Keith Olbermann..

[SueNC]

Correct. I stated that in my original post. I merely posted the numbers to point out statements like "no one is watching Keith Olbermann" are false. I'll say it again....Fox is clearly in 1st place in cable news. No doubt about it.

Which Fox News rerun is beating the first run of Olbermann?

Olbermann's show is head-to-head against O'Reilly at 8pm... and is getting beat.
there's no repeat of Olbermann at 11pm [that i'm aware of], so it's not in play, but there is the repeat of O'Reilly at 11pm and the numbers you posted show other network shows are below that.

in fact, 6 of the top 10 shows are Fox news programs.

i had to edit this.
upon closer consideration, i see that not only does the first run of Olbermann lose to O'Reilly at 8pm, but the second run loses... decisively... to Greta Van Sustern at 10.

 

[whitey131]

The family guy is a pretty popular show.

 

[Jurched]

The family guy is a pretty popular show.

Can't understand why. The show's a fuckin zombie. It was shit-canned twice and still came back to life.

Same old shit, but now its a hit. Go figger!

Jurched

 

[Hell_Awaits]

While Fox is still at the top, the overall numbers don't show the true picture. Fox's audience is heavily skewed to senior citizens. Here are the cable news ratings for the age group 25-54 from Monday May 19 (the latest numbers I've seen posted):

1. The O'Reilly Factor 8pm (Fox) 504,000
2. Countdown with Keith Olbermann 8pm (MSNBC) 477,000
3. Hannity & Colmes 9pm (Fox) 396,000
4. Special Report 6pm (Fox) 319,000
5. Hardball 7pm (MSNBC) 317,000
6. The Fox Report 7pm (Fox) 295,000
7. Larry King Live 9pm (CNN) 284,000
8. The O'Reilly Factor 11pm (Fox) 279,000
9. Off The Record with Greta Van Sustern 10pm (Fox) 267,000
10. The Verdict with Dan Abrams 10pm (MSNBC) 266,000
11. Nancy Grace 8pm (CNN Headline) 258,000
12. Anderson Cooper 360 10pm (CNN) 248,000
13. Countdown with Keith Olbermann 10pm (MSNBC) 233,000
14. Showbiz Today 11pm (CNN) 232,000
15. Nancy Disgrace 10pm (CNN Headline) 228,000

I'm not denying that Fox is still on top. But I often hear people saying things like "O'Reilly beats Olbermann 3-to-1" or "Fox dominates while no one is watching MSNBC." MSNBC has surpassed CNN for 2nd place and Olbermann's numbers are way up compared to a year ago, while O'Reilly's are slightly down. TVNewser posts the ratings every few days for those interested.

Wow Nancy Disgrace has a small city(228,000) watching her I like to call Dumbville.

 

[whitey131]

Can't understand why. The show's a fuckin zombie. It was shit-canned twice and still came back to life.

Same old shit, but now its a hit. Go figger!

Jurched

You mean entertaining masses of people isn't a bench mark of quality?

Huh, well fuck this thread.

 

[Jurched]

A WSJ interview with Rupert Murdoch will make Sue happy:

So why aren’t there more liberal voices on Fox News, Kara Swisher asked? Murdoch replied that he would hire a liberal voice if he could find one that was strong enough.

“Would you hire Keith Olbermann?” Swisher asked.

Murdoch’s response: “No, I fired him five years ago… He’s crazy.”

Did he mean, crazy "like a fox" or just plain bonkers? I think Murdoch knows a thing or two about judging personalities.

Jurched

 

[ZeeZooZum]

What's the difference between Olbermann and Oreally? Seriously? I mean neither are newsman. They just bitch and moan and pretend they are reporting. Arguing about who has better ratings--since when the fuck should "news" shows be judged by ratings anyway--- is pointless. Olbermann has just gotten more popular because many people got sick of Oreally and wanted a left-wing blow-hard to counter the right-wing blow hard. They're both fucking useless and point to why I can't stand cable news anymore.

 

[whitey131]

What's the difference between Olbermann and Oreally? Seriously? I mean neither are newsman. They just bitch and moan and pretend they are reporting. Arguing about who has better ratings--since when the fuck should "news" shows be judged by ratings anyway--- is pointless. Olbermann has just gotten more popular because many people got sick of Oreally and wanted a left-wing blow-hard to counter the right-wing blow hard. They're both fucking useless and point to why I can't stand cable news anymore.

Pretty much my thoughts

 

[OldScratch]

What's the difference between Olbermann and Oreally? Seriously? I mean neither are newsman. They just bitch and moan and pretend they are reporting. Arguing about who has better ratings--since when the fuck should "news" shows be judged by ratings anyway--- is pointless. Olbermann has just gotten more popular because many people got sick of Oreally and wanted a left-wing blow-hard to counter the right-wing blow hard. They're both fucking useless and point to why I can't stand cable news anymore.

It is tough to argue with that...

 

[Karina_666]

I just looked at the numbers and I can't believe people still watch Larry King. I stopped watching several wives ago.

 

[SueNC]

What's the difference between Olbermann and Oreally? Seriously?

if my math is right, i'd say at first run, about 27,000 viewers.

 

[J0ST0PH0LEES]

if somebody supposedly called O'Reilly out, nobody heard it because they were all watching O'Reilly.

now please step away from the thread. it's obvious you get all your information from internet blog sites and couldnt form an independent thought if your life depended on it.

Good lord, did your parents have the same last name BEFORE they got married? That's the only explaination for someone being THAT dense.

Here, once again I will break it down for you.

I love how olbermann continually owns and embarrasses o'reily and faux news in general.

to which you replied:

yeah, troll. never mind the ratings. those are only the numbers of people who actually watch the shows, and just because the number of O'Reilly and Fox News viewers continuously buries Olberman and MSNBC, that doesnt mean anything.

back to the short bus.

....pre-pubescent insults and conjecture completely unrelated to the point I made....

I responded:

ok. I've read your posts and for the life of me I cant figure out your point. You're saying that because more people watch o'reily, that makes the things he's said that were proven to be untrue [and fox, in general also] more credible?

Fair point, after all why, in your delusional sense of reality, does one show's ratings being higher make said show's host correct on issues that have been repeatedly PROVEN wrong?

You reply with:

geez... is English your second language?
it's obvious you dont understand and i dare say, if i broke out the sock puppets, you still wouldnt understand... but i'll try.

what i'm saying is that people want to watch O'Reilly and Fox News. they dont want to watch Olbermann and MSNBC.

as for the things O'Reilly and Fox have said that have been proven untrue... what would those be? do you mind giving some examples... posting some links?
and please, no links to random blog sites. i'm talking about hard proof.

Of course, that is still dodging my question and original point, but I guess you'd have to be intelligent enough to solve blue's clues to grasp that. Keep watching, maybe you might solve them before you breed and your kids do.

Again, since you're clearly too slow to grasp more than 2 syllable words and incessant clanging of a retarded monky banging on pots and pans.

What........does.......what.......more......people......watch......hvae......to......do......with.....one....
shows.....host.....being.......con-tin-u-ous-ly.....wrong......about........topics....on.....his......show.....
and......the.....host.....of......a-noth-er.....show....calling.....him....out.....on.....his.....bullshit?

if somebody supposedly called O'Reilly out, nobody heard it because they were all watching O'Reilly.

now please step away from the thread. it's obvious you get all your information from internet blog sites and couldnt form an independent thought if your life depended on it.

Again, still with the who watches what thing. How do you not see that it is completely irrelevant to the point I made? If all you can do is rehash the same old irrelevant point and keep resorting to the same insulting style that would make phil anselmo look like a member of mensa, then please save yourself from further embarrassing yourself.

I then proceed to link to a video where olbermann calls oreily out, and humiliates him for his information blunder, and all you can reply with is "omg, itz teh utoobe!!11!!!" You dont think that doesnt make you look like an even bigger imbecile? Jeez, even oreily would tell you to shut up if he saw this thread, your egregious defending of him would even make him embarrassed.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

Dude don't bother. She's incapable of being coherent or intellectually honest.

 

[MyHatred]

Dude don't bother. She's incapable of being coherent or intellectually honest.

Fact.

 

[fah-q]

Originally Posted by ZeeZooZum
Dude don't bother. She's incapable of being coherent or intellectually honest.

Fact.

Why is it that those that don't agree are being intellectually dishonest?
I have watched both Olberman and O'Reilly. BOTH of them are former ESPN anchors and BOTH of them are pundits.The only reason that I find Olberman less credible is because he is mean. When he runs out of facts, he turns to defamatory attacks that are personal and crude. O'Reilly is sometimes a bully and often enough brusque. I can deal with that to an extent. Olberman is just plain rude and mean. I have no tolerance for that at all. It's the same reason that I am highly annoyed with Ann Coulter. There is no reason for her to be so friggin' mean. If you have facts that you believe in. They should be able to stand on their own. Being a prick about it detracts from any valid points you may have.
Just my .2 cents.

Part of the reason I haven't posted in a while is because my head needed a break from all the political crap. That and the Celtics are in the NBA finals. After that is over, I may put my red tights back on and re-emerge as the uber-con. Of course, this could be delayed if the Mets pull their heads out of their asses and start playing good baseball.

 

[MyHatred]

Originally Posted by ZeeZooZum
Dude don't bother. She's incapable of being coherent or intellectually honest.



Why is it that those that don't agree are being intellectually dishonest?
I have watched both Olberman and O'Reilly. BOTH of them are former ESPN anchors and BOTH of them are pundits.The only reason that I find Olberman less credible is because he is mean. When he runs out of facts, he turns to defamatory attacks that are personal and crude. O'Reilly is sometimes a bully and often enough brusque. I can deal with that to an extent. Olberman is just plain rude and mean. I have no tolerance for that at all. It's the same reason that I am highly annoyed with Ann Coulter. There is no reason for her to be so friggin' mean. If you have facts that you believe in. They should be able to stand on their own. Being a prick about it detracts from any valid points you may have.
Just my .2 cents.

Part of the reason I haven't posted in a while is because my head needed a break from all the political crap. That and the Celtics are in the NBA finals. After that is over, I may put my red tights back on and re-emerge as the uber-con. Of course, this could be delayed if the Mets pull their heads out of their asses and start playing good baseball.

Umm, obviously you haven't read a single post by Sue then. She is a bitch to anyone that disagrees with her. Why should I treat her any differently?

 

[fah-q]

Umm, obviously you haven't read a single post by Sue then. She is a bitch to anyone that disagrees with her. Why should I treat her any differently?

I read them, I just didn't find them any better/worse than any of the others on here.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

I read them, I just didn't find them any better/worse than any of the others on here.

Whereas you are capable of responding with an actual analysis about the difference between the two (as your post above shows), her response "But OReally has better ratings!" when that is neither the issue nor even worth debating shows that she is incapable of actually having a conversation.

As for the two shows, I barely can stand to watch either for more than a few minutes and I am not sure OReally is any less mean. He is, however, less funny which is why I like him less.

 

[T_man357]

Fact.

C'mon Hatred dude.... I expect alot of these other people to be bashing Sue but you've been here for a LONG time and know she's VERY vocal about her opinions/facts and there's really nothing wrong with that (Is there??)

You know probably better than anyone that I go as far right as one person can go, in fact Ted Nugent has nothing on me!!! And just as an FYI..
I hate Olbermann!! I never found him funny or informative on Espn and I feel the same way about his political noise now!! Flipside I can't stand someone who asks a question than interupts you before you can anwser so that eliminates Bill from my TV watching schedule!! I guess I'll just stick with
Family Guy/Simpsons.

Oh and this is just for J0ST0PH0LEES since he's been dying for an anwser to this... Higher ratings numbers mean more people watch certain shows and thus I assume make the host of that show more watchable/popular.
But if said host is spewing false information does having a larger viewership make the information true? The anwser seems quite obvious but just to make you feel better... NO! Absolutely not!!

Seriously though, Back off on insulting Sue... She's a pretty cool lady!! Plus she's not even close to the most annoying person to ever post here..

Hatred, on a personal note...I hope everything is going good for you in Motown!! You still beating the skins??

 

[fah-q]

Hatred, on a personal note...I hope everything is going good for you in Motown!! You still beating the skins??

I hope this is a reference to Hatred being a drummer.

T-man, how's it going? You rootin' for the Celts?