the charity rating is. How much of their fundraising finds its way to disabled Americans.
FOX is covering President Trump awarding the Medal of Honor to a fallen Hero.
Compare and contrast. Discuss
Rush was monologuing today that MSNBC is just looking for clicks from its audience and the stars won't survive without the fake news to feed the audience.
Rush is not quite self-aware on the matter - his success depends on the left acting looney and alarming the right. That's what he runs, and he isn't a star either.
Just unique in running it.
Blogger Nancy said...
What is LLR?
It began as callers to Rush Limbaugh's program who announced they are "Life Long Republicans" then spew DNC talking points,
One of the funniest was a caller to Hugh Hewitt during the Bush presidency who announced that she always "voted for the man, not the party." Hugh, who is good at this, asked her who the Vice President was. She didn't know.
"...Bush Republicans..."
Alternatively called "What's the Matter with Kansas" Republicans.
Imagine electing somebody who inexplicably pushed conservative results.
"Who can forget how, way back when, Dick Morris, when he worked with democrats, used to hold seminars to train lefties how to call into radio shows"
This was a staple of talk radio until well into the 2000s - until I stopped listening. The caller would start out by proclaiming he was a "life long Republican (Conservative), who'd voted for Reagan (or read WFB), BUT the current Republican policy or Candidate was unacceptable". Then they'd push the DNC/Liberal Talking points. But they'd always portray themselves only saying this for the good of the Republican party or the Conservatism.
It got to be so transparent, the Radio Hosts would mock them or goof off them. Rush, in particular, was very good at it.
Fizzled for the moment? Au contraire, mon ami! For the rest of this year, and next year, too!
some like jonathan last, seem to have generally lost their minds, kristol as the front man for general hayden (who let the 9/11 hijackers plan out in the open) and Chertoff, who defended firtash the uber oligarch,
Seems like Napolitano doesn’t think the Mueller Investigation was a “hoax”.
“Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano warned Fox viewers Wednesday that the still-unseen report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller likely contains evidence pointing to conspiracy and obstruction that Democrats will be able to seize on over the coming months and into the 2020 presidential election.
He continued: “In the 700-page summary of the two million pages of raw evidence, there is undoubtedly some evidence of a conspiracy and some evidence of obstruction of justice, just not enough evidence—I’m thinking the way I believe Congressman Schiff is thinking—according to Attorney General Barr, not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard.”
Napolitano went on to note that if “there were no evidence of conspiracy and no evidence of obstruction, the attorney general would have told us so,” adding that Barr didn’t, so “there is something there” that Democrats and Trump opponents want to see. And they’ll have a “field day” with it.”
Host Neil Cavuto wondered that if Barr possibly characterized the Mueller report incorrectly or misleadingly, wouldn’t Mueller have issued a clarifying statement, prompting Napolitano to answer “yes and no.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/foxs-judge-napolitano-on-conspiracy-in-mueller-report-there-is-something-there
Let's see what happens.
The conspiracy issue appears to have been disposed of by noting that the Trump campaign was approached by the Russians many times, but never took the bait. The obstruction issue is more complicated, but I doubt that there is much if anything that goes beyond what we all know, because it played out in public.
By the way, why are you still quoting television pundits who clearly know no more than you do about any of this? Haven't you learned anything in the last week? If Mueller could marshal evidence sufficient to charge Trump with obstruction, he would have charged Trump with obstruction. He couldn't, so he didn't.
Sheesh.
Yeah, if you squint and pretend the worst inferences are correct, there might be a reason to believe Napolitano.
He's a NeverTrump man who just cannot.
#sad
Eventually, Inga will start linking to herself when all else fails.
Inga nerver gives up.
Moderation is annoying. No continuity. Your blog, your choice,
Inga nerver gives up.
Moderation is annoying. No continuity. Your blog, your choice,
Inga: "Seems like Napolitano doesn’t think the Mueller Investigation was a “hoax”."
LOL!!
The guy who was certain there was collusion!!
LOLOLOLOLOL
It just keeps getting better and better!!
Looks like Brennan lied under oath about using the hoax dossier for the increasingly hoax-y IC report back in Jan 2017.
Tsk tsk tsk
I have been reliably informed no one is above the law Brennan....except Hillary, all the dems who lied (documented liars) and destroyed evidence along with Smollett and Feinsteins aide who doxxed republican children.
They were all sent on their way scot-free.
Hey, doxxing children? That's right up LLR Chuck's alley...
Mueller is the rot in DoJ. Not Barr
Mueller could have charged obstruction...it was a toss up according to Mueller. But it's not. What gets released might make President Trump look bad. Exculpatory evidence is classified and not able to be made public. Regardless, no impeachment Mueller knowing all of this, continues the Obama administration operation of attempting to move President Trimp's poll numbers low enough to have Republican leadership demand he resign. That's best case outcome, short of that, a hail Mary pass to keep the President from winning re-election. At this point the Obama's lackeys are too dirty to get clean, have little to lose and are rolling the dice they can move the needle, if only a bit.
If there was enough to charge obstruction, I am to believe Mueller is too much of wimp to defend his charge.
AND
Mueller had enough to charge collision, punted. Allowing Barr to make the decision evidence is lacking to make the charge. Letting Trump off the hook, so Mueller after 2 years of work tucked his tail between his legs and crawled into the darkness.
Yep, leftist wish casting so hard all logic leaves them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा