""It's been a tough year for the liberal cable news outlets.""

[sammy the sage]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/27/cnn-and-msnbc-lose-almost-half-their-viewers-one-year




"Data released Tuesday show CNN shedding 48 percent of total viewers since last November and MSNBC dropping 45 percent.

The numbers were even worse in the all important demographic of people aged 25 to 54 as CNN's ratings dropped 59 percent and MSNBC's 52 percent."

[badcompany]

To be fair, young people are moving away from all old school media outlets, and towards the internet.

CNN and MSNBC are basically dinosaurs. FOX is still viable primarily because its audience is older.

[pandy]

True. And most young people don't care about news, period. I know when I was in my twenties I wasn't exactly a news hound. When I wasn't working I was too busy having fun with friends and family.

[Clocker]

In a rare spurt of honesty, MSNBC has admitted that it is not a news organization.

In a Monday interview with the New York Times, MSNBC president Phil Griffin essentially told viewers that they were right to go somewhere else for breaking news, since that was not what MSNBC is about.

"We're not the place for that," he said. "Our brand is not that."

[Capper Al]

To be fair, young people are moving away from all old school media outlets, and towards the internet.

CNN and MSNBC are basically dinosaurs. FOX is still viable primarily because its audience is older.

Fox News panders its audience pretty much, both in a good way and not so good way. In a good way, they'll spend money for the likes of Maria Barton(xxxxx) spelling. On the other hand, they must scout every MBA school in the country to find attractive females to appear as experts. Add to this that right wing ideas are in general easier to make then left wing and you have why it works. They are in a better position and are well backed financially to give the public want they want.

[Clocker]

right wing ideas are in general easier to make then left wing

In the free market, quality products sell themselves. Poor products require a lot of hype. The same applies to ideas. If leftist ideas are so good, why do they all have to be hyped, complexly rationalized, and ultimately imposed by law rather than accepted by choice?

[PaceAdvantage]

They are in a better position and are well backed financially to give the public want they want.How are they more well-backed than say MSNBC? NBC ain't exactly a small network...

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al
They are in a better position and are well backed financially to give the public want they want.

Then right wing ideas are what the public wants, not PMSNBC's parade of BS every day.

[boxcar]

In a rare spurt of honesty, MSNBC has admitted that it is not a news organization.

Too bad MSNBC didn't state what their brand, specifically, is, even though the political savvy among us already know. At least that info might have informed some of the "walkers" among us. :D

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Then right wing ideas are what the public wants, not PMSNBC's parade of BS every day.Judging by the rating of the news networks including Fox News, the public doesn't want any political based ideas at all. The only time the "news" networks get any ratings at all is when there is a major disaster. The general public is sick to death of politics.

[Clocker]

Too bad MSNBC didn't state what their brand, specifically, is, even though the political savvy among us already know. At least that info might have informed some of the "walkers" among us.

After Obama came up with his inspiring reelection campaign slogan, "FORWARD", MSNBC came up with the equally inspiring ad slogan, "Lean Forward".

The brand should have been obvious to all but the lowest of the low information voters.

[Capper Al]

In the free market, quality products sell themselves. Poor products require a lot of hype. The same applies to ideas. If leftist ideas are so good, why do they all have to be hyped, complexly rationalized, and ultimately imposed by law rather than accepted by choice?

Like killing of the Jewish popluation in Nazi Germany? Or products found not safe for comsumers pulled off the market by the FDA. Or the 21st amendment, which was the only amendment by popular vote, that prohibited alcohol? If you don't like these, I'm sure there are many more that we can find where the public was wrong.

[Capper Al]

How are they more well-backed than say MSNBC? NBC ain't exactly a small network...

At the end of the day, NBC has to make a profit. Rupport (sp? ), owner of Fox News, doesn't.
Anyway people are more inclined into simple solution as protrayed to the public by the repubs.

[Capper Al]

After Obama came up with his inspiring reelection campaign slogan, "FORWARD", MSNBC came up with the equally inspiring ad slogan, "Lean Forward".

The brand should have been obvious to all but the lowest of the low information voters.

And why not? In the end, we as a society, must move forward. The people must find their way and come to understand their own needs for the good of all. A belief system that correlates to the best interest of corporations is suspect at best.

[HUSKER55]

the capitalistic system does that best and it works for EVERYONE.

When you pay someone not to work you fuel the fire of destruction. They should be out selling their service, product or whatever.

Only a free people, not dependent on government will move society forward.

[FantasticDan]

After Obama came up with his inspiring reelection campaign slogan, "FORWARD", MSNBC came up with the equally inspiring ad slogan, "Lean Forward". The brand should have been obvious to all but the lowest of the low information voters.Speaking of low information, MSNBC began its "Lean Forward" marketing campaign (touting its progressive brand) in October, 2010. Obama's campaign didn't announce its "Forward" (marxist, socialist, communist) slogan until April 2012.

[delayjf]

Like killing of the Jewish popluation in Nazi Germany?

Agreed, the left really has the market cornered when it comes to Mass Murder, like the Purges in China, Russia, Cambodia. Nazi Germany's Socialism just yet another example of the horrors of the left.

[Ocala Mike]

Nazi Germany's Socialism just yet another example of the horrors of the left.



Yes, that's why those leftist capitalists like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Joe Kennedy, and William Randolph Hearst were so enamored of the Nazis.

:rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Agreed, the left really has the market cornered when it comes to Mass Murder, like the Purges in China, Russia, Cambodia. Nazi Germany's Socialism just yet another example of the horrors of the left.Go to the blackboard and write one hundred times. "Communism is a tyrannical political system on the left. Nazism is a tyrannical political system on the right. They are not the same."

And let me know if you can find an actual blackboard. :lol:

[Capper Al]

the capitalistic system does that best and it works for EVERYONE.

When you pay someone not to work you fuel the fire of destruction. They should be out selling their service, product or whatever.

Only a free people, not dependent on government will move society forward.

Wrap your head around this. The inefficient government at times fulfills the people's needs better. For instance, no one in their right mind would want to privatize the military. Health insurance companies will cater to their interest and not the public's. The inefficient government managing the military may in the end be the best method. The simplicity of bad inefficient is an easy sell and true, but our world is more complicated than that.

[Clocker]

For instance, no one in their right mind would want to privatize the military.

People used to say the same thing about delivering the mail.

I don't believe there has ever been a creditable argument that the private sector could provide national security more efficiently. There is significant evidence that the government could provide it more efficiently than it does.

Health insurance companies will cater to their interest and not the public's.

The interests of all private sector companies is to make money. They can't do that long term by screwing over customers, contrary to your general belief. A belief you share with the president, who rants and raves about bad apple insurance companies foisting off worthless policies on the public.

Insurance is regulated by the states. Under that regulation, the best situation for the consumer is a competitive market.

Ronald Reagan used to say that the government should not provide any services that are available in the Yellow Pages. National security is not listed in the Yellow Pages. Health insurance is.

[Clocker]

MSNBC began its "Lean Forward" marketing campaign (touting its progressive brand) in October, 2010. Obama's campaign didn't announce its "Forward" (marxist, socialist, communist) slogan until April 2012.

That's even more pathetic than I thought. I just assumed it was the other way around, because it never occurred to me that a presidential campaign took its theme from a 3rd rate cable network posing as a news organization.

[FantasticDan]

That's even more pathetic than I thought. I just assumed it was the other way around, because it never occurred to me that a presidential campaign took its theme from a 3rd rate cable network posing as a news organization.Yeah, that's what happened. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Yeah, that's what happened. :rolleyes:

I made it all up, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. :p

[HUSKER55]

now you guys cut that out...I got confused :confused: :D

[Capper Al]

The interests of all private sector companies is to make money. They can't do that long term by screwing over customers, contrary to your general belief. A belief you share with the president, who rants and raves about bad apple insurance companies foisting off worthless policies on the public.

Insurance is regulated by the states. Under that regulation, the best situation for the consumer is a competitive market.

Ronald Reagan used to say that the government should not provide any services that are available in the Yellow Pages. National security is not listed in the Yellow Pages. Health insurance is.

One thing you don't have is an understanding of economics. You are neglecting the power of oligopolies to control price and services. You definitely are a Tea Party member trying to pass as if they understand an argument. You try to fit the world into what you comprehend; the two dimensional graph of supply and demand, the world of the lemonade stand. There is more to the world.

[HUSKER55]

tell me something Al.

You and me sell mouse traps that net $1 each. If you sell 100 and I sell 10000 why should I not get to keep the rewards of my efforts.


my head only stretches so far... :D

[Capper Al]

tell me something Al.

You and me sell mouse traps that net $1 each. If you sell 100 and I sell 10000 why should I not get to keep the rewards of my efforts.


my head only stretches so far... :D

What is the essence of your statement? Would it be that those who deliver a better product should prosper? Where in what I said makes you think that I wouldn't support that? Are you stuck on the lemonade stand as your world view? Need to stretch more my friend.

[Clocker]

One thing you don't have is an understanding of economics. You are neglecting the power of oligopolies to control price and services.

You don't understand the economics of regulated industries. Hint: insurance company rates and services are regulated.

[Capper Al]

You don't understand the economics of regulated industries. Hint: insurance company rates and services are regulated.

Go fish.

[delayjf]

Nazism is a tyrannical political system on the right. They are not the same."

I never said they were the same, but they are more alike than than the left wants to admit, even Hitler admitted that. They are both socialist forms of government and prime examples of what can go wrong when all the power rests with the Government. I can understand why the Left hates to admit that but alas its true.

[Capper Al]

I never said they were the same, but they are more alike than than the left wants to admit, even Hitler admitted that. They are both socialist forms of government and prime examples of what can go wrong when all the power rests with the Government. I can understand why the Left hates to admit that but alas its true.

So Ted Cruz is your hero? He stopped government from working? And how do you assume that if government power is negated and our votes become worthless that we are better off?

[Tom]

So Ted Cruz is your hero? He stopped government from working?

The feeble minded, yes, he did.
To the 47% here who think, they understand the shutdown was a mutually inclusive event. The dems could have stooped it by giving in, they chose not to. Which is EXACTLY what the repubs did. There was no difference between the tow side - both made a choice.

Try to keep up, Al, this is pretty basic stuff so far.
Brain useage 101.

[fast4522]

The hidden fact is only a small percentage of the government gets to shut down. The other nugget of value is of that small percentage that is shut down, 99% of the people the Obama administration hires gets paid out of that percentage. The pain is felt at the top more than any other part of the government.

[Tom]

Like everything else you hear from our pathetic excuse of a government - nothing but lies. the only thing our misfit leaders EVER get right is lying to us.
If an elected official tells you something, bet on the opposite. You will seldom be wrong. Scum rises to the top of the pond.....like DC.

[BlueShoe]

"Communism is a tyrannical political system on the left. Nazism is a tyrannical political system on the right. They are not the same."
Almost the same. Nazism is left wing, not right wing. The big myth that the left keeps spouting is that it is far right. Wrong. What part of national socialism do you not get? When evaluating political systems it is really quite simple, and does not require the nonsense taught in Political Science 101 in our liberal classrooms. Any system that subjugates the rights and freedoms of it's citizens while at the same time increases the power and control of it's government is left wing. Period. To use an analogy, the Nazi/Communist conflict of WW II can be compared to two huge criminal gangs battling for control. While parts of their gangs systems may be different, both gangs are still just criminals.

[Tom]

Really, in retrospect, there was no difference between Stalin and Hitler.
While pretending to be an ally, he was doing exactly what Hitler did - taking over countries he had no intention of backing out of.

His edge was that we needed him to provide the second front.
World War II never really ended as the Cold War was just an extension.

[Clocker]

World War II never really ended as the Cold War was just an extension.

Until the Soviet Union collapsed under the unbearable weight of the costs and inefficiencies of big government.

[Tom]

And they were nowhere near 17 tril in the hole.

[Capper Al]

The feeble minded, yes, he did.
To the 47% here who think, they understand the shutdown was a mutually inclusive event. The dems could have stooped it by giving in, they chose not to. Which is EXACTLY what the repubs did. There was no difference between the tow side - both made a choice.

Try to keep up, Al, this is pretty basic stuff so far.
Brain useage 101.

43 votes to dismantled Obamacare and a treat to not refinance the government, and you say it was 50/50 responsibility for shutting down the government. Exactly what are you keeping up with? The better question is what are you boys smoking?

[Capper Al]

Until the Soviet Union collapsed under the unbearable weight of the costs and inefficiencies of big government.

You write well, but just clueless. Start with the Soviets weren't really a communist government but a military dictatorship and work from there.

[BlueShoe]

Start with the Soviets weren't really a communist government but a military dictatorship and work from there.
:eek: :confused: ??? Yeah, right. Vladimir Lenin was really a venture capitalist, and Joseph Stalin a free market enthusiast. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Start with the Soviets weren't really a communist government but a military dictatorship and work from there.

The USSR was ruled by the Communist Party, which is a good clue as to the politics of the government. The head of government, usually called premier, generally had served as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. None of whom were military. The Party kept a tight rein on the military. From Wiki:

The Communist Party had a number of mechanisms of control over the country's armed forces. First, starting from a certain rank, only a Party member could be a military commander, and was thus subject to Party discipline. Second, the top military leaders had been systematically integrated into the highest echelons of the party. Third, the party placed a network of political officers throughout the armed forces to influence the activities of the military.

A deputy political commander (zampolit) served as a political commissar of the armed forces. A zampolit supervised party organizations and conducted party political work within a military unit. He lectured troops on Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet view of international affairs, and the party's tasks for the armed forces. Following World War II the zampolit lost all command authority but retained the power to report to the next highest political officer or organization on the political attitudes and performance of the unit's commander.

In 1989 over 20% of all armed forces personnel were party members or Komsomol members. Over 90% of all officers in the armed forces were party or Komsomol members.

[Capper Al]

The USSR was ruled by the Communist Party, which is a good clue as to the politics of the government. The head of government, usually called premier, generally had served as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. None of whom were military. The Party kept a tight rein on the military. From Wiki:

You were reading their brochures. They advertised as they had the interest of the people at heart. A weak and small government would allow corporations to rule more than they do now. You need to look at what really is happening.

[Capper Al]

:eek: :confused: ??? Yeah, right. Vladimir Lenin was really a venture capitalist, and Joseph Stalin a free market enthusiast. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I said. Nothing like that. Stay on the topic.

[Clocker]

You were reading their brochures. They advertised as they had the interest of the people at heart.

Hmmm. Sounds kind of like the Democratic Party here.

A weak and small government would allow corporations to rule more than they do now. You need to look at what really is happening.

The Communist Party got rid of all the evil corporations, just as you would like to do here. You see what good that did for them.

[Capper Al]

The Communist Party got rid of all the evil corporations, just as you would like to do here. You see what good that did for them.

We need corporations and private wealth. We also need to make sure they stay in line and work for the benefit of the people or we'll end up like the Soviets.

[BlueShoe]

We need corporations and private wealth. We also need to make sure they stay in line and work for the benefit of the people or we'll end up like the Soviets.
Which is what the Obama administration and the "Progressive", ie, Marxist, wing of the Democratic Party is hoping to accomplish.

[Tom]

The dems of today are much closer to Communists than they are to Americans.
I can't wait for Obama to come up with a 5 year plan.

[Capper Al]

I'm glad that all you guys can do is name call. The public will see through rhetoric like that come election time. We the people need to plan to move ahead. Keep being negative.

Thanks

[PaceAdvantage]

At the end of the day, NBC has to make a profit. Rupport (sp? ), owner of Fox News, doesn't.Even for you, this is a doozy. Now all of a sudden Rupert Murdoch isn't interested in making money... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

There is more to the world.Yeah. You tell 'em Al. You tell 'em there is more to the world...like a Rupert Murdoch who DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Firm grasp you have there. Good thing you're doling out lessons to others here.

Carry on Professor.

[NJ Stinks]

Even for you, this is a doozy. Now all of a sudden Rupert Murdoch isn't interested in making money... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Read on.

____________________________

The Post has been in business since 1801, and owned since 1976 by Rupert Murdoch (http://www.theguardian.com/media/rupert-murdoch) (other than for a five-year hiatus when regulatory requirements forced him to sell the paper – that is, until he arranged to be exempted from those rules and buy it back). It's been Murdoch's money-losing personal instrument for all manner of trouble-making, political power-brokering, and punishment and reward. When it was not being bent to his personal will, it was to that of his editors, picking the paper's enemies and friends for both personal and institutional benefit.

To say the Post is self-serving would be beside the point. It is the last of the great bully-boy newspapers (http://www.theguardian.com/media/newspapers).


This joie de guerre has cost Murdoch as much as $80m a year in unstoppable losses – perhaps more than $1bn over 35 years.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/new-york-post-murdoch-plaything

[PaceAdvantage]

Read on.

____________________________

The Post has been in business since 1801, and owned since 1976 by Rupert Murdoch (http://www.theguardian.com/media/rupert-murdoch) (other than for a five-year hiatus when regulatory requirements forced him to sell the paper – that is, until he arranged to be exempted from those rules and buy it back). It's been Murdoch's money-losing personal instrument for all manner of trouble-making, political power-brokering, and punishment and reward. When it was not being bent to his personal will, it was to that of his editors, picking the paper's enemies and friends for both personal and institutional benefit.

To say the Post is self-serving would be beside the point. It is the last of the great bully-boy newspapers (http://www.theguardian.com/media/newspapers).


This joie de guerre has cost Murdoch as much as $80m a year in unstoppable losses – perhaps more than $1bn over 35 years.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/15/new-york-post-murdoch-playthingSilly me. I thought he was talking about Fox News, was he not? Pay attention there NJ. I know you think you "got me" there, but nobody was talking about the NY Post...

Or do you think Fox News is in the same boat as the NY Post?

[NJ Stinks]

Silly me. I thought he was talking about Fox News, was he not? Pay attention there NJ. I know you think you "got me" there, but nobody was talking about the NY Post...

Or do you think Fox News is in the same boat as the NY Post?

Fair enough. I'll now go back to my regularly scheduled programming. :( :)

[Clocker]

I'm glad that all you guys can do is name call.

This from the guy that called me "clueless" for saying that a country controlled by the Communist Party was communist? :rolleyes:

[Capper Al]

This from the guy that called me "clueless" for saying that a country controlled by the Communist Party was communist? :rolleyes:

Read it again. There's was an explanation to why you were clueless. You guys would have just said clueless.

[Capper Al]

Silly me. I thought he was talking about Fox News, was he not? Pay attention there NJ. I know you think you "got me" there, but nobody was talking about the NY Post...

Or do you think Fox News is in the same boat as the NY Post?

The point has been made. That's how rupert works.

:lol: :jump: :lol: :jump: :lol: :jump: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

The point has been made. That's how rupert works.No, the point hasn't been made. Your comment was made during a discussion of MSNBC and Fox News. Nowhere did you mention the NY Post. And nowhere was the NY Post germane to the discussion at hand.

So, I will ask again. Does Rupert Murdoch run Fox News with the attitude that he does not care if Fox News makes a profit?

And if he does, please list your source.

[Clocker]

Read it again. There's was an explanation to why you were clueless. You guys would have just said clueless.

Thanks for explaining. I am clueless because I think that the members of the Communist Party are communists, and because I think that the Communist Party controlled the Soviet military.

Keep them coming. This is better than the Comedy Channel.

[JustRalph]

Check out these numbers

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/17/Ratings-Fail-MSNBC-Prime-Time-Line-Up-Trounced-By-Late-Night-MSNBC-Investigates

[NJ Stinks]

Check out these numbers

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/12/17/Ratings-Fail-MSNBC-Prime-Time-Line-Up-Trounced-By-Late-Night-MSNBC-Investigates


First off, those 25 to 54 types have to be home on a Friday night two weeks before Xmas. And then they have to be left-leaning political junkies to turn on MSNBC.


I'd be worried if they had more viewers! :p

[johnhannibalsmith]

... And then they have to be left-leaning political junkies to turn on MSNBC.


...

Left-leaning?

Come on. You have to be a card carrying Democrat apologist looking for affirmation or a right-wing devotee looking for comic relief.

I can't see how anyone that merely leans would be able to put up with that channel for more than a few seconds.

Other than LOCKUP!!! My favorite night-time show!!!