After five full days of hearings across two weeks, the average live TV viewership for impeachment has been roughly 12 million people, according to Nielsen. Ratings have dipped slightly from a peak on Day 1, Nov. 13, which drew an audience of 13.1 million, but the drop-off is less than what many sitcoms see after a season premiere.But the Democratic candidates' debate on Wednesday night only got "6.6 million tuning in to MSNBC." Maybe the Democrats are better off if we don't see too much of their candidates, but do the ratings for the impeachment hearings suggest that the American voters are eager to get rid of Trump? Obviously not. It's Fox News that's getting the most viewers, and I'm going to presume that choosing to watch the hearings (and analysis) on Fox means that you're hoping to see Trump exonerated. Plenty of people watched on MSNBC too, and I presume they were looking to see guilt, guilt, guilt.
And the numbers for cable news are superlative: Last week, Fox News notched its highest-rated week of the year in terms of total viewership. MSNBC enjoyed the best week in its 23-year history for total viewers....
Partisan talk shows are doing particularly well. On Fox News, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson earned close to their biggest audiences of the year, with Mr. Hannity at one point zooming past 4.4 million viewers. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow’s average viewership during impeachment has put her on track for one of her best-ever ratings months....
November 23, 2019
"TV’s impeachment drama is drawing big ratings, but a Democratic debate on MSNBC sank to a viewership low."
The NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
90 comments:
the drop-off is less than what many sitcoms see after a season premiere.
Kinsley gaffe?
You're in a nation with 330,000,000 and a miniscule 13.1 million watched the hearings. Not exactly Must See TV.
"Kinsley gaffe?"
I kept wanting to see the word "other" between "many" and "sitcoms."
I’m willing to accept as good enough that sitcoms are where they went for their comparison and nothing in the sentence grammatically or logically prevents it from being within the comparator group.
It's Fox News that's getting the most viewers, and I'm going to presume that choosing to watch the hearings (and analysis) on Fox means that you're hoping to see Trump exonerated.
I have not been watching TV news because it really annoys me. I can control my exposure to scripted content better on the computer. However, I believe that Fox News is far less likely to promote the standard DNC narrative the the other networks dutifully provide in their role as propagandists.
It is not so much that I want to see Trump exonerated, it is that I want to see respect for logic and rules of evidence. I am just as frustrated with the Schiff Show as I was with the Kavanaugh hearing. Sometimes I despair that there is no longer any regard for truth or at least trying to discover truth.
Damned postmodernism!
"You're in a nation with 330,000,000 and a miniscule 13.1 million watched the hearings. Not exactly Must See TV."
My immediate thought also, but I think you have to compare viewership numbers against other tv productions that air in the same time slots to assess the relative popularity.
Different time slot but the Sunday night NFL game usually gets between 18-22 million viewers. 13 million during a workweek day seems pretty good to me.
Then let's look at how the impeachment polling results changed over the two weeks of hearings - they flipped substantially from support to opposition, especially among independents.
I cannot say this enough, the last Democrat who was even moderately known to the electorate and won the Presidency was LBJ.
Maybe the Democrats are better off if we don't see too much of their candidates
Just maybe.
Echoing Tim Maguire, why the comparison to ratings from sitcoms and not, say, drama series?
The Schiff show is TV drama.
Also fiction. Not very good fiction.
The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record....did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo....so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?
Sorry. No Emmy.
So much fake news. Big Ratings! Superlative! Zoom! Dropped off but less than!
Even Rachel Maddow ratings are only good enough for one of her best months. If this sham-show was serious, the whole country would be watching.
They really have the stink of flop sweat all over them.
mockturtle said...
Maybe the Democrats are better off if we don't see too much of their candidates
Democracy Dies In Darkness
IT'S A COOKBOOK!
Do comedies have unreliable narrators (Shiff?)
NCIS:NOLA this week had an eerily familiar plot. Spoiler follows!!! A Thai minister was targeted for assassination by an underlying who thought she herself should be making policy and decisions. She knew how things had always worked in the past. Couldn't help but think of Lt. Col. Doughboy.
@Michael K
Turley made the point that this "hearing" was designed too fail. I agree.
The Democrats do not want a Senate trial which will be more fairly adjudicated and will have a bigger audience. The Schiff Show was meant to placate the base and muddy up Trump with independents.
Given that they likely failed on both counts, they may actually have to impeach. That would be a victory for Trump. He will either teach the Republicans how to fight the DNC/MSM complex or the Republican party will no longer be relevant.
I'll stick with Judge Judy. Fairer hearings, better evidence and witnesses.
If you want weirdness and battles between good and evil. (You can decide which is which) then watch the final season of “The Man in the High Castle”.
Utterly meaningless but entertaining.
I'll stick with Judge Judy. Fairer hearings, better evidence and witnesses.
How about if Judge Judy replaces John Roberts for the impeachment trial?
That would be a ratings bonanza!
Yes theyhad a deep state themes season finale last year a southern fried rosenstein.
Maybe that's what the Dims want. The debates are udderly meaningless at this point in juncture. The big ratings for the Celebrity Apprentice President surprises me.
Had been coordinating the big bad stephen webers oily deep easy pol.
MSDNC is the Trump is Guilty of Something network. Up next, special guess Adam Schitt and Michael Avantii.
Given that they likely failed on both counts, they may actually have to impeach. That would be a victory for Trump. He will either teach the Republicans how to fight the DNC/MSM complex or the Republican party will no longer be relevant.
The Dems absolutely have to impeach and I can't understand how anyone ever thought it could have turned out otherwise. Not impeaching after putting on this circus would be a disaster for them.
The Democrats do not want a Senate trial which will be more fairly adjudicated and will have a bigger audience. The Schiff Show was meant to placate the base and muddy up Trump with independents.
That's why I still have doubts. I think Nancy is smarter than 90% of her caucus and will eventually divert to a "censure" resolution. She can count.
I like the thought that the viewing audience for the hearings is more Republican than Democrat.
I do entertain the idea that Speaker Pelosi backed the hearings as a way to make Veep Joe Biden go away, thus favoring the Lady Senators, and at the same time muddying up Pres Trump.
Regards — Cliff
Good call Mike. That explains your boy bleating about wanting a trial
So how does it compare with ratings for soap operas which they are stomping over
The Dems absolutely have to impeach and I can't understand how anyone ever thought it could have turned out otherwise. Not impeaching after putting on this circus would be a disaster for them.
I am expecting/hoping that it will be a disaster for the Dems one way or another.
They (the MSM/DNC complex) have run into a (newly minted) Republican who fights back.
When Trump is gone from the scene, the Republicans will revert back to their normal supine, bootlicking position that our LLRs seem to cherish.
Good call Mike. That explains your boy bleating about wanting a trial
He's double-dog daring them to impeach. Unlikely that they actually will, but who knows?
One man's daring, another's bleat. I suspect that the truth lies in-between
Like any mediocre comedy, the democratic debates could use a well timed laugh track to improve the watch-ability. For example, Bernie pounding on the podium and declaring, "I wrote the damn bill!!!" Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Wow, 12 million watched EVERY DAY? Amazing. I found them dull as dishwater. i half-listened to some Vindman, but that's about it.
The D Debate was just a rerun of the previous debates. They need to reduce the number of people on stage. 10% in a Iowa/NH/SC poll or you're out. Plus, they need to answer some tough Center-Right questions and not just endless softballs from Democrat MSM Reporters.
The other reason the D debates are boring. There some interest in meeting these relatively obscure people - or seeing how the more well-known ones would do in a debate. Well, know we know. And now, they don't have much new to say. And the D reporters ask the same questions, and the Candidates don't like attacking each other. So, why even listen?
"The Dems absolutely have to impeach and I can't understand how anyone ever thought it could have turned out otherwise. Not impeaching after putting on this circus would be a disaster for them." Dems dilemma; if they impeach without clearcut legitimate reasoning they destroy themselves. If they don't impeach, they destroy their credibility and possibly their electability. If they impeach, Trump and the GOP get to rip the Dems apart in a Senate trial controlled by the GOP. Can you imagine the Senate holding a trial and announcing they are going to use the same rules and procedures as the Schiff show? That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Howard said...
One man's daring, another's bleat. I suspect that the truth lies in-between
Howard? you're obviously way smarter, and way more informed than me
Could you/Would you give me a list of the 20 republican senators that would vote to remove?
otherwise
Could you/Would you shut the hell up about your fantasies?
We live in the Real World
And in The Real World; there needs to be Twenty Republican votes
I'm sure you've realized, since you're Way Smarter, and Way more informed than me, that Mitt Romney is not twenty senators? So, list please? NAMES please
Not smarter gilbar, just a saltwater fisherman. I don't expect you to know this but I've been saying for months and months and months that the Senate will never convict.
I watched some Voelker and Taylor, and the almost sexy librarian from dept of defense alongside the very stiff state guy. What a bunch of bureaucrats, in all the cliched ways we’d expect. Lifeless, bloodless and obedient nerds. Totally lacking in any qualities that would make one want to watch. A few of the Congressmen stood out, and Stefanik’s star turn reminds that this is also an audition for these folks for a greater leadership role. His effusive wholesomeness notwithstanding, it’s difficult for me to imagine anyone wanting to see more Schiff for a good long while.
That's why I still have doubts. I think Nancy is smarter than 90% of her caucus and will eventually divert to a "censure" resolution. She can count.
I would like to see a serious discussion on this aspect of our current situation.
I know rational thought as left the Capital, but... If Pelosi is as politically adapt as advertised (I say she is, results don't lie) how can she imagine her legacy of spearheading an impeachment vote that can not attract a single Republican? I know we all respond to incentives, and my imagination is insufficient to come up with the Pelosi incentive. Political, personal, enrichment at some level? Current Democrats will be labeled from the failed House vote, (impeach with zero Republicans is a failure of statesmanship) to the failed Senate Vote,(way short of 67 yeas) as blind partisans caring only for power, not a representative govt carrying out the will of the people
My intellectual betters need to explain this to me.
Teh Inquiry is dark comedy... self-puffery... crocodile tears... lying eyes... bulging eyes... S&M... a dominatrix from upstate New York...
All capped by the closing remarks from Adam Schiff... eyes Lugosi-wide, his chin and mouth trembling as he steeled himself to fight back tears and a “we’re better than this”.
No, Congressman, you are decidedly not.
Ann,
When are you going to report that Alan Dershowitz said that the impeachment hearings were an abomination?
"clearcut legitimate reasoning"
Have you seen any evidence of that so far from the Dems or their supporters? I haven't. I assume they think they can just bluster their way through it if need be. How many fingers is Trump holding up? Your eyes tell you four, all these Important Authority Figures (some with Uniforms! and Medals! and Classy Accents!) say five, who you gonna believe?
“The debates are udderly meaningless...”
Comedy Gold right there...
Howard thinks Trump is "bleating." I hate to tell you what Schiff is doing behind that desk he sits at. Maybe that is why his eyes bug out.
Trump is doing his "briar patch" routine. He can count, too.
colonel beaker, sgt Schultz act was amusing, we're supposed to take him seriously, Fiona hill is nearly as clueless,
Michael K.
I hope you're right. IF Pelosi is smart she'll rein this in and leave Schiff out to dry and save the election for a viable dem candidate. At least have something for 2024. The way it's going though it looks like things have gotten away from her. If Congress does vote to impeach then they can kiss 2024 goodby and the Dem party as well. My thoughts.
The Dem Debaters aren’t going after each other in an interesting way.
Let’s be honest. Trump is entertaining and they are not. They haven’t learned from Trump.
Viewers want entertainment. Trump won the debates against Hillary in the general and Jeb! and Friends in the Republican debates by being entertaining.
Hopefully the Dem Debates get more entertaining when it’s down to Tulsi, Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Mayor Pete.
The rest of The Senators and Yang-Steyer need to drop out. They are hurting The Show
Speaking of Comedy Gold... https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/gq_vindeman_iud_11-22-19.jpg
udderly meaningless: see teats on a boar...
Colonel Bearclaw, as the ewok calls him, doesn't know much does he,
Sitcom: 30 minutes.
Schitt Show: 10-12 hours.
"If Pelosi is as politically adapt as advertised (I say she is, results don't lie)"
-- I don't think she is. She rolled over to Obama and sacrificed the Blue Dogs thinking that would help the Democrats. Nearly every chance she's been given to be in charge, she has bungled along attempting to coalesce power, only for it to be taken away from her. I think she's average, at best, and a True Believer at worst, who truly will squander her House for permanent, unconstitutional power grabs.
I apply a simple rule as to whether the impeachment is good or bad for the Democrats- in other words, would it work to persuade independent voters? This is what it has to do in order to be even moderately successful, and to actually remove Trump, it has to persuade Republican voters. Here is the rule in the form of a question:
What would the media and the Democrats be doing and saying were the same set of facts being applied to President Obama?
This is a question Independent and Republican voters will be asking themselves, even if they aren't consciously aware of it. Here is the thing- we already know the answer, don't we? We got that answer 21 years ago in no uncertain terms. You aren't going to convince Independents and Republicans to impeach Trump on this set of facts if it is blindingly obvious that a Democratic president wouldn't even have an inquiry held in a Democrat controlled House, and every one who is intellectually honest would admit to this being true.
From the little of the hearings I was forced to listen to, I agree that Schiff sounds like a prim and proper school marm confronting a 13-yo boy with his Playboy magazines. Also, it seems like Adam is doing the most testifying.
The Vindman IUD thing is hilarious. The "correction" is making it far more visible and that is even funnier.
I prefer teats on a hoar, thank you very much
And I freely admit that a Republican controlled House would have held an inquiry into such a hypothetical Obama, but it is very unlikely, given the history of the Clinton impeachment, that they would vote out articles of impeachment, and mainly because the mainstream media would be running the defenses for Obama non-stop- the sort of defenses you see for Trump today, but with a much bigger megaphone. Everyone knows Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow would be spending every single show talking about how all the testimony was hearsay and that the requested investigations were all completely appropriate etc.
I don't know what Pelosi is going to do. There is a good chance an actual open vote will fail in the House, but I also believe that such a vote wouldn't be allowed unless Pelosi knew it would pass. A censure might be the escape hatch she chooses. Would a censure resolution get any Republican votes? I don't know- maybe 20-30, or maybe none.
Some say the Democrats impeachment effort was nothing short of genius.
They're right.
It was nothing, short of genius.
94% of America did not watch, but one of them will still get near 50% of the vote. It's like what they have to say doesn't even matter, and clearly it doesn't, becuase every candidate knows they will not do what they say they will, and I suspect most voters who vote for them don't even expect them too. Sad.
A censure is not going to work at all. It would be the equivalent of charging a guy with murder and plea bargaining down to a sternly worded letter.
They must vote to impeach regardless of what happens in these silly hearings. Any other outcome is an admission that the whole thing was a sham from the start.
"What would the media and the Democrats be doing and saying were the same set of facts being applied to President Obama?"
We all know they would be acting exactly the opposite from what they are now, but I, and I suspect many Republicans would call it a bullshit charge. There would be no inquiry against Obama if the House was in Republican hands. There would be a charge of scandal, but not an attempt at impeachment. It takes a profound disrespect for the Constitution and tradition do do what the Dems are doing, and Republicans just aren't built that way.
What are the normal numbers during weekday afternoons?
That’s 13 million across how many channels?
There is a good chance an actual open vote will fail in the House, but I also believe that such a vote wouldn't be allowed unless Pelosi knew it would pass. A censure might be the escape hatch she chooses. Would a censure resolution get any Republican votes? I don't know- maybe 20-30, or maybe none.<
I agree. The GOP members probably include a few Never Trumpers, NTs for short, but I wonder if they will defy logic and vote to impeach.
"That’s 13 million across how many channels?"
FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, C-SPAN, and probably others I am not thinking of. And of those 13 million, how many were actually watching and not just doing something else while the television was on? I am thinking of doctor offices, airports, gyms etc. that have the channels on, but with no one paying attention.
I think that if the Democrats hadn't rigged the process to shut out the Republican minority on witnesses and such, a censure might well have gotten 50-60 votes from the right, but Schiff and Pelosi have burned those bridges effectively, and for what looks like no benefit whatsoever.
It was on every single channel. If you turned on the television, you had to take proactive steps to avoid seeing it. If "I Love Lucy" reruns were playing on all those channels, the reruns would have similar or better numbers......I watched a bit, here and there. It was extremely dull. A shame that they couldn't find some way of getting Stormy Daniels to testify.
Good reporting from Catherine Herridge. Now with CBS News, an Alum of FOX.
Our intrepid whistle blower has requested the IC IG allow him to amend his complaint. He failed to check the box that he conferred with congress before filing his complaint. He assumed since Shiff, and his committee only told him to get a lawyer, and follow the rules, and, he did not reveal the nature of his concern, he really never had contact with congress, and it was okay to keep that part a secret. Reading between the lines, it seems recent testimony has a timeline that shows the WB is not being truthful with his complaint or with the IC IG.
Remember Schiff started squealing about the IC IG withholding a WB complaint. Schiff has never had to explain how exactly he knew that. Without prior knowledge, or secret communications with the IG, or the WB (which he has no idea who that might be) Schiff should have no idea about a pending WB complaint. I remind all, ONLY WB complaints originating from the intelligence community, AND marked credible and urgent, are required to be forwarded the the respective Intelligence committees in congress. How Schiff knew any portion of all those requirements being met, are a mystery??? (not so much)
A censure is not going to work at all. It would be the equivalent of charging a guy with murder and plea bargaining down to a sternly worded letter.
Or like charging the Duke laCrosse team with a gang rape of a stripper? Learning from others mistakes would inform a person to cut your losses earlier, not later.
And of those 13 million, how many were actually watching and not just doing something else while the television was on?
My part time job has had me in and out of homes and shops 2 - 4 times a day. Lots of time the tv was on, with the hearings. I do the same. TV on for noise. I'm watching the Hawks and Illini right now. Hawks +9 with 14 minutes left. Hawks should be more dominating.
I still think a censure vote saves face for Pelosi. Last week I saw several D members say "If impeachment." Next week is waddles trying to do better than he did with Lewandowski who ate him for lunch.
I still think a censure vote saves face for Pelosi.
A censure for "bribery"?
A censure for "abuse of office"?
Just what can they censure him for that looks like an impeachable offense?
Because they've been all over TV telling us an impeachable offense was clearly committed.
I still think a censure vote saves face for Pelosi.
Why do you think Trump is now demanding a trial?
To make sure a censure vote can't save face for Pelosi.
Would a censure resolution get any Republican votes? I don't know- maybe 20-30, or maybe none.
With all the DNC/Media hysteria, it is hard to remember that Trump did absolutely nothing to deserve censure, impeachment or rebuke. He was doing his job.
I vote "None."
Any Republican who votes to censure is a coward and a weakling.
Because they've been all over TV telling us an impeachable offense was clearly committed.
Even here on this blog even tho they really can’t clearly say what.
Lololol
Republicans “have seized” again.
Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!
Blogger Michael K said...
I still think a censure vote saves face for Pelosi. Last week I saw several D members say "If impeachment."
I too think this time, the democrats will show their 'tolerance and understanding', and pick censure. After all, just because they didn't impeach for
Russian Collusion
Ukrainian bribery
emoluments
#ME TOOism
doesn't mean that they can't impeach for whatever's next
After all, they'll have 5 more years to come up with something; there's no rush
I think they got x number of votes for remarks relating to the squad, another group for those apocryphal remarks,
’To make sure a censure vote can't save face for Pelosi.’
She must feel like a third-rate politician.
Pelosi has telegraphed her end game. She is going to schedule a censure vote, and blame the Republicans for a lack of patriotism and fealty to their oath “We know the Eeeevillll Republican Senators won’t do their duty, so we can’t put the country through more divisiveness at the hands of Trump.” Blah fucking blah.
Why do you think Trump is now demanding a trial?
To make sure a censure vote can't save face for Pelosi.
I think he is daring her to try. She tried to avoid this but she will tell Schiff and Waddles that they failed her.
I was disappointed. I watched far more than I should, looking forward to The Pounce.
All I saw was The Democrat Flounce and a dollop of their patented Victory Mince.
I followed mostly on sean davis's feed, occasionally when nunes was on, I tuned it, but then Charles logan got into it,
Nunes' summary comments as ranking member before Schiff wrapped up were pretty good...and now, back to story-time on the Schiff show.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/winning-was-trumps-high-crime-and-misdemeanor-11574466051
And where do you think the people who are interested in the truth are watching? Or do you not believe that there are any such people?
Why don't you give us some more 'undisputed facts' Stephen, and then lecture us about not being interested in the truth.
holman Jenkins and Kimberly strassel, have been the only ones who have consistently been interested in the truth, even the editorial page has been blanc mange,
NCMoss said...
Like any mediocre comedy, the democratic debates could use a well timed laugh track to improve the watch-ability. For example, Bernie pounding on the podium and declaring, "I wrote the damn bill!!!" Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
11/23/19, 9:51 AM
Music also..
People dying without healthcare? Sad, mournful ...
Bernie pointing wildly while raising his voice? Dramatic, bass drum puntuated..
Post a Comment